This is definitely a lawless presidency

[BWK]

Evidence of what? Collusion? Didn't happen. Sorry, but it didn't...

The case was laid out to you, and like a coward, instead of debating the testimony by Mueller, you switch to Clinton. You're a coward and a loser. Get lost. You have nothing to debate.

And he borrows from foreign banks for interest payments not "favors". American banks usually aren't allowed to engage in higher risk investments like President Trump deals with.

Which is why he uses them for money laundering, bank fraud, and Insurance fraud, and they let him, because they know that he can help them out if he gets elected.

Adult discourse or "debate" as you call it requires facts and honesty or it breaks down into the childish BS you post. Have you any evidence that Trump uses foreign banks "for money laundering, bank fraud, and Insurance fraud" as you claim because he has done big biz for decades and has not only never been convicted of any of that, he's never even been charged.

Again, we do not prosecute and should not persecute any American for crimes that exist only in your angry, bitter, frustrated mind.

Not even on my worst day could I get something so wrong, as to say that any bank would let any John Doe borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, and not be guaranteed a return on that investment. And so, how would I guarantee that again? Take a wild guess? This isn't rocket science chief. It's just guaranteed money. And who in the world was desperate enough for so much cash who couldn't get a loan in the US after many different failed business ventures ending in bankruptcy go and get that kind of loan overseas, and who was willing to do any number of things with that money?

Some loans are riskier than others, and the lender gets compensated with a higher return.

standard and poor and other outfits rate public offerings as "AAA" or less depending on the riskiness.

It isn't a moral judgment being made about the borrower, just how good he is for the loan in question.

When B. Hussein O was in charge of America, example given, America got downgraded. With Obama's risky schemes, you'll have that kind of thing.

And when someone is going to invest in a way that is guaranteed, such as a money laundering with Trump, everyone wins except the scheme was illegal.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Evidence of what? Collusion? Didn't happen. Sorry, but it didn't...

The case was laid out to you, and like a coward, instead of debating the testimony by Mueller, you switch to Clinton. You're a coward and a loser. Get lost. You have nothing to debate.

And he borrows from foreign banks for interest payments not "favors". American banks usually aren't allowed to engage in higher risk investments like President Trump deals with.

Which is why he uses them for money laundering, bank fraud, and Insurance fraud, and they let him, because they know that he can help them out if he gets elected.

Adult discourse or "debate" as you call it requires facts and honesty or it breaks down into the childish BS you post. Have you any evidence that Trump uses foreign banks "for money laundering, bank fraud, and Insurance fraud" as you claim because he has done big biz for decades and has not only never been convicted of any of that, he's never even been charged.

Again, we do not prosecute and should not persecute any American for crimes that exist only in your angry, bitter, frustrated mind.

Not even on my worst day could I get something so wrong, as to say that any bank would let any John Doe borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, and not be guaranteed a return on that investment. And so, how would I guarantee that again? Take a wild guess? This isn't rocket science chief. It's just guaranteed money. And who in the world was desperate enough for so much cash who couldn't get a loan in the US after many different failed business ventures ending in bankruptcy go and get that kind of loan overseas, and who was willing to do any number of things with that money?

Some loans are riskier than others, and the lender gets compensated with a higher return.

standard and poor and other outfits rate public offerings as "AAA" or less depending on the riskiness.

It isn't a moral judgment being made about the borrower, just how good he is for the loan in question.

When B. Hussein O was in charge of America, example given, America got downgraded. With Obama's risky schemes, you'll have that kind of thing.

And when someone is going to invest in a way that is guaranteed, such as a money laundering with Trump, everyone wins except the scheme was illegal.

"He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts."

 

[BWK]

So ... what are you waiting for?

I'm not waiting on anything. I'm already calling for hearings, then impeachment. Time to get rid of this worthless piece of shit.

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Yea, he pretty much is guilty of most everything in the book. And don't bother with the help. I'm okay on my own. I've been right about Trump on everything so far. I'll be okay, believe me.

