Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached, it is all the same unless you are looking for an advantage somehow, if that is the case be careful what you wish for because it will boomerang on the Dems one day, just the way it is.
I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.
Boomerang?
You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.
Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.
Why?
Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
Wrong.Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,
Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........
Just a simple question that even you could understand....
Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.
This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.
I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.
Impeachment is due process, which is why indictment is unnecessary.
And the problem isn’t investigations of elected officials per se, the problem is investigations started in bad faith, used as a political weapon to hobble an opponent.
That what I am saying, if we went to indictments over impeachment we are not following due process. Investigate, send the conclusions of the investigation to the House, have them vet the charges, then if impeachment is voted for, then send it to the Senate.
To indict before impeachment then it is a problem and every Presidency from then on would be crippled with indictments.
Look at Benghazi, if you had a judge indict Obama with negligence, from that moment on, he would spend time on defending himself and not the nation. The idea sounds good however it is fraught with many problems and in the long term it could hurt all Americans.
Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached, it is all the same unless you are looking for an advantage somehow, if that is the case be careful what you wish for because it will boomerang on the Dems one day, just the way it is.
I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.
Boomerang?
You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.
Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.
Why?
Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
Wrong.Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,
Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........
Just a simple question that even you could understand....
Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.
This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.
I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.
Impeachment is due process, which is why indictment is unnecessary.
And the problem isn’t investigations of elected officials per se, the problem is investigations started in bad faith, used as a political weapon to hobble an opponent.
That what I am saying, if we went to indictments over impeachment we are not following due process. Investigate, send the conclusions of the investigation to the House, have them vet the charges, then if impeachment is voted for, then send it to the Senate.
To indict before impeachment then it is a problem and every Presidency from then on would be crippled with indictments.
Look at Benghazi, if you had a judge indict Obama with negligence, from that moment on, he would spend time on defending himself and not the nation. The idea sounds good however it is fraught with many problems and in the long term it could hurt all Americans.
Obama did not commit a crime in the Benghazi debacle, dope.
No less than 8 investigations found no wrong doing.
I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.
Boomerang?
You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.
Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.
Why?
Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
God are you one stupid shit. I never said Obama was close to being indicted. I never said Trump was being railroaded you dumb fuck.
When you can actually fucking comprehend what you read let me know, you are just too fucking dumb.
Wrong.Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........
Just a simple question that even you could understand....
Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.
This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.
I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.
Impeachment is due process, which is why indictment is unnecessary.
And the problem isn’t investigations of elected officials per se, the problem is investigations started in bad faith, used as a political weapon to hobble an opponent.
That what I am saying, if we went to indictments over impeachment we are not following due process. Investigate, send the conclusions of the investigation to the House, have them vet the charges, then if impeachment is voted for, then send it to the Senate.
To indict before impeachment then it is a problem and every Presidency from then on would be crippled with indictments.
Look at Benghazi, if you had a judge indict Obama with negligence, from that moment on, he would spend time on defending himself and not the nation. The idea sounds good however it is fraught with many problems and in the long term it could hurt all Americans.
Obama did not commit a crime in the Benghazi debacle, dope.
No less than 8 investigations found no wrong doing.
Again you fucking failed to comprehend what I was saying, you are just a stupid partisan piece of shit. You can’t even follow simple English p, you are a waste of space.
I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.
Boomerang?
You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.
Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.
Why?
Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted because Holder was his wing man
Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.
Why?
Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
God are you one stupid shit. I never said Obama was close to being indicted. I never said Trump was being railroaded you dumb fuck.
When you can actually fucking comprehend what you read let me know, you are just too fucking dumb.
What's with the name calling?
Bwahhhhh.......dope.
You said, " judges could be found all around the country to indict Obama". No they couldn't.
Firstly, judges dont indict anyone.
Secondly, an indictment requires a crime.
There were none.
Why?
Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
God are you one stupid shit. I never said Obama was close to being indicted. I never said Trump was being railroaded you dumb fuck.
When you can actually fucking comprehend what you read let me know, you are just too fucking dumb.
What's with the name calling?
Bwahhhhh.......dope.
You said, " judges could be found all around the country to indict Obama". No they couldn't.
Firstly, judges dont indict anyone.
Secondly, an indictment requires a crime.
There were none.
The DOJ asks a grand jury for an indictment, but Mr. Holder was the Big O's wing man so he wasn't going to do it.
Obama could have easily been indicted for perjury because of his lies concerning whether or not people could keep their doctors and plans.
Okay, besides, Solyndra, you’re just parroting the usual RW nonsense. As for Solyndra, just because this small program failed, it doesn’t somehow mean it was ever illegal.Obama set the bar for Presidential indictment very high with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, cash payments to a terrorist state and dereliction of duty as Commander-In-Chief during the Benghazi massacre.Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)
Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
God are you one stupid shit. I never said Obama was close to being indicted. I never said Trump was being railroaded you dumb fuck.
When you can actually fucking comprehend what you read let me know, you are just too fucking dumb.
What's with the name calling?
Bwahhhhh.......dope.
You said, " judges could be found all around the country to indict Obama". No they couldn't.
Firstly, judges dont indict anyone.
