The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

You do know I would hope that "the last man standing is still standing".

In Your Boy Donnie's case, it would be standing on the WH lawn screaming obscenities until the Secret Service brought in a psychiatrist with a hypo full of Haldol.

I resent you saying "Your Boy Donnie". I don't like the man at all nor did I vote for him. I support him for practical policy reasons.

The Mueller team confirmed today that they did find evidence of obstruction on multiple occasions, while clarifying that if this were any other person they'd be recommending or pursuing criminal charges. But due to the need for impeachment, they concluded they could not.

The Mueller team also confirmed that @Zombie and @Tuttle are knuckle-dragging cavemen who don't close their mouths when chewing. Kind of odd that Mueller's team went beyond the scope of their investigation, but it's hard to argue with the evidence they found.

OK, I have to admit even I think they wasted taxpayer money on that one.

I love the fact that you keep spouting those last two sentences, yet you jump in to defend him every time his name is mentioned.

Meh. They probably just sent an intern to lurk in the Red Room.

The five minutes to read this thread couldn't have cost *that* much.

You do not believe a person can and will support and defend someone they loathe? Surely you do not believe that all people are slaves to their feelings do you?

Haven't you ever defended and supported someone you intensely disliked?

Clinton, and I lived to regret it, so I've broken the habit.

I dunno, Bush had a level of sanity about him and it wasn't until his second term that even some on the right began turning on the guy.

Even Nixon was better at polishing his brand of hateful crazy.

"Dislike" and "loathing" are feelings, to which you are apparently enslaved.

My point is that although I have those feelings, they don't dictate who I support and for what reasons. Apparently they do for you. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because your real support is for Mike Pence, and you'd do anything to see him in the WH. To your way of thinking, the more Donnie screws up, the better Mikey looks. You dream of theocracy, and Pence is the first step.

actually there have been rumors that President Trump was being encouraged to replace Pence with Niki Haley. I could live with that too.

Though my favorites are still Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and JEB Bush. More or less in that order. Wouldn't mind Kasich or Romney either.

And although it is one of your favorite strawmen (you aren't alone in this) the election of a fundamentalist Christian as president does not a theocracy make.

I'd love it if Trump were impeached and removed, Pence tried to run, and was defeated by Weld in the primary. I'd most likely even vote Republican in the general election then.

Interesting post but not at all what I was talking about.

So, tell me, if a candidate put forth an idea, say they cribbed it completely from Zubrin, as to how we could have colonies on Mars before 2030, and that every American could afford to pack up and move to Mars under this plan, would you be willing to vote for that candidate knowing that they also supported the idea of abortion so much that they would use government money to set up abortion booths on every corner, thus allowing a woman to walk in, not have to answer any questions and get an abortion at no cost to her?

How do you manage to quote the report, then in the very next sentence, claim that it says something it clearly doesn't say?

Are Trump's apologists trying to rewrite the English language now?

Thanks for providing evidence that proves my point. You have nothing. Russia thinks it benefits from a Trump presidency and worked to make that happen? Well stop the presses! You've only been warned since 2012 that Putin couldn't be trusted.

It's not the job of the counsels office to exonerate . This reads more like a council that was looking for a crime and is upset that he didn't find anything.

You understand that there is a logical difference between "does not conclude a crime" (the report) and "concludes no crime" (your argument). The former posits no conclusion; the latter posits a definitive negative conclusion.

And in case there were any confusion about the difference, the report goes on to add the part that you didn't blow up in font: "it also does not exonerate him."

And let's not forget another line: If the president clearly 'did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.'

Some mental gymnastics to interpret that as the president is off the hook.

Especially given that the reports start off explaining that no matter the evidence, it could not find the President guilty before he's been impeached. Barr knew this was the crux, which is why he lied about it. @Zombie and @T.R still seem to believe the Barr version over the actual text of the report itself. The report had two options: Find Trump innocent or remain inconclusive while providing evidence for impeachment. It did not find Trump innocent, and instead provided evidence for impeachment.

This only makes me question the motives even more because you could make that statement about every investigation throughout history. We don't prosecute people in this country on hunches or whims. There are no facts proving Trump's guilt.

In short ..we found nothing. Case closed. If you guys want to continue this charade be my guest. You're only ensuring a Trump re-election and four more years of division.

Only for unimpeached current Presidents. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about what is going on.

There are no facts that prove high crimes and misdemeanors.

Which is code for "We will investigate indefinitely until we find something."

Please. This all about partisanship. If the guy in the White House was named Obama we wouldn't be hearing one thing about impeachment from this House nor the posters in this thread.