 

[BWK]

The case was laid out to you, and like a coward, instead of debating the testimony by Mueller, you switch to Clinton. You're a coward and a loser. Get lost. You have nothing to debate.

Which is why he uses them for money laundering, bank fraud, and Insurance fraud, and they let him, because they know that he can help them out if he gets elected.

Adult discourse or "debate" as you call it requires facts and honesty or it breaks down into the childish BS you post. Have you any evidence that Trump uses foreign banks "for money laundering, bank fraud, and Insurance fraud" as you claim because he has done big biz for decades and has not only never been convicted of any of that, he's never even been charged.

Again, we do not prosecute and should not persecute any American for crimes that exist only in your angry, bitter, frustrated mind.

Not even on my worst day could I get something so wrong, as to say that any bank would let any John Doe borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, and not be guaranteed a return on that investment. And so, how would I guarantee that again? Take a wild guess? This isn't rocket science chief. It's just guaranteed money. And who in the world was desperate enough for so much cash who couldn't get a loan in the US after many different failed business ventures ending in bankruptcy go and get that kind of loan overseas, and who was willing to do any number of things with that money?

Some loans are riskier than others, and the lender gets compensated with a higher return.

standard and poor and other outfits rate public offerings as "AAA" or less depending on the riskiness.

It isn't a moral judgment being made about the borrower, just how good he is for the loan in question.

When B. Hussein O was in charge of America, example given, America got downgraded. With Obama's risky schemes, you'll have that kind of thing.

And when someone is going to invest in a way that is guaranteed, such as a money laundering with Trump, everyone wins except the scheme was illegal.

"He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts."

Would that be Trump with no collusion and obstruction right?

 

[BWK]

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 criminal charges. Here’s what they are

Bwahahahaha....boooo-hoooo-hooooo-hoooo-

So the fuck what?

If it meant anything Trump would already be gone
Grow up faggot.

JO

This post is just plain stupid.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Adult discourse or "debate" as you call it requires facts and honesty or it breaks down into the childish BS you post. Have you any evidence that Trump uses foreign banks "for money laundering, bank fraud, and Insurance fraud" as you claim because he has done big biz for decades and has not only never been convicted of any of that, he's never even been charged.

Again, we do not prosecute and should not persecute any American for crimes that exist only in your angry, bitter, frustrated mind.

Not even on my worst day could I get something so wrong, as to say that any bank would let any John Doe borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, and not be guaranteed a return on that investment. And so, how would I guarantee that again? Take a wild guess? This isn't rocket science chief. It's just guaranteed money. And who in the world was desperate enough for so much cash who couldn't get a loan in the US after many different failed business ventures ending in bankruptcy go and get that kind of loan overseas, and who was willing to do any number of things with that money?

Some loans are riskier than others, and the lender gets compensated with a higher return.

standard and poor and other outfits rate public offerings as "AAA" or less depending on the riskiness.

It isn't a moral judgment being made about the borrower, just how good he is for the loan in question.

When B. Hussein O was in charge of America, example given, America got downgraded. With Obama's risky schemes, you'll have that kind of thing.

And when someone is going to invest in a way that is guaranteed, such as a money laundering with Trump, everyone wins except the scheme was illegal.

"He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts."

Would that be Trump with no collusion and obstruction right?

No. That's you, hallucinating.

 

[task0778]

Lawless presidencies are so ancient history, stretching back as far as Andrew Jackson according to some accounts. I don't think either political party has any moral high ground to point fingers at the other side.

 

[SAYIT]

So ... what are you waiting for?

I'm not waiting on anything. I'm already calling for hearings, then impeachment. Time to get rid of this worthless piece of shit.

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Um, okay, so the rules are that they can't indict until out of office. And second, Dems will be working on hearings and impeachment proceedings if Trump keeps obstructing and breaking the law, while having others cover for him.

Wait ... didn't your masters at CNN/PMSNBC have their legal "experts" spend weeks explaining that the POTUS can be indicted? Are you now admitting they LIED to you?

And haven't Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and you all claimed to already have evidence of Trump's guilt? Yet there has been no impeachment proceedings. Have y'all been LYING again?

