The GOP in trouble

[beautress]

There is no real indication at this point what will happen next year, but the tide has been turning against impeachment, not in support of it, particularly in the battleground states.

In key general election states, fewer voters support impeachment.
Battleground state polls show a more negative reaction to the impeachment inquiry, signaling more risk to Democrats and potential benefit for Trump. An average of 44 percent supported impeachment, with 51 percent opposed, averaging across a dozen October and November polls in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin. That’s a flip from an average of national polls that finds support for impeachment narrowly edging opposition, 47 percent to 43 percent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-just-like-they-were-before-public-hearings/

Dude, from your own link:

Where is the "turning tide"???

Hint: it isn't where the lying lockstep press want it to be.

 

[S.J.]

It's an abuse of office, for a person in HIGH power...

Like using the IRS to go after your opponents?

A high crime and misdemeanor, is simply an abuse of the person's power, given to them by holding a HIGH office.

Which you have yet to establish.

This is NOT a legal criminal trial, this is a political impeachment trial, where no statute on a Felony is needed.

You got something right. It's a political impeachment and that's why it will fail.

 

[BlindBoo]

Exactly the Trumpublican philosophy. Bet you think the years of Benghazi investigations were legitimate too, dontcha?

Four in the ambassador program died because Hillary had to paint her nails first, blindey, as she walked from her desk of power into Obama's Oval closet to boss him around.

Contrary to known reality. Two died of smoke inhalation before the CIA Rescue team arrived and drove off the attackers and then evacuated every one but the Ambassador to the more secure CIA complex. They died because they went to the safe room where the exhaust fans had not been installed. The other two were killed by a mortar on an exposed roof top at the CIA complex several hours later.

Furthermore, the Obama administration did not deny any Congressional subpoenas for information nor did they ever instructed White House officials to ignore Congressional subpoenas.

They had everyone sign NDAs and wouldn't allow anyone to talk to the Survivors.

Were they White House officials?

Did they ever disclose what the CIA's mission was?

No. And no.

My understanding was Obama prevented anyone from finding out anything.

Besides, those were just protesters upset over a disgusting video

So you're saying it was Obama who threw down blanket immunity first in 2012, and the MSM didn't report it? Those bastarads!

That's weird, according to Susan Rice that next Sunday morning it was extremist who came to the Building armed with heavy weapons.

 

[mudwhistle]

Four in the ambassador program died because Hillary had to paint her nails first, blindey, as she walked from her desk of power into Obama's Oval closet to boss him around.

Contrary to known reality. Two died of smoke inhalation before the CIA Rescue team arrived and drove off the attackers and then evacuated every one but the Ambassador to the more secure CIA complex. They died because they went to the safe room where the exhaust fans had not been installed. The other two were killed by a mortar on an exposed roof top at the CIA complex several hours later.

Furthermore, the Obama administration did not deny any Congressional subpoenas for information nor did they ever instructed White House officials to ignore Congressional subpoenas.

They had everyone sign NDAs and wouldn't allow anyone to talk to the Survivors.

Were they White House officials?

Did they ever disclose what the CIA's mission was?

No. And no.

My understanding was Obama prevented anyone from finding out anything.

Besides, those were just protesters upset over a disgusting video

So you're saying it was Obama who threw down blanket immunity first in 2012, and the MSM didn't report it? Those bastarads!

That's weird, according to Susan Rice that next Sunday morning it was extremist who came to the Building armed with heavy weapons.

So she lied.

 

[BlindBoo]

Furthermore, the Obama administration did not deny any Congressional subpoenas for information nor did they ever instructed White House officials to ignore Congressional subpoenas.

Bullshit, Eric Holder was held in contempt for ignoring a Congressional subpoena to turn over documents in the Fast and Furious scandal.

Since the discussion was about Benghazi, I like how you edited that, you had to ignore that to get to the one time in one investigation, that one official refused to turn a set of documents. Was he ordered by the President or did he do that on his own? No comparison to the baseless claim of blanket immunity by the Shakedown King.

You said: "Furthermore, the Obama administration did not deny any Congressional subpoenas for information nor did they ever instructed White House officials to ignore Congressional subpoenas". I proved you wrong so now you want to go back and change the meaning of your comment? Trying to save face? LOL

Like I said you had to ignore everything else that was previously said in the thread so you could pretend I wasn't referring to the multiple Benghazi hearings. But I understand how the RRighties love to take single sentences out of context and develop a false narrative from that single sentence.

"Contrary to known reality. Two died of smoke inhalation before the CIA Rescue team arrived and drove off the attackers and then evacuated every one but the Ambassador to the more secure CIA complex. They died because they went to the safe room where the exhaust fans had not been installed. The other two were killed by a mortar on an exposed roof top at the CIA complex several hours later."

