Trump told to ‘resign or be impeached’

a reply to: knoxie

Obstruction of justice? Witness tampering and intimidation? To just toss out a couple obvious ones.

He could be in some very serious trouble here.

COULD.....

For me the thing that would really separate this from being a lot of very bad press and a very serious problem that could result in his impeachment is if Cohens claims can be verified from other sources. Right now my understand is that this is only coming from Cohen and while that is damaging in itself, its still a case of "he said, he said". If however other evidence comes to light that verifies Cohens claims then I think we are going to be having a totally different conversation.

Right now too many if, buts, could's and maybe's for this to turn into impeachment.

I also think the dems need to chill out a bit and let Mueller just do his job with out demanding he release parts of the invitations findings in isolation just so they can get their pound of flesh. I really do believe it is possible that the investigation is possibly going to reveal information that could in someway lead to Trumps removal from office but I don't think the dems are going about this the right way. Patience.

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: knoxie

Obstruction of justice? Witness tampering and intimidation? To just toss out a couple obvious ones.

Great minds think alike.

Also, when it is pretty obvious that Trump is breaking all sorts of laws, you mind does not have to be that great.

Wait till they get to money laundering, defrauding the US Government, and the Logan act. "Cha-ching" goes the bars of the Trump crime family.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

these threads are amusing

they are the delusional fantasies of dribbling imbeciles - but still funny to read

just for the heck of it - does any one REALLY believe this ??

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


it's not coming from cohen but two unnamed law enforcement officials.

considering everything does anyone really doubt this, tho? lol

if there is proof mitch is the one who will have to proceed with impeachment, imo.

all i know is mitch is keeping a very low profile...

a reply to: Graysen

You language says it all.
By " antis " you mean law and order types who agree with the constitution...

"vote against thier own party (R" ...yeah, party over the country and constitution

Sure, you give yourself away without realizing it.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I've answered this in another thread;

You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power.

originally posted by: knoxie
if there is proof mitch is the one who will have to proceed with impeachment, imo.

Not accurate. It begins in the House, the President can ignore the impeachment so long as the Senate doesn't convict.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

How much trouble does one get in for selling uranium to Russia?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


can he get the ball rolling?

If either happened (which I doubt, I beleive he has such fervent support to complete the full 8 years) would the wall still be on the republicans agenda or is it a Trump specific promise, would any potential candidate hold the same views on security or have they been supporting Trumps push for a wall as he is currently in charge.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

You are not wrong, also Trumps own children were involved in the Moscow Tower. The list of impeachable offences continues to grow. Mr. Trump did these things, as if being President was just like running a business. It is not.

Trump, is a shady businessman. Trump University, says a lot.

Just like all the other impeachment threads. Not much will come of.it.. what did goverments do before trump won office? Maybe they should stick to doing that.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
If either happened (which I doubt, I beleive he has such fervent support to complete the full 8 years) would the wall still be on the republicans agenda or is it a Trump specific promise, would any potential candidate hold the same views on security or have they been supporting Trumps push for a wall as he is currently in charge.

Well, even Drudge is turning on Trump because he rigged a Drudge Report poll, and that could mean a massive hemorrhage of Trump’s base.

A banner that appeared on the Drudge Report on January 17 that read, “Did Trump bribe Drudge poll?,” implying that a Drudge Report poll was rigged to be favorable to President Trump.

What is next? Brietbart calling Trump a gay frog?

They have emails and documents from the Trump Organization that detail Trump Tower Moscow and appear to verify Trump asking Cohen to lie. That is if the article is accurate and I’ve read it correctly. This could be Trump’s “blue dress.”

(Someone May have mentioned this already. I tend to arrive at the party when everyone is passed out or wearing nothing but lampshades and vomit.)

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

To be fair it was ultimately an unnamed source that led to Nixon's resignation.

A lot has changed in 45 years.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

How hard is it to show evidence of something you claimed you had 2 years ago?

There a celebrity out there, I forget who, who kept insisting he had a tape of Trump getting peed on by a hooker.

Of course people demanded to see the tapes, and of course he never did show it.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

To be fair it was ultimately an unnamed source that led to Nixon's resignation.

A lot has changed in 45 years.

The Constitution of the United State of America?

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

How much trouble does one get in for selling uranium to Russia?

How much uranium was sold to Russia? None.
Is this retro-day?

originally posted by: Speedtek

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

How much trouble does one get in for selling uranium to Russia?

How much uranium was sold to Russia? None.
Is this retro-day?

They still think the golden oldies will work. Meanwhile:

57 percent of voters would not vote to re-elect President Donald Trump in 2020, a new poll finds
Source

57 percent of registered voters saying they would "definitely" vote against re-electing the current White House occupant to a second term, according to the results of a brand-new poll from PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist.

large number of voters who oppose Trump, as well as his low job approval ratings, suggest the president faces a "steep, steep incline" on the road to re-election. "The president has had his base and not much else,"

among Republicans, 69 percent said they planned to vote for Trump in 2020, while 10 percent said they would vote against him and 21 percent said they were "unsure." Along those lines, nearly all Democrats — 91 percent — said they planned to vote against the nation's leader, while 5 percent said they would vote for Trump and another 5 percent said they did not know who they would support in 2020. Meanwhile, 62 percent of independents said they plan to vote against Trump, while 25 percent said they would vote to re-elect him. Thirteen percent of independents said they were unsure.