Instead of spinning like a top why not try to explain the House Dem's failure to perform their sworn duty to impeach a Repub POTUS?

 

[BWK]

I'm not waiting on anything. I'm already calling for hearings, then impeachment. Time to get rid of this worthless piece of shit.

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Um, okay, so the rules are that they can't indict until out of office. And second, Dems will be working on hearings and impeachment proceedings if Trump keeps obstructing and breaking the law, while having others cover for him.

Wait ... Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and you all claim to already have evidence of Trump's guilt yet there has been no impeachment proceedings. Instead of spinning like a top why not try to explain the House Dem's failure to perform their sworn duty to impeach a Repub POTUS?

Procedure, procedure! Follow the facts, and if Trump and his goons keep obstructing testimony to get to those facts, the case will be to bring up their own obstruction in hearings, then decide impeachment. Right now they subpoenaed Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson. They're moving along quickly. If McGhan won't testify, so be it. We have Mueller's testimony in the report.

 

[BWK]

Lawless presidencies are so ancient history, stretching back as far as Andrew Jackson according to some accounts. I don't think either political party has any moral high ground to point fingers at the other side.

Enough to impeach like Nixon and more. Obama was scandal free. So you are wrong.

 

[hadit]

On what grounds?

You've been given the list of lawless acts on multiple occasions. The bs stops here. No more explaining. We need hearings now to go over the mountain of criminality. It's time this piece of shit leaves.

That's ok dear. Only about six more years and another REP President for two terms and a REP Senate majority.
Any luck selling all those 'Hands Up Don't Shoot' hoodies?
The IG report is coming out soon.
Buckle up pal!
Already Comey and Lynch are accusing each other of lying.

Talking juvenile stupid talk won't change the law or reality with Trump. He has committed obstruction of justice to add to many other crimes that gave us an illegal election, and delivered a criminal onto the front door of the WH. That has already been established. And the stonewalling of witnesses and violating subpoenas
puts a nice bow on top of Trump's obvious impeachment credentials.

LOLOLOLOL. There's that "illegal election" again.

And of course it sticks, because the truth is more powerful than your bs.

Accept it's not true, of course. The fatal flaw in your crazy argument. It's why we laugh.

 

[SAYIT]

So ... what are you waiting for?

I'm not waiting on anything. I'm already calling for hearings, then impeachment. Time to get rid of this worthless piece of shit.

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Yea, he pretty much is guilty of most everything in the book. And don't bother with the help. I'm okay on my own. I've been right about Trump on everything so far. I'll be okay, believe me.

Yet you still fail to explain why no articles of impeachment. Can it be that beneath their bluster our Hysterical House Dems know the evidence just doesn't support impeachment and the voters will punish them for being petulant, bat-shit crazy A-holes in 2020?

 

[BWK]

I'm not waiting on anything. I'm already calling for hearings, then impeachment. Time to get rid of this worthless piece of shit.

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Yea, he pretty much is guilty of most everything in the book. And don't bother with the help. I'm okay on my own. I've been right about Trump on everything so far. I'll be okay, believe me.

Yet you still fail to explain why no articles of impeachment. Can it be that beneath their bluster our Hysterical House Dems know the evidence just doesn't support impeachment and the voters will punish them for being petulant, bat-shit crazy A-holes in 2020?

LOl! Of course it supports impeachment. And anyone who would tell you different is a liar. Trump blew the doors off high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[BWK]

You've been given the list of lawless acts on multiple occasions. The bs stops here. No more explaining. We need hearings now to go over the mountain of criminality. It's time this piece of shit leaves.

That's ok dear. Only about six more years and another REP President for two terms and a REP Senate majority.
Any luck selling all those 'Hands Up Don't Shoot' hoodies?
The IG report is coming out soon.
Buckle up pal!
Already Comey and Lynch are accusing each other of lying.

Talking juvenile stupid talk won't change the law or reality with Trump. He has committed obstruction of justice to add to many other crimes that gave us an illegal election, and delivered a criminal onto the front door of the WH. That has already been established. And the stonewalling of witnesses and violating subpoenas
puts a nice bow on top of Trump's obvious impeachment credentials.

