If Obama was corrupt and Trump isn’t, why didn’t republicans try to impeach Obama?

[CWayne]

Sure they can.

They didn't try to impeach him because they are not ass-hurt little whiny bitches who can't wait for an election to remove a bad President.

If there is anything else about the obvious you need to be explained to you, go ask someone else.

So why did they waste millions of dollars desperately trying to find wrong doing In Solyndra?

??

He tied to pick some winners in business and failed. People wanted to know why and how he could be so wrong.

I don't recall anyone of serious repute demanding an impeachment over it.

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

Sure they did. It just wasn't an impeachable offense. They found lots of shit on Obama. He had a pretty scandal-ridden Administration. But then, they all do.

Impeachment is reserved for hard cases and then when there is absolute proof. Opinions are not poof.

Proof would be things like, "Lying to a Grand Jury".

How many people in Obama admin were indicted or convicted?

I’ll help you out: zero.

It helps when you refuse to prosecute your own.

But reading comprehension is essential.

I said scandal, didn't I?

Obama had multiple scandals if you care to go do some research. But you won't, will you?

Without a doubt, the coming FISA scandal for the Obama administration is going to be a doozy and is likely to result in a few real criminal indictments instead of the process crimes that are held against Trump.

 

[Billy000]

I’m not sure republicans could possibly explain this on any rational level.

keep in mind that republicans wasted millions in tax payer money to find wrong doing into a relatively inexpensive program like Solyndra and still found nothing. They certainly wouldn’t be above impeachment if they thought they had a case to remove Obama.

Sure they can.

They didn't try to impeach him because they are not ass-hurt little whiny bitches who can't wait for an election to remove a bad President.

If there is anything else about the obvious you need to be explained to you, go ask someone else.

So why did they waste millions of dollars desperately trying to find wrong doing In Solyndra?

??

He tied to pick some winners in business and failed. People wanted to know why and how he could be so wrong.

I don't recall anyone of serious repute demanding an impeachment over it.

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

Sure they did. It just wasn't an impeachable offense. They found lots of shit on Obama. He had a pretty scandal-ridden Administration. But then, they all do.

Impeachment is reserved for hard cases and then when there is absolute proof. Opinions are not poof.

Proof would be things like, "Lying to a Grand Jury".

Well gee we can only know if there’s proof if we have an impartial trial and we won’t because republicans have already decided how to vote on it beforehand. Oh and perhaps you didn’t know that an impeachable offense doesn’t necessarily have to be an illegal one.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure they can.

They didn't try to impeach him because they are not ass-hurt little whiny bitches who can't wait for an election to remove a bad President.

If there is anything else about the obvious you need to be explained to you, go ask someone else.

So why did they waste millions of dollars desperately trying to find wrong doing In Solyndra?

??

He tied to pick some winners in business and failed. People wanted to know why and how he could be so wrong.

I don't recall anyone of serious repute demanding an impeachment over it.

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

Sure they did. It just wasn't an impeachable offense. They found lots of shit on Obama. He had a pretty scandal-ridden Administration. But then, they all do.

Impeachment is reserved for hard cases and then when there is absolute proof. Opinions are not poof.

Proof would be things like, "Lying to a Grand Jury".

How many people in Obama admin were indicted or convicted?

I’ll help you out: zero.

That remains to be seen. We'll know by summer. LOL

.

 

[skye]

Hussein will get his time under the Sun

Do not worry OP.

 

[Billy000]

I’m not sure republicans could possibly explain this on any rational level.

keep in mind that republicans wasted millions in tax payer money to find wrong doing into Solyndra and still found nothing. They certainly wouldn’t be above impeachment if they thought they had a case to remove Obama.

For the same reason the commies shouldn't have, there would have never been a conviction in the senate.

.

So did you already forget how the 2010 election went?

No, and your point would be?

.

Um how about that republicans controlled both the senate and House? Are you putting 2 and 2 together yet?

 

[CWayne]

Sure they can.

They didn't try to impeach him because they are not ass-hurt little whiny bitches who can't wait for an election to remove a bad President.

