Pelosi Admits There's Nothing Compelling, Overwhelming, Or Bipartisan Enough To Impeach Trump For

[Athanasius68]

True enough, but again it is partisan concerns that motivates them with neglect of anything having to do with Trump or his administration.

The rare exception only draws attention to the rule. And for a Republican Congress the rule has been to neglect oversight of the Trump Administration if they do not first have a green light from Trump himself.

Why would it be partisan concerns the nature of FBI decisions?

 

[haymarket]

Why would it be partisan concerns the nature of FBI decisions?

It is Republicans in Congress carrying water for the President over an issue that has become partisan.

 

[Athanasius68]

1. Yes. So why did he lie about it, not once but multiple times?

2. Before the election, no backchannel was needed, or so they thought. And even if you were right, wouldn't it bother you that an incoming president felt the need for secret communications with Russia, communications that they wanted to keep secret from our own intelligence and law enforcement people? Really?

3. Again, why lie about it?

4. Page had been on the FBI's radar for his associations with known Russian covert operatives since 2013, making any trips he took to Russia highly suspect.

5. Slavishly? Interesting choice of words to describe what should be, what has always been, a relationship of trust and respect between the president and HIS OWN intelligence people.

6. Not yet. Wait.

Seriously, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were anti-American.

1. Who knows? Mueller had no theory; Flynn was convicted for the perjury, not the contact.

2. How does the Trump campaign conspire with Russia if they have no means to conspire with Russia?

3. Again who knows? Again-- it was the perjury, not the contact, for which charges were made.

4. And Page has not been charged in six years on the radar. At some point maybe the object on the radar is not a danger.

5. Trump wouldn't be the first president to disregard his intelligence chiefs. Indeed, a long standing argument against Bush 43 is that he should have IGNORED his intelligence folks when they said Saddam had WMD' s (Trump has in fact cited this failure in the past).

6. Running out people--- Mueller is done with Manafort, Flynn, PapaD. Not much with Stone.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nancy is an atm machine when it comes to raising money for the Democrats and she controls committee assignments. That's the totality of her power over her caucus.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

And she wields it well.

 

[Athanasius68]

It is Republicans in Congress carrying water for the President over an issue that has become partisan.

It's been partisan since Trump won and the explanation that it was because of a conspiracy with Russia.

 

[haymarket]

It's been partisan since Trump won and the explanation that it was because of a conspiracy with Russia.

The party system has existed in Washington for over 200 years and goes back to the founding fathers.

 

[jaeger19]

lol..you should send this evidence to Mueller!

Its all a matter of public record.. Largely because of the indictments that mueller has already OBTAINED. Not to mention the convictions/guilty pleas.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Its all a matter of public record.. Largely because of the indictments that mueller has already OBTAINED. Not to mention the convictions/guilty pleas.

Once again....please post the real evidence showing that Trump colluded with Russia. When I say real I mean the kind a court needs not the TDS crap.

 

[jaeger19]

Once again....please post the real evidence showing that Trump colluded with Russia. When I say real I mean the kind a court needs not the TDS crap.

Well..first.. all the evidence is not available.

That's part of the point here. You keep claiming you KNOW unequivocally that there was no collusion. Based on what exactly. What evidence do you have that PROVES that trump had no collusion with the Russians?

So right now.. we have NO PROOF that trump DID collude with the Russians
And so far we have NO PROOF that trump DID NOT collude with Russians.

but what we.. the public have so far is this.

Mueller has discovered proof that Russians did attempt to influence our election and made multiple avenues to attack our election system.

Which has resulted in multiple indictments.

In addition.. Mueller discovered evidence that Trumps team and campaign contacted. dealt with Russians and THEN LIED ABOUT IT.

Which resulted in guilty pleas. ]

In addition..we know that Trump has publicly contradicted the findings of several of our intelligence agencies that say that Russia did try to attack our election.

Anyone who is being objective about the evidence that is available would have to say that there is at least strong evidence to suspect Trump may have been involved in collusion..and that it must be investigated.

Why do you refuse to see the facts?

 

[Athanasius68]

Well..first.. all the evidence is not available.

That's part of the point here. You keep claiming you KNOW unequivocally that there was no collusion. Based on what exactly. What evidence do you have that PROVES that trump had no collusion with the Russians?

So right now.. we have NO PROOF that trump DID collude with the Russians
And so far we have NO PROOF that trump DID NOT collude with Russians.

but what we.. the public have so far is this.

Mueller has discovered proof that Russians did attempt to influence our election and made multiple avenues to attack our election system.

Which has resulted in multiple indictments.

In addition.. Mueller discovered evidence that Trumps team and campaign contacted. dealt with Russians and THEN LIED ABOUT IT.

Which resulted in guilty pleas. ]

In addition..we know that Trump has publicly contradicted the findings of several of our intelligence agencies that say that Russia did try to attack our election.