LOLOLOLOL. There's that "illegal election" again.

And of course it sticks, because the truth is more powerful than your bs.

Accept it's not true, of course. The fatal flaw in your crazy argument. It's why we laugh.

I've been posting this all day, and not one challenge to the argument; Nadler: 'We will hold this president accountable — one way, or the other.' And you know why? Because Nadler is reading off word for word from Mueller and he is laying out a 100% convincing case for obstruction through Don McGhan. We now know why McGhan didn't show up. Lol! The failed posters on this board have had plenty of chances to challenge Mueller, but they haven't got a prayer, so they never tried.

 

[SAYIT]

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Um, okay, so the rules are that they can't indict until out of office. And second, Dems will be working on hearings and impeachment proceedings if Trump keeps obstructing and breaking the law, while having others cover for him.

Wait ... Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and you all claim to already have evidence of Trump's guilt yet there has been no impeachment proceedings. Instead of spinning like a top why not try to explain the House Dem's failure to perform their sworn duty to impeach a Repub POTUS?

Procedure, procedure! Follow the facts, and if Trump and his goons keep obstructing testimony to get to those facts, the case will be to bring up their own obstruction in hearings, then decide impeachment. Right now they subpoenaed Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson. They're moving along quickly. If McGhan won't testify, so be it. We have Mueller's testimony in the report.

Once more for all brain-dead leftarded: if as Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and you all claim you already have evidence of Trump's guilt WTF is the delay? If they have the evidence WTF are they waiting for?

 

[Tax Man]

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Yea, he pretty much is guilty of most everything in the book. And don't bother with the help. I'm okay on my own. I've been right about Trump on everything so far. I'll be okay, believe me.

Yet you still fail to explain why no articles of impeachment. Can it be that beneath their bluster our Hysterical House Dems know the evidence just doesn't support impeachment and the voters will punish them for being petulant, bat-shit crazy A-holes in 2020?

LOl! Of course it supports impeachment. And anyone who would tell you different is a liar. Trump blew the doors off high crimes and misdemeanors.

You and I are not alone. The new yorker has an article on the lawlessness of rump.
THE
NEW YORKER