If there is anything else about the obvious you need to be explained to you, go ask someone else.

So why did they waste millions of dollars desperately trying to find wrong doing In Solyndra?

??

He tied to pick some winners in business and failed. People wanted to know why and how he could be so wrong.

I don't recall anyone of serious repute demanding an impeachment over it.

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

Sure they did. It just wasn't an impeachable offense. They found lots of shit on Obama. He had a pretty scandal-ridden Administration. But then, they all do.

Impeachment is reserved for hard cases and then when there is absolute proof. Opinions are not poof.

Proof would be things like, "Lying to a Grand Jury".

How many people in Obama admin were indicted or convicted?

I’ll help you out: zero.

Oh wait. you said zero?

Former Obama White House counsel indicted in charges stemming from Mueller probe

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

 

[OKTexas]

I’m not sure republicans could possibly explain this on any rational level.

keep in mind that republicans wasted millions in tax payer money to find wrong doing into Solyndra and still found nothing. They certainly wouldn’t be above impeachment if they thought they had a case to remove Obama.

For the same reason the commies shouldn't have, there would have never been a conviction in the senate.

.

So did you already forget how the 2010 election went?

No, and your point would be?

.

Um how about that republicans controlled both the senate and House? Are you putting 2 and 2 together yet?

They didn't have 67 votes in the senate, did they?

.

 

[whitehall]

To paraphrase Bill Clinton "it's the media stupid". Rank and file democrats wanted no part in the impeachment but they were pressured by the media. Republicans enjoy no such relationship.

 

[skye]

In my humble opinion....and it's just that a humble opinion

The days of Renegade Hussein Barack are marked.

 

[CWayne]

Sure they can.

They didn't try to impeach him because they are not ass-hurt little whiny bitches who can't wait for an election to remove a bad President.

If there is anything else about the obvious you need to be explained to you, go ask someone else.

So why did they waste millions of dollars desperately trying to find wrong doing In Solyndra?

??

He tied to pick some winners in business and failed. People wanted to know why and how he could be so wrong.

I don't recall anyone of serious repute demanding an impeachment over it.

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

Sure they did. It just wasn't an impeachable offense. They found lots of shit on Obama. He had a pretty scandal-ridden Administration. But then, they all do.

Impeachment is reserved for hard cases and then when there is absolute proof. Opinions are not poof.

Proof would be things like, "Lying to a Grand Jury".

Well gee we can only know if there’s proof if we have an impartial trial and we won’t because republicans have already decided how to vote on it beforehand. Oh and perhaps you didn’t know that an impeachable offense doesn’t necessarily have to be an illegal one.

No, proof is a collection of facts. So far, the Democrat House has produced none.

The Democrats need to send their case (and I use the term loosely) to the Senate and then we'll see. What's that you say? The Speaker decided to go on vaca and left the impeachment case in the back of her desk? All that 'urgency' and now a vaca.

 

[Billy000]

I’m not sure republicans could possibly explain this on any rational level.

keep in mind that republicans wasted millions in tax payer money to find wrong doing into Solyndra and still found nothing. They certainly wouldn’t be above impeachment if they thought they had a case to remove Obama.

For the same reason the commies shouldn't have, there would have never been a conviction in the senate.

.

So did you already forget how the 2010 election went?

No, and your point would be?

.

Um how about that republicans controlled both the senate and House? Are you putting 2 and 2 together yet?

They didn't have 67 votes in the senate, did they?

.

Well that’s just stupid. They could have easily impeached them and if the evidence actually existed, they could have easily tried for a conviction in the senate.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

They didn't have 67 votes in the senate, did they?
.

The main difference between a rock and the one you're arguing with .....is that a rock has more sense.

 

[JoeMoma]

I’m not sure republicans could possibly explain this on any rational level.

keep in mind that republicans wasted millions in tax payer money to find wrong doing into Solyndra and still found nothing. They certainly wouldn’t be above impeachment if they thought they had a case to remove Obama.

For the same reason the commies shouldn't have, there would have never been a conviction in the senate.

.

So did you already forget how the 2010 election went?