Anyone who is being objective about the evidence that is available would have to say that there is at least strong evidence to suspect Trump may have been involved in collusion..and that it must be investigated.

Why do you refuse to see the facts?

A few things:

Mueller didn't find out that Russia was seeking to interfere in American politics. The FBI was saying this 2015 (and as per Mueller, it's started in 2014). Russians were indicted, none of whom who have connections with Trump campaign, nor have any Americans been indicted for contact with Russians.

Moreover, it appears the contact was initiated by the Russians, and not the campaign.. And There was lukewarm reception by the campaign to Russian reaching out-- at best.

And nothing happened. We know this because in the indictment of Stone, Mueller is saying that after the first release, somebody from the campaign reached out to Stone to see if he could reach out to Wikileaks to find about any subsequent release. Obviously, that would not have been necessary if the campaign and Russia had already been conspiring.

 

[Roadvirus]

Because that is the constitutional obligation of Congress.

And because the Mueller investigation is limited in scope and nature.

Oh boy. You're going to be one of those who throws a mega-fit if Trump isn't portrayed negatively enough.

 

[haymarket]

Oh boy. You're going to be one of those who throws a mega-fit if Trump isn't portrayed negatively enough.

I simply deal in the facts of the matter.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Um, no. You need to post some link that shows something that was leaked by Mueller's team. In other words, you need to back up your claim.

That retort is silly beyond imagination.

 

[tres borrachos]

That retort is silly beyond imagination.

So in other words, you can't prove it. Got it.

Next time please don't make it so easy.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Another dumb post from you.

I'll say it for the 15th time. I never said there was collusion. I always said I don't hate Trump. I can't hate someone I don't know. So this "back to" crap is, as usual, a figment of your imagination.

You have posted so much that absolutely shows that you hate Trump with a passion.

 

[tres borrachos]

You have posted so much that absolutely shows that you hate Trump with a passion.

Great retort. "You're mean to my hero Donald Trump! You big meanie poopy pants!" would have been just as appropriate.

 

[MAGAnificent]

So the answer is "No, I can't make any honest posts. I'll just make things up because I have a crush on Donald Trump."

Try not to be so predictable.

Nah. Your crush is on Nancy Pelosi.

 

[tres borrachos]

Nah. Your crush is on Nancy Pelosi.

I never cared for her. Wouldn't vote for her even if I could. You're confusing me with Donald Trump who once told Nancy she was "the best":

Trump confirmed to POLITICO he wrote the note, but said it was "because I want her to do great, and I want this country to be great, and I [didn't] want her to fail as Speaker. And I like her."

“I met her a number of times and I liked her,” he added. “And I really want her and everybody in office to do great. so because of the fact that i met her a number of times and really liked her, and then she became Speaker, I sent her a note. And I wanted her, and I continue to want her and everybody else in office, to do great for the country. ... I get along with everybody. I'm very proud of that. I get along with all of these people. Some I get along with better.”

He wrapped up an interview by saying: "When I send Nancy a letter, I want her to do a great job for the country, not for her party. OK, honey?"


Now, where is your evidence of the Mueller leaks you claim happened?

 

[Xelor]

If I were a member of the House and knew articles of impeachment were effectively "dead on arrival" in the Senate, I wouldn't want to waste my time or taxpayer resources crafting such articles, debating them, voting on them, etc. It'd be different if the Senate had a reasonable share of GOP members who find the POTUS reprehensible enough that there's a decent chance the articles would pass. But knowing damn well the articles won't pass, well, there are better things to do, not the least of which is delve deeply enough into things to determine whether there's any behavior that, once uncovered, might compel GOP-ers to convict.

 

[haymarket]

If I were a member of the House and knew articles of impeachment were effectively "dead on arrival" in the Senate, I wouldn't want to waste my time or taxpayer resources crafting such articles, debating them, voting on them, etc. It'd be different if the Senate had a reasonable share of GOP members who find the POTUS reprehensible enough that there's a decent chance the articles would pass. But knowing damn well the articles won't pass, well, there are better things to do, not the least of which is delve deeply enough into things to determine whether there's any behavior that, once uncovered, might compel GOP-ers to convict.

And that seems to be the position Pelosi is taking.

 

[MAGAnificent]

She owns Trump. She made him look like a fool over the shutdown. He wants the Dems to impeach him so he can get his fan base (including you) to scream your heads off. She won't even let that happen.

Utter nonsense. The democrats are the ones looking foolish over the shutdown and the border wall. They are attempting to fight Trump to the death over the border wall despite the democrats assisting in passing the "Secure Fence Act" in 2006 and approving additional funding for it at least once sense then. Read my bolded signature near the bottom of the screen.

She made him embarrass himself by declaring a fake national emergency that even his own party is about to kill, forcing him to pull out his veto pen.