May 13 2019 THE TALK OF THE TOWN


If there is one thing that Attorney General William Barr’s testimony in the Senate last week made abundantly clear, it’s that he is fine with acting less like the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States and more like the personal lawyer for a tantrum-prone client named Donald Trump. Barr dissembled when answering questions about his handling of the Mueller report, then mis-characterized Robert Mueller’s objections to his spin on it, saying that the special counsel had been primarily troubled by how “the media was playing this." In fact, Mueller had written, in a letter to Barr, that he was concerned because the Attorney General’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his team’s work. Barr described that letter as “snitty” and probably written by “staff people,” thereby dismissing objections that Mueller clearly wanted in the historical record. By the end of the day, Barr had said that he would not come back and testify in the House, as he was scheduled to do. Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, then said that, in misrepresenting Mueller’s discontent, the Attorney General had lied to Congress, which is “a crime.”
Barr is apparently a believer in the “unitary executive” theory, an expansive reading of the powers of the Presidency that’s popular in conservative legal circles. Theory aside, though, serving as Trumps Attorney General—and keeping the job—-seems to mean signing on to the Roy Cohn approach that Trump so admires: treating anything, including the Constitution, that does not serve Trump’s interests as an urgent threat; projecting Trump’s own venal motives onto his critics and opponents; denying and stonewalling.
As a businessman, Trump was notably litigious. In 2016, when he was running for President, USA Today found that he had been involved in thirty—five hundred lawsuits, and was the plaintiff in nearly two thousand of them. That volume of litigation was extraordinary not only for a Presidential candidate but even for a real—estate mogul. As President, he is pursuing a similar strategy—stacking up lawsuits and thwarting investigations in the hope that he can run out the clock before the 2020 election. Last month, he sued the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Representative Elijah Cummings, who had requested some of his financial records from an accounting firm. Then Trump, three of his children, and his private company sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One to prevent them from releasing information about his financial arrangements, which Democrats had subpoenaed. Trump also went to court to try to block a lawsuit brought by two hundred members of Congress, which alleges that his business dealings violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. And Trump and his Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, have so far declined to produce the President's tax returns for the House Ways and Means Committee, which requested them from the I.R.S. in early April. Since Richard Nixon, it has been the practice for Presidents to release their returns, but, in Mnuchin’s words, Congress is making an “unprecedented” demand—“exposure for the sake of exposure.”
Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said no to a request from the Senate Appropriations Committee to testify about his departments budget. In- deed, Trump has declared a near-blanket denial of all congressional requests for information and testimony from members of his Administration; after Barr’s testimony, Trump said that he would not allow the former White House counsel Don McGahn to appear before the Senate. “I don’t want people testifying to a party, because that is what they’re doing if they do this,” Trump told the Washington Post‘, in April. Cummings told reporters, “To date, the White House has refused to produce a single piece of paper or a single witness in any of the committee’s investigations this entire year.”
The Administration's persistent attempts to stymie congressional oversight don’t bear much in the way of legal merit. In April, a district court in Washington, D.C., denied Trumps motion to dismiss the emoluments lawsuit brought by the members of Congress. The clause was intended to prevent corruption, by banning federal officials from accepting financial benefits from foreign governments without first obtaining congressional approval. Trump contends that any such profits he has received-—ranging from Trump trademarks being granted by the Chinese government to Saudi—funded lobbyists staying in Trump hotels—don’t count, because he didn’t come by them as a direct result of duties performed in office The court concluded that this argument is not only “inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption and purpose of the clause” but also “contrary to Executive branch practice over the course of many years.”
Democrats may be leading the House investigations, but their queries are rooted in historical practice and established understanding of the separation of powers. They are looking into matters of legitimate importance, from how the White House has handled security clearances to obstruction of justice. The purpose is not only to enforce accountability but also to establish grounds for legislation to avert future abuses. The congressional authority to investigate, which includes issuing subpoenas, has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. As a 1927 Court opinion explained, “the power of inquiry, with enforcing process,” has long been “a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate.”
What Trump denounces as “Presidential harassment" is, in fact, the means by which our government, with its coequal branches, works. But the way he talks about those branches makes them sound as divorced from the public good as he is. He refers to the Supreme Court, with his two appointees, as a venue in which he’ll get “a fair shake," which he doesn’t seem to think the lower courts offer. In March, the Washington Post reported that federal courts had ruled against the Administration sixty—three times,“an extraordinary record of legal defeat” that Trump blamed on “Obamajudges”—even though a quarter of the judges are Republican appointees, and the defeats resulted from a sloppy approach to rule-making and his own prejudicial comments on immigration and other matters. The former F.B.I. director James Comey wrote an Op—Ed in the Times last Week, in which he noted, in part about Barr’s behavior, that “accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from.”Until the next election, the scrutiny that Congress and the courts are applying to Trump may provide the best hope that our government will.

Margaret Talbot

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's ok dear. Only about six more years and another REP President for two terms and a REP Senate majority.
Any luck selling all those 'Hands Up Don't Shoot' hoodies?
The IG report is coming out soon.
Buckle up pal!
Already Comey and Lynch are accusing each other of lying.

Talking juvenile stupid talk won't change the law or reality with Trump. He has committed obstruction of justice to add to many other crimes that gave us an illegal election, and delivered a criminal onto the front door of the WH. That has already been established. And the stonewalling of witnesses and violating subpoenas
puts a nice bow on top of Trump's obvious impeachment credentials.

LOLOLOLOL. There's that "illegal election" again.

And of course it sticks, because the truth is more powerful than your bs.

Accept it's not true, of course. The fatal flaw in your crazy argument. It's why we laugh.