No, and your point would be?

.

Um how about that republicans controlled both the senate and House? Are you putting 2 and 2 together yet?

They didn't have 67 votes in the senate, did they?

.

The republicans learned from impeaching clinton not to impeach in the house without having the votes in the senate to convict.

 

[Billy000]

So why did they waste millions of dollars desperately trying to find wrong doing In Solyndra?

??

He tied to pick some winners in business and failed. People wanted to know why and how he could be so wrong.

I don't recall anyone of serious repute demanding an impeachment over it.

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

Sure they did. It just wasn't an impeachable offense. They found lots of shit on Obama. He had a pretty scandal-ridden Administration. But then, they all do.

Impeachment is reserved for hard cases and then when there is absolute proof. Opinions are not poof.

Proof would be things like, "Lying to a Grand Jury".

Well gee we can only know if there’s proof if we have an impartial trial and we won’t because republicans have already decided how to vote on it beforehand. Oh and perhaps you didn’t know that an impeachable offense doesn’t necessarily have to be an illegal one.

No, proof is a collection of facts. So far, the Democrat House has produced none.

The Democrats need to send their case (and I use the term loosely) to the Senate and then we'll see. What's that you say? The Speaker decided to go on vaca and left the impeachment case in the back of her desk? All that 'urgency' and now a vaca.

Obviously that move was calculated. If she just handed it over immediately, the trial designed by Moscow Mitch would have dismissed the case just as quickly.

 

[AntonToo]

So why did they waste millions of dollars desperately trying to find wrong doing In Solyndra?

??

He tied to pick some winners in business and failed. People wanted to know why and how he could be so wrong.

I don't recall anyone of serious repute demanding an impeachment over it.

Yeah they didn’t demand impeachment because they didn’t find shit lol

Sure they did. It just wasn't an impeachable offense. They found lots of shit on Obama. He had a pretty scandal-ridden Administration. But then, they all do.

Impeachment is reserved for hard cases and then when there is absolute proof. Opinions are not poof.

Proof would be things like, "Lying to a Grand Jury".

How many people in Obama admin were indicted or convicted?

I’ll help you out: zero.

It helps when you refuse to prosecute your own.

It also helps minding ethics, surrounding yourself with proper people and not breaking laws.

Seems like every other person around Trump is indicted or already went to jail. That is not a coincidence, it's a reflection of how Trump operates.

 

[Billy000]

They didn't have 67 votes in the senate, did they?
.

The main difference between a rock and the one you're arguing with .....is that a rock has more sense.

The irony is that this post doesn’t make any sense.

 

[OKTexas]

For the same reason the commies shouldn't have, there would have never been a conviction in the senate.

.

So did you already forget how the 2010 election went?

No, and your point would be?

.

Um how about that republicans controlled both the senate and House? Are you putting 2 and 2 together yet?

They didn't have 67 votes in the senate, did they?

.

Well that’s just stupid. They could have easily impeached them and if the evidence actually existed, they could have easily tried for a conviction in the senate.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhtt! They had actual criminal convictions on Clinton, tell the class what the commies did with that evidence. Republicans aren't into exercises in futility. Too bad nazi palousey is.

.

 

[Maxdeath]

I’m not sure republicans could possibly explain this on any rational level.

keep in mind that republicans wasted millions in tax payer money to find wrong doing into a relatively inexpensive program like Solyndra and still found nothing. They certainly wouldn’t be above impeachment if they thought they had a case to remove Obama.

For one everyone was afraid of the racist tag.
Two not everyone wants to impeach because they don't agree with a person.
Third is that most people only want to impeach with real evidence not I thought or it was my understanding from hearing a second hand conversation.

 

[blackhawk]

Because not liking a Presidents style, personality, being pissed off your candidate didn't win or disagreeing with them on policy issues is not sufficent grounds for impeachment. This is something Republicans understand and you clearly don't but if it makes you feel any better the next time there is a Democrat President and Republican controlled House you might get that impeachment thanks to the very low bar the Democrats have set for it. If and when that day comes be sure and write Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler a thank you letter.