Secondly, an indictment requires a crime.
There were none.
The DOJ asks a grand jury for an indictment, but Mr. Holder was the Big O's wing man so he wasn't going to do it.
Obama could have easily been indicted for perjury because of his lies concerning whether or not people could keep their doctors and plans.
Yes. The DOJ does that when there is suspected criminality. Not when there isn't.
Perjury ? WTF?
Perjury is lying while giving sworn testimony, dope.
Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.
Why?
Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.
You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
God are you one stupid shit. I never said Obama was close to being indicted. I never said Trump was being railroaded you dumb fuck.
When you can actually fucking comprehend what you read let me know, you are just too fucking dumb.
What's with the name calling?
Bwahhhhh.......dope.
You said, " judges could be found all around the country to indict Obama". No they couldn't.
Firstly, judges dont indict anyone.
Secondly, an indictment requires a crime.
There were none.
Okay, besides, Solyndra, you’re just parroting the usual RW nonsense. As for Solyndra, just because this small program failed, it doesn’t somehow mean it was ever illegal.Obama set the bar for Presidential indictment very high with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, cash payments to a terrorist state and dereliction of duty as Commander-In-Chief during the Benghazi massacre.Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)
Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?
Wrong.I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.
Impeachment is due process, which is why indictment is unnecessary.
And the problem isn’t investigations of elected officials per se, the problem is investigations started in bad faith, used as a political weapon to hobble an opponent.
That what I am saying, if we went to indictments over impeachment we are not following due process. Investigate, send the conclusions of the investigation to the House, have them vet the charges, then if impeachment is voted for, then send it to the Senate.
To indict before impeachment then it is a problem and every Presidency from then on would be crippled with indictments.
Look at Benghazi, if you had a judge indict Obama with negligence, from that moment on, he would spend time on defending himself and not the nation. The idea sounds good however it is fraught with many problems and in the long term it could hurt all Americans.
Obama did not commit a crime in the Benghazi debacle, dope.
No less than 8 investigations found no wrong doing.
Again you fucking failed to comprehend what I was saying, you are just a stupid partisan piece of shit. You can’t even follow simple English p, you are a waste of space.
I understood your dopey false equivalence perfectly.
Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.
Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.
God are you one stupid shit. I never said Obama was close to being indicted. I never said Trump was being railroaded you dumb fuck.
When you can actually fucking comprehend what you read let me know, you are just too fucking dumb.
What's with the name calling?
Bwahhhhh.......dope.
You said, " judges could be found all around the country to indict Obama". No they couldn't.
Firstly, judges dont indict anyone.
Secondly, an indictment requires a crime.
There were none.
The DOJ asks a grand jury for an indictment, but Mr. Holder was the Big O's wing man so he wasn't going to do it.
Obama could have easily been indicted for perjury because of his lies concerning whether or not people could keep their doctors and plans.
Yes. The DOJ does that when there is suspected criminality. Not when there isn't.
Perjury ? WTF?
Perjury is lying while giving sworn testimony, dope.
Obama was testifying before the American people about the ACA. But that wasn't his only lie. He promised the most transparent administration ever, promised that people would be able to view legislation BEFORE passage- but instead had the ACA passed in the middle of the night where even Congress didn't know what was in it.
And you get your talking points from every left wing radical garbage rag out there. What of it?Factual Reporting: HIGH
IDGF about bias, will use left and right.
Refute the logic of point or go the fuck away.
Power Line - Media Bias/Fact Check
Nitwit.......you are getting your talking points for a right wing blog and treating it as gospel "truth"........which is exactly what ignorant morons do.
And politicians lack the courage and integrity to indict a president once removed from office, fearing that they too would be subject to prosecution when they leave office.
Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)
Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?
Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)
Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?
And you get your talking points from every left wing radical garbage rag out there. What of it?Factual Reporting: HIGH
IDGF about bias, will use left and right.
Refute the logic of point or go the fuck away.
Power Line - Media Bias/Fact Check
Nitwit.......you are getting your talking points for a right wing blog and treating it as gospel "truth"........which is exactly what ignorant morons do.
You consistently refer back to NYT, WaPo or HuffPo for your shit? So the fuck what? Why should anyone take you seriously?
I refer to sources, either on the left, or the right, when it is warranted, I don't commit ad hominem fallacies. That is attacking the source of an argument, rather than the argument itself. How many times have you gone to a conservative source for facts? Just for an argument? I go equally to the left and the right.
It is clear you do not have an argument. If you did, you would answer my response, but it is clear that you are aware of the two tiered justice and law application that is being used. One standard to judge Trump by, another for every other corrupt piece of shit politician in D.C.
Hey, I never voted for Trump, do you know why? I could see he was a piece of shit corrupt politician. But you know what sickens me? Douche bags like you who think he is different somehow than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Somehow more corrupt than all the others? Seriously? He has far less connections to the endemic corruption.
You just don't give a flying fuck. Blind hypocrisy is what you live by. I probably should feel sorry for you and apologize since I suppose it is not your fault, since you don't have an original critical thought in your head of your own. You are told what to think by your corporate overlords. You probably don't have much choice in the matter, do you?