I've been posting this all day, and not one challenge to the argument; Nadler: 'We will hold this president accountable — one way, or the other.' And you know why? Because Nadler is reading off word for word from Mueller and he is laying out a 100% convincing case for obstruction through Don McGhan. We now know why McGhan didn't show up. Lol! The failed posters on this board have had plenty of chances to challenge Mueller, but they haven't got a prayer, so they never tried.

1 of 435 vs. El Supremo CMFIC. I think 1 of 435 should probably sit the fuck down and STFU.

 

[Tax Man]

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Um, okay, so the rules are that they can't indict until out of office. And second, Dems will be working on hearings and impeachment proceedings if Trump keeps obstructing and breaking the law, while having others cover for him.

Wait ... Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and you all claim to already have evidence of Trump's guilt yet there has been no impeachment proceedings. Instead of spinning like a top why not try to explain the House Dem's failure to perform their sworn duty to impeach a Repub POTUS?

Procedure, procedure! Follow the facts, and if Trump and his goons keep obstructing testimony to get to those facts, the case will be to bring up their own obstruction in hearings, then decide impeachment. Right now they subpoenaed Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson. They're moving along quickly. If McGhan won't testify, so be it. We have Mueller's testimony in the report.

Once more for all brain-dead leftarded: if as Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and you all claim you already have evidence of Trump's guilt WTF is the delay? If they have the evidence WTF are they waiting for?

Mostly for some conservatives to drop the Saint Ronnie pledge to never go against another republican.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Yea, he pretty much is guilty of most everything in the book. And don't bother with the help. I'm okay on my own. I've been right about Trump on everything so far. I'll be okay, believe me.

Yet you still fail to explain why no articles of impeachment. Can it be that beneath their bluster our Hysterical House Dems know the evidence just doesn't support impeachment and the voters will punish them for being petulant, bat-shit crazy A-holes in 2020?

LOl! Of course it supports impeachment. And anyone who would tell you different is a liar. Trump blew the doors off high crimes and misdemeanors.

You and I are not alone. The new yorker has an article on the lawlessness of rump.
THE
NEW YORKER