Furthermore, the Obama administration did not deny any Congressional subpoenas for information nor did they ever instructed White House officials to ignore Congressional subpoenas.

More bullshit. Your objective was to advance the false narrative that Trump is a criminal and Obama was as pure as the driven snow. I proved you wrong and now you're embarrassed and want to undo it. And the who died at the embassy died because the rescue team was told to stand down. Get your nose out of Obama's ass. He went golfing instead of helping them and Hillary didn't give a shit either. They were under attack and Obama and Hillary were more concerned about being embarrassed going into the election than they were about saving their lives. And as for your other false statement about Obama never denying Congressional subpoenas for information or instructing WH officials go ignore them, you are once again lying.
9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress

You ignore the entire thread and focus on a single line and then applied that line to Obama's two terms Never said they never fought with Congress for the requests or subpoenas or made claims executive privilege.

Had Obama try to lay down a blanket Immunity claim, even Democrats would have abandoned him.

 

[BlindBoo]

Contrary to known reality. Two died of smoke inhalation before the CIA Rescue team arrived and drove off the attackers and then evacuated every one but the Ambassador to the more secure CIA complex. They died because they went to the safe room where the exhaust fans had not been installed. The other two were killed by a mortar on an exposed roof top at the CIA complex several hours later.

Furthermore, the Obama administration did not deny any Congressional subpoenas for information nor did they ever instructed White House officials to ignore Congressional subpoenas.

They had everyone sign NDAs and wouldn't allow anyone to talk to the Survivors.

Were they White House officials?

Did they ever disclose what the CIA's mission was?

No. And no.

My understanding was Obama prevented anyone from finding out anything.

Besides, those were just protesters upset over a disgusting video

So you're saying it was Obama who threw down blanket immunity first in 2012, and the MSM didn't report it? Those bastarads!

That's weird, according to Susan Rice that next Sunday morning it was extremist who came to the Building armed with heavy weapons.

So she lied.

Nope. Republicans had to make that up to cover for Mitten's gaff of criticizing the President while we were being attacked overseas. Their media is great at making stuff up out of thin air. Palatable enough for Faux viewers to believe.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats don't have a viable candidate other than America's crazy uncle, Fauxahontis or a socialist with a heart condition and they think the GOP is in trouble? Don't make me laugh

 

[protectionist]

Democrats have already assumed a 2020 Trump victory. The impeachment charade is just for them to hold votes from their constituents for THEIR re-elections. Nothing more.

 

[colfax_m]

Republicans have to be getting exhausted by all this. There are whispers that if the vote in the senate is a secret ballot Trump is gone.

LOL, OMG, WTF are you using for proof, a secret ballot? The GOP voters get a say in how our reps vote don't we?
That's why no Republican will vote to impeach, period. If they do they are gone.

You got it. Protecting Trump is more about populism and saving their own hide than it is defending the constitution.

Protecting the Constitution from misuse by the democrats is what we are voting on.
Impeachment is only for "High Crimes" not for a partisan food fight because you don't like the president.
The simple fact that there is no crime, let alone a "high crime" should let you know that you are on the wrong side of the disagreement.

The HIGH, in HIGH crimes and misdemeanors, stands for a person in HIGH Status in our govt...

It's an abuse of office, for a person in HIGH power...

A high crime and misdemeanor, is simply an abuse of the person's power, given to them by holding a HIGH office.

Laws were not even written at the time, there were no statutes for felony crimes or misdemeanor crimes and the term HIGH was not used to denote a HIGH misdemeanor or HIGH crime as in one that reaches the high upper level of all crimes committed in a legal sense.

This is NOT a legal criminal trial, this is a political impeachment trial, where no statute on a Felony is needed.

Wrong, according to Turley the bar is extremely high for anything "impeachable". Routine ticky-tack "abuses of power" are NOT impeachable offenses. Then again, the House can vote to impeach along partisan party line votes, but that sets a very bad precedent. Luckily the senate is in GOP hands and they will most certainly NOT remove Trump.

Theres nothing “routine” about abuse of power.

Good lord, did you think about what you just said?

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's will get their chance to vote Trump out of office in a few months. If he's so horrible why are Dem's so desperate to avoid running against him hmmm?

 

[mudwhistle]

They had everyone sign NDAs and wouldn't allow anyone to talk to the Survivors.

Were they White House officials?

Did they ever disclose what the CIA's mission was?

No. And no.

My understanding was Obama prevented anyone from finding out anything.

Besides, those were just protesters upset over a disgusting video

So you're saying it was Obama who threw down blanket immunity first in 2012, and the MSM didn't report it? Those bastarads!