Deep down, I doubt that you actually believe there is no emergency at the border. Just the fact that our immigration system and border patrol are overwhelmed by illegals is an emergency. Then there is the vast number of illicit drugs that come over the border such as cocaine and opioids. The latter is feeding an addiction in the US that is getting out of hand.. Then there are the MS 13 gang members and cartel goons not just pushing illicit drugs over the border but also engaging in human trafficking.

She owns him and it's killing him. And making him look weaker and worse than he did when the GOP controlled the House.

Your hero worship of Pelosi is cute considering that you are still denying that you are of the left, however it's misplaced. If Pelosi truly owned Trump, he would not have extracted 1.3 billion for the border wall as he did as a condition of ending the partial government shutdown. If Nancy owns anyone, it's the idiot house members of her own party who are willing to kiss her bare butt if that's what it takes to keep their committee assignments. Nancy is good as raising money and that's about it. Other then that, she has nothing other then seniority going for her.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I never cared for her. Wouldn't vote for her even if I could. You're confusing me with Donald Trump who once told Nancy she was "the best":

Trump confirmed to POLITICO he wrote the note, but said it was "because I want her to do great, and I want this country to be great, and I [didn't] want her to fail as Speaker. And I like her."

“I met her a number of times and I liked her,” he added. “And I really want her and everybody in office to do great. so because of the fact that i met her a number of times and really liked her, and then she became Speaker, I sent her a note. And I wanted her, and I continue to want her and everybody else in office, to do great for the country. ... I get along with everybody. I'm very proud of that. I get along with all of these people. Some I get along with better.”

He wrapped up an interview by saying: "When I send Nancy a letter, I want her to do a great job for the country, not for her party. OK, honey?"


Now, where is your evidence of the Mueller leaks you claim happened?

You never cared for her? You have spent the last two days praising her as if she was Joan of Arc.

 

[jaeger19]

A few things:

Mueller didn't find out that Russia was seeking to interfere in American politics. The FBI was saying this 2015 (and as per Mueller, it's started in 2014). Russians were indicted, none of whom who have connections with Trump campaign, nor have any Americans been indicted for contact with Russians.
.

Ummm...so he didn;t find evidence that russians tried to interfer with american politics? Oh...so what were the indictments for then? Trying to kill "moose and squirrel"?

oh wait:

Twelve Russian intelligence officers were accused Friday of trying to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections, including a hack of Democratic National Committee.
The allegations came in the latest indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the elections

nor have any Americans been indicted for contact with Russians.

Yep...just for LYING about it. :doh

Dude.. nothing you said does in anyway detract from the objective points I laid out.

 

[jaeger19]

Utter nonsense. The democrats are the ones looking foolish over the shutdown and the border wall. They are attempting to fight Trump to the death over the border wall despite the democrats assisting in passing the "Secure Fence Act" in 2006 and approving additional funding for it at least once sense then. Read my bolded signature near the bottom of the screen.

Yeah... lets inject some facts here. First.. the democrats DID support increases to border security and DID authorize funding for border fencing, barriers. Yep.

In fact.. a bill doing just that.. passed the senate unanimously.. both republicans and democrats.

But that was NOT enough for trump...he wanted more for his WALL...and without his specific amount for his wall.. was willing and did SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT... It was all trump throwing a hissy fit. It was trump looking foolish..not the democrats.

Deep down, I doubt that you actually believe there is no emergency at the border. Just the fact that our immigration system and border patrol are overwhelmed by illegals is an emergency. Then there is the vast number of illicit drugs that come over the border such as cocaine and opioids. The latter is feeding an addiction in the US that is getting out of hand.. Then there are the MS 13 gang members and cartel goons not just pushing illicit drugs over the border but also engaging in human trafficking.

I don't know about that.. .I think Tres is smart enough to look at the actual facts.. which is that apprehensions of illegals at the border is lower than it was in preceeding years.

According to Customs and Border Protection, arrests along the southwest border — the standard metric used to calculate illegal border crossings — numbered 396,579 in fiscal year 2018, which ended Oct. 1. That’s lower than the average over the previous decade (400,751). It’s also lower than the number of border arrests in fiscal 2016, 2014 and 2013

.

And she is smart enough to know that the violent gang etc stuff is made up.

I

n a March study specifically focused on undocumented immigrants, University of Wisconsin sociologist Michael Light examined the relationship between illegal immigration and violence in 50 states and Washington, D.C., over a 24-year period ending in 2014 — a span that included the peak years for border arrests. His conclusion: “Undocumented immigration does not increase violence. Rather, the relationship between undocumented immigration and violent crime is generally negative.”

Your hero worship of Pelosi i

Apparently you don;t read Tres posts.

 

[tres borrachos]

You never cared for her? You have spent the last two days praising her as if she was Joan of Arc.

No, I never cared for her. But unlike the ignorant Trump loving partisans, I am not an ignorant partisan. If she does something right, as she has done, I say it. Unlike your crush Trump, though, I never wrote her a fan letter.