May 13 2019 THE TALK OF THE TOWN


If there is one thing that Attorney General William Barr’s testimony in the Senate last week made abundantly clear, it’s that he is fine with acting less like the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States and more like the personal lawyer for a tantrum-prone client named Donald Trump. Barr dissembled when answering questions about his handling of the Mueller report, then mis-characterized Robert Mueller’s objections to his spin on it, saying that the special counsel had been primarily troubled by how “the media was playing this." In fact, Mueller had written, in a letter to Barr, that he was concerned because the Attorney General’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his team’s work. Barr described that letter as “snitty” and probably written by “staff people,” thereby dismissing objections that Mueller clearly wanted in the historical record. By the end of the day, Barr had said that he would not come back and testify in the House, as he was scheduled to do. Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, then said that, in misrepresenting Mueller’s discontent, the Attorney General had lied to Congress, which is “a crime.”
Barr is apparently a believer in the “unitary executive” theory, an expansive reading of the powers of the Presidency that’s popular in conservative legal circles. Theory aside, though, serving as Trumps Attorney General—and keeping the job—-seems to mean signing on to the Roy Cohn approach that Trump so admires: treating anything, including the Constitution, that does not serve Trump’s interests as an urgent threat; projecting Trump’s own venal motives onto his critics and opponents; denying and stonewalling.
As a businessman, Trump was notably litigious. In 2016, when he was running for President, USA Today found that he had been involved in thirty—five hundred lawsuits, and was the plaintiff in nearly two thousand of them. That volume of litigation was extraordinary not only for a Presidential candidate but even for a real—estate mogul. As President, he is pursuing a similar strategy—stacking up lawsuits and thwarting investigations in the hope that he can run out the clock before the 2020 election. Last month, he sued the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Representative Elijah Cummings, who had requested some of his financial records from an accounting firm. Then Trump, three of his children, and his private company sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One to prevent them from releasing information about his financial arrangements, which Democrats had subpoenaed. Trump also went to court to try to block a lawsuit brought by two hundred members of Congress, which alleges that his business dealings violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. And Trump and his Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, have so far declined to produce the President's tax returns for the House Ways and Means Committee, which requested them from the I.R.S. in early April. Since Richard Nixon, it has been the practice for Presidents to release their returns, but, in Mnuchin’s words, Congress is making an “unprecedented” demand—“exposure for the sake of exposure.”
Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said no to a request from the Senate Appropriations Committee to testify about his departments budget. In- deed, Trump has declared a near-blanket denial of all congressional requests for information and testimony from members of his Administration; after Barr’s testimony, Trump said that he would not allow the former White House counsel Don McGahn to appear before the Senate. “I don’t want people testifying to a party, because that is what they’re doing if they do this,” Trump told the Washington Post‘, in April. Cummings told reporters, “To date, the White House has refused to produce a single piece of paper or a single witness in any of the committee’s investigations this entire year.”
The Administration's persistent attempts to stymie congressional oversight don’t bear much in the way of legal merit. In April, a district court in Washington, D.C., denied Trumps motion to dismiss the emoluments lawsuit brought by the members of Congress. The clause was intended to prevent corruption, by banning federal officials from accepting financial benefits from foreign governments without first obtaining congressional approval. Trump contends that any such profits he has received-—ranging from Trump trademarks being granted by the Chinese government to Saudi—funded lobbyists staying in Trump hotels—don’t count, because he didn’t come by them as a direct result of duties performed in office The court concluded that this argument is not only “inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption and purpose of the clause” but also “contrary to Executive branch practice over the course of many years.”
Democrats may be leading the House investigations, but their queries are rooted in historical practice and established understanding of the separation of powers. They are looking into matters of legitimate importance, from how the White House has handled security clearances to obstruction of justice. The purpose is not only to enforce accountability but also to establish grounds for legislation to avert future abuses. The congressional authority to investigate, which includes issuing subpoenas, has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. As a 1927 Court opinion explained, “the power of inquiry, with enforcing process,” has long been “a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate.”
What Trump denounces as “Presidential harassment" is, in fact, the means by which our government, with its coequal branches, works. But the way he talks about those branches makes them sound as divorced from the public good as he is. He refers to the Supreme Court, with his two appointees, as a venue in which he’ll get “a fair shake," which he doesn’t seem to think the lower courts offer. In March, the Washington Post reported that federal courts had ruled against the Administration sixty—three times,“an extraordinary record of legal defeat” that Trump blamed on “Obamajudges”—even though a quarter of the judges are Republican appointees, and the defeats resulted from a sloppy approach to rule-making and his own prejudicial comments on immigration and other matters. The former F.B.I. director James Comey wrote an Op—Ed in the Times last Week, in which he noted, in part about Barr’s behavior, that “accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from.”Until the next election, the scrutiny that Congress and the courts are applying to Trump may provide the best hope that our government will.

Margaret Talbot

You can't just post an entire article like that without referencing the author, dipshit. That's not fair to whoever actually wrote it, or legal, even. No quotes, no link, that's bullshit.

 

[hadit]

I'm not waiting on anything. I'm already calling for hearings, then impeachment. Time to get rid of this worthless piece of shit.

On what grounds?

It’s so sad to see people as uninformed as you are

Really? BWK makes all manner of silly claims ... among them that Trump has been proven guilty of pretty much every crime in the book (yet never convicted of any) but can't seem to explain why our hysterical House Dems still refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings. Can you help him out with that?
TIA.

Yea, he pretty much is guilty of most everything in the book. And don't bother with the help. I'm okay on my own. I've been right about Trump on everything so far. I'll be okay, believe me.

Yet you still fail to explain why no articles of impeachment. Can it be that beneath their bluster our Hysterical House Dems know the evidence just doesn't support impeachment and the voters will punish them for being petulant, bat-shit crazy A-holes in 2020?

They want a campaign issue. They know that trying to take him out now would be a losing proposition, since the Mueller report and the economy have drastically weakened their hand. That's why Pelosi is at odds with the rabid base. She knows it's a loser, they want it anyway. It's entertaining.