That's weird, according to Susan Rice that next Sunday morning it was extremist who came to the Building armed with heavy weapons.

So she lied.

Nope. Republicans had to make that up to cover for Mitten's gaff of criticizing the President while we were being attacked overseas. Their media is great at making stuff up out of thin air. Palatable enough for Faux viewers to believe.

No....Obama spread the lie that Benghazi was a protest over a video for several weeks.
Obama made a deal with the moderator to bushwack Romney during a debate. Obama actually planned this as a setup to make Romney look uninformed. Later after the cameras were off....she admitted that Romney was correct. Obama simply used the word terrorism to describe what these "PROTESTERS" were guilty of in a Rose Garden speech. Later he minimized the terrorism aspect over and over...even at the funeral for the dead diplomats, repeating the same lie for an extended period, that the protest was caused by a video. Not by terrorists.

 

[lennypartiv]

Theres nothing “routine” about abuse of power.
Good lord, did you think about what you just said?

There was no abuse of power.

 

[colfax_m]

Theres nothing “routine” about abuse of power.
Good lord, did you think about what you just said?

There was no abuse of power.

Using government authority for personal gain sure as hell is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Theres nothing “routine” about abuse of power.
Good lord, did you think about what you just said?

There was no abuse of power.

Using government authority for personal gain sure as hell is.

SO your going to hold Sleepy Joe Biden and his son accountable?

 

[kyzr]

LOL, OMG, WTF are you using for proof, a secret ballot? The GOP voters get a say in how our reps vote don't we?
That's why no Republican will vote to impeach, period. If they do they are gone.

You got it. Protecting Trump is more about populism and saving their own hide than it is defending the constitution.

Protecting the Constitution from misuse by the democrats is what we are voting on.
Impeachment is only for "High Crimes" not for a partisan food fight because you don't like the president.
The simple fact that there is no crime, let alone a "high crime" should let you know that you are on the wrong side of the disagreement.

The HIGH, in HIGH crimes and misdemeanors, stands for a person in HIGH Status in our govt...

It's an abuse of office, for a person in HIGH power...

A high crime and misdemeanor, is simply an abuse of the person's power, given to them by holding a HIGH office.

Laws were not even written at the time, there were no statutes for felony crimes or misdemeanor crimes and the term HIGH was not used to denote a HIGH misdemeanor or HIGH crime as in one that reaches the high upper level of all crimes committed in a legal sense.

This is NOT a legal criminal trial, this is a political impeachment trial, where no statute on a Felony is needed.

Wrong, according to Turley the bar is extremely high for anything "impeachable". Routine ticky-tack "abuses of power" are NOT impeachable offenses. Then again, the House can vote to impeach along partisan party line votes, but that sets a very bad precedent. Luckily the senate is in GOP hands and they will most certainly NOT remove Trump.

Theres nothing “routine” about abuse of power.

Good lord, did you think about what you just said?

Every president can be accused of "abuse of power" and impeached. Instead of impeaching Obama the GOP took him to court and won or lost fairly. As Turley said, the courts are there to help settle disagreements between the Executive and Legislative branches. Turley called impeaching Trump without a serious abuse of power an "abuse of power" by the House. They have the authority to impeach, but not the moral authority, or the public and senate would be on their side.

 

[colfax_m]

Theres nothing “routine” about abuse of power.
Good lord, did you think about what you just said?

There was no abuse of power.

Using government authority for personal gain sure as hell is.

SO your going to hold Sleepy Joe Biden and his son accountable?

I would if there was any evidence they did anything wrong.

 

[colfax_m]

You got it. Protecting Trump is more about populism and saving their own hide than it is defending the constitution.

Protecting the Constitution from misuse by the democrats is what we are voting on.
Impeachment is only for "High Crimes" not for a partisan food fight because you don't like the president.
The simple fact that there is no crime, let alone a "high crime" should let you know that you are on the wrong side of the disagreement.

The HIGH, in HIGH crimes and misdemeanors, stands for a person in HIGH Status in our govt...

It's an abuse of office, for a person in HIGH power...

A high crime and misdemeanor, is simply an abuse of the person's power, given to them by holding a HIGH office.

Laws were not even written at the time, there were no statutes for felony crimes or misdemeanor crimes and the term HIGH was not used to denote a HIGH misdemeanor or HIGH crime as in one that reaches the high upper level of all crimes committed in a legal sense.

This is NOT a legal criminal trial, this is a political impeachment trial, where no statute on a Felony is needed.

Wrong, according to Turley the bar is extremely high for anything "impeachable". Routine ticky-tack "abuses of power" are NOT impeachable offenses. Then again, the House can vote to impeach along partisan party line votes, but that sets a very bad precedent. Luckily the senate is in GOP hands and they will most certainly NOT remove Trump.

