New CNN Poll Shows 50% of Americans Support Removing Trump From Office

It's cute watching you work so hard to defend behavior that you claim does not require any defense. Enjoy the impeachment.

 

The million dollar Trump supporter never pretended not to have first hand knowledge of Fake Don with whom he consulted frequently, of course. However, yes, your point is valid that the sworn testimony of Trump intimates such as Mulvaney, Bolton, Perry, Pompeo, Giuliani and others is essential to achieving a greater insider account of the caper. As long as they are successfully gagged in a desperate attempt to hide the truth, the American people will be denied having the facts fully exposed.

Don't you just hate it when politicians try to impose impersonal State control upon every woman's womb, rather than respecting her privacy and her right to make personal decisions in consultation with her trusted medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones? Such rabid statism is noxious.

 

There is no spin with what I said, which is why you're losing.

The truth is, leftists have wanted to impeach him since Nov 9th 2016. YOU might pretend like that's not true if you'd like. It's kind of like how the left pretends no one knows who the whistleblower is.

It's all acting, and it's very obvious whats going on.

Good. We should have an investigation into why millions of dollars was flowing into the Biden's coffers from Ukraine. That's called corruption and money laundering. You know, an actual crime.

If that corruption leads to Joe Biden....well....that's Joe Biden's fault.

The only people "investigating their political opponents" have been Democrats for the last 4 years.

 

Roughly 30% of the country ALWAYS wants the President to be impeached.

The current President has earned roughly 50% of the country to want his impeachment. That is why you're losing.

 

Actually countering your arguments doesn't take much effort at all.

I mean you keep throwing softballs like "we can impeach him for jaywalking" and other bad legal takes all the time.

 

We'll get you guys a trophy for trying or something.

 

And yet you had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of India and a 1975 Law Article to find anything resembling a reason to refute that argument.

 

Yes. It must be annoying that the concept is so universal that even India uses it huh?

 

Trump getting impeached and watching Republicans squirm their way around defending the first president ever impeached in his first term will be sufficient, but I appreciate the offer.

 

The only universal aspect about relying on India as a substitute for actual precedent is its demonstration of your futile desperation.

 

That would be just fine.

 

Bill Clinton before him said about the same thing.

 

Then by all means please keep telling everyone that, based on your having a law degree, you've concluded that "Treason, Bribery, High Crimes & Misdemeanors" includes jaywalking and other nonsense ideas.

 

It's just going to be another boomerang to the face, but whatever.

 

So this is something that I have not seen you attempt to articulate - Where do you think the Courts would enter into the equation?

Let's say that House Judiciary decides that they want to draw up articles of impeachment based on jaywalking and the majority of the House agrees that the President should be impeached for jaywalking. Where does the judiciary enter in that equation?

 

Aww, thanks for your concern.

 

I have articulated it, you just don't want to see it.

Guess who presides over the Senate trial and any questions as to what is or isn't Constitutional.

 

You do realize that impeachment would have already occurred by that point?

 

Not if the finalized articles are challenged for being unConstitutional and taken to the aforementioned head of the Judicial branch.

 

So your theory is that the judicial branch would get involved after he was impeached and then un-impeach him?

 

Not at all.

My correct interpretation is that if the articles of impeachment are found unConstitutional, he would have never been impeached.

 

Sorry for the delay given this topic is being hit on by the Trump haters.

I am correct on what Sondland admitted under cross. Sondland was directly asked if he had a directive from Trump to threaten Ukraine using anything. He said he presumed.

I am shocked at how the Democrats get away with all of their name calling and cry like children if they get called a name.

We are all in danger if government can simply send out the hounds to torment us all if they do as you want Democrats to do. I doubt you wanted the hounds of Baskerville unleashed on Obama nor Clinton.

Recall if you can that the former AG under Obama was guilty of failure to respond to subpoena and at the time Democrats applauded his foolish act. Trump no doubt noticed how that dog and pony show operates.

Are you working on behalf of Ukraine? If Democrats are correct, it was against Ukraine they fantasize that Trump made threats and not Democrats.

Why is Adam Schiff so damned protective of the interests of Ukraine?

As to the womb question. Are you happy that in the USA we do not use the law used by Israel on the issues of her womb?

I have scolded Democrats for refusing to put into law the law they want as to women's rights to murder her own baby. But they punt and say it is the law.

Privacy is the law. Not the baby in her body.

 

That is is actually a good question. What bars the USSC from ruling on this?

 

I think a president who should have been impeached was Abraham Lincoln for waging a war on this country that cost over 630,000 american lives.

 

Generally speaking, the Supreme Court does not want to get involved in these types of decisions because of a lack of justiciability. Essentially, it is a question left by the US Constitution for the Congress to decide and the Court is not going to intervene.