Theres nothing “routine” about abuse of power.

Good lord, did you think about what you just said?

Every president can be accused of "abuse of power" and impeached. Instead of impeaching Obama the GOP took him to court and won or lost fairly. As Turley said, the courts are there to help settle disagreements between the Executive and Legislative branches. Turley called impeaching Trump without a serious abuse of power an "abuse of power" by the House. They have the authority to impeach, but not the moral authority, or the public and senate would be on their side.

There’s the problem though. If Trump can prevent all oversight by the legislative branch, he’s effectively removed the ability for the House to impeach.

 

[Uncensored2008]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

I'm sorry Trump supporters, I know you don't want to hear this, but your guy in the white house and your party are in trouble on this one. Unlike the Mueller report, which was heavy on legal jargon and short on clarity, this impeachment inquiry report paints a very clear picture of a President abusing his power for political gain, then trying to cover it up. To make matters worse, the Presidents attempts to intimidate and attack witnesses was largely unsuccessful, as a number of key people (some of them appointed by Republicans) came forward with 1st and 2nd hand evidence of the President's guilt. Even recent FOX news polls paint a picture of a President and a political party in decline. Donald J Trump has been able to mount only a vocal defence, relying mostly on personal insults and bluster. This will leave Senate Republicans is a difficult situation: Vote to keep Trump in office, and run the risk of losing reelection (over 20 Senate Republicans are up for reelection in 2020) or vote to remove him and admit they backed the wrong guy.

For those of you who think this all hogwash, I would point out that virtually none of you have even read the Mueller report (redactions or not) or this impeachment report. If you'd done so, most of you would be singing a different tune. For those who would like to do so, I've posted the links to them below.

Given today's political climate, I doubt Senate Republicans will vote to remove President Trump from office, but Republicans would do well to knock off the childish name calling, stop bitching about the Biden's and take a look in your own backyard:

Your party is in trouble!





Fox News Poll: 49 percent favor impeaching Trump

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

READ: The Mueller Report, With Redactions

So, Hillary has it in the bag then?

 

[Mike473]

Were they White House officials?

Did they ever disclose what the CIA's mission was?

No. And no.

My understanding was Obama prevented anyone from finding out anything.

Besides, those were just protesters upset over a disgusting video

So you're saying it was Obama who threw down blanket immunity first in 2012, and the MSM didn't report it? Those bastarads!

That's weird, according to Susan Rice that next Sunday morning it was extremist who came to the Building armed with heavy weapons.

So she lied.

Nope. Republicans had to make that up to cover for Mitten's gaff of criticizing the President while we were being attacked overseas. Their media is great at making stuff up out of thin air. Palatable enough for Faux viewers to believe.

No....Obama spread the lie that Benghazi was a protest over a video for several weeks.
Obama made a deal with the moderator to bushwack Romney during a debate. Obama actually planned this as a setup to make Romney look uninformed. Later after the cameras were off....she admitted that Romney was correct. Obama simply used the word terrorism to describe what these "PROTESTERS" were guilty of in a Rose Garden speech. Later he minimized the terrorism aspect over and over...even at the funeral for the dead diplomats, repeating the same lie for an extended period, that the protest was caused by a video. Not by terrorists.

Romney lost because he is doesn't have a back bone. He is weak. Look at how he still tries to gain acceptance from the same people who trashed him. I voted for him, one of the few votes I regret.

 

[Care4all]

Dem's will get their chance to vote Trump out of office in a few months. If he's so horrible why are Dem's so desperate to avoid running against him hmmm?

Because he's going to continue to CHEAT in the 2020 election (if he is not held accountable), as he has shown he is so easily willing to do... the Ukraine, asking China to do the same... and the Lord only knows what else he has done with his HIGH powered position, for his own personal political advantage and leg up.... ? Who can trust a person like him, running a State dept with his sidekick campaign lawyer, and two alleged criminal goons? Seriously?

And is trying to cover it all up...

first by not sending the whistleblower report over to congress as required by law...

then by not sending any requested or subpoenaed records

then by telling all first hand witnesses that works for him, they could not honor the subpoenas and to just not show up,

and these witnesses are also ones that could also exonerate him if he were innocent... which clearly he is not, or he would have let them testify.

IF THIS WERE PRES OBAMA, and he did what pres trump has done,would you REALLY be fighting this hard for him, and not the constitution or we the people???

Will he be removed by the Senate? Likely not....but you never know when and if Republicans in the Senate will get some cojones, do what is right, and choose the US Constitution over party... yes unlikely, as said...