Should Trump

[Spirit of Light]

That’s exactly why. Dems have often said they want a wall and security. Now they are against merely because it’s Trump.

They are not against border protection, they are against using 5,7 billion dollars on a wall that is so grandios that soon the Chines wall would look silly.

If Trump did get his first wall he wanted it would be 95 stories tall. That is just wast of money and time.
Are you just saying things because Trump said it, and then it MUST be correct or do you do research in to it?

And why do you keep avoiding answering our questions but "demanding" answer from us? Kind of Trumps way of doing it actually

 

[Stevicus]

Should trump be Impeached and taken away from office now?

Explain your view.
If Yes to Impeachement, Why remove?
If No to Impeachement. Why not remove?

There probably isn't much point to it now. They've been investigating Trump for close to two years now, and they haven't done so yet. Might as well just wait until 2020 and let the people decide.

 

[Augustus]

Should trump be Impeached and taken away from office now?

No, as there is insufficient evidence to justify it (afaik).

If such evidence becomes available at some point in the future, of course.

 

[Stevicus]

So the shutdown of Government is doing America good?
How about all thos who do not get their paycheck and now can not pay rent on house or cars? or insurance. is that a good way to run the country?

Well, they can always quit and look for another job. That's the line they always feed to those who work in the private sector.

 

[BSM1]

Should trump be Impeached and taken away from office now?

Explain your view.
If Yes to Impeachement, Why remove?
If No to Impeachement. Why not remove?

You have to have committed an impeachable offense to be impeached (which, btw, does not preclude guilt). There is no evidence so far that Trump has committed said offenses.

As was the case with Bill Clinton.

I hope you mean that Bill had definite impeachable offenses (which, BTW, had nothing to do with his sex with a 19 year old intern in the Oval Office) which include obstruction of justice and perjury in relation to a lawsuit from one of his previous victims. Even though he was found guilty he was not removed from office; the Democrat Congress just gave him a slap on the wrist.

 

[stvdv]

Should trump be Impeached and taken away from office now?
Explain your view.
If Yes to Impeachement, Why remove?
If No to Impeachement. Why not remove?

I believe that the ones who "made sure D.Trump got president" had good reasons for this (probably redirecting the money flow to their own pockets). So I do not believe he will ever be removed, unless they find another person who can be used better to earn even more money. But even criminals and maffia do have some kind of "code of honor" as regard to their employees who make them a lot of money.

This is a personal belief. I have no proof at all. Just my gut feeling. Of course I hope my feeling is wrong and that there are only "good people" on earth, and that elections are done in "truth without lies etc.". I just have a hard time believing in such a fairy tale.

 

[Watchmen]

Please, at least be honest when you are caught with your pants down.

I’m totally honest. You’ve failed to show how an investigation in and of itself equates to evidence.

 

[Watchmen]

Sorry, I don't believe you. So far your posts indicate that you are an extremist. Give me some reason to believe otherwise besides your way so.

I really don’t care if you believe me or not. I have voted for both Dems and Republicans, both for conservative and liberal ideals. I vote for what’s best for my family. Every politics test I’ve taken has me as a moderate.

 

[Watchmen]

No.

Do you have an answer to my question?

America is great.

 

[Watchmen]

They are not against border protection, they are against using 5,7 billion dollars on a wall that is so grandios that soon the Chines wall would look silly.

If Trump did get his first wall he wanted it would be 95 stories tall. That is just wast of money and time.
Are you just saying things because Trump said it, and then it MUST be correct or do you do research in to it?

And why do you keep avoiding answering our questions but "demanding" answer from us? Kind of Trumps way of doing it actually

Acosta proved the wall works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m totally honest. You’ve failed to show how an investigation in and of itself equates to evidence.

If you have to make claims about others that they never made you have already lost the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don’t care if you believe me or not. I have voted for both Dems and Republicans, both for conservative and liberal ideals. I vote for what’s best for my family. Every politics test I’ve taken has me as a moderate.

People change. You may have been moderate in the past. That does not appear to be so the case right now. How is what Trump does best for your family? How would a largely ineffective wall do your family any good?

 

[LuisDantas]

There probably isn't much point to it now. They've been investigating Trump for close to two years now, and they haven't done so yet. Might as well just wait until 2020 and let the people decide.

I so disagree!

 

[LuisDantas]

Acosta proved the wall works.

Source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to have committed an impeachable offense to be impeached (which, btw, does not preclude guilt). There is no evidence so far that Trump has committed said offenses.



I hope you mean that Bill had definite impeachable offenses (which, BTW, had nothing to do with his sex with a 19 year old intern in the Oval Office) which include obstruction of justice and perjury in relation to a lawsuit from one of his previous victims. Even though he was found guilty he was not removed from office; the Democrat Congress just gave him a slap on the wrist.

Clinton was not "found guilty" in his impeachment trial. He would have been kicked out of office if that was the case. He lost his sexual harassment case. That was not an impeachable offense. And due to his lying on the stand the Arkansas State Supreme Court suspended his license for five years. But when it came to his impeachment trial in the Senate no guilty verdict was returned:

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

There is evidence that he was involved in the illegal payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Those may rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source?

I did not know that we needed a wall to keep out the citizens from Puerto Rico. At least that seems to be where her grandparents or earlier on her mother's side and her mother came from.

You might as well say that it worked in my case since a grandfather of mine was an immigrant Actually no. Puerto Rico was a territory before my grandfather immigrated. That means her family has been American longer than mine.

 

[BSM1]

Clinton was not "found guilty" in his impeachment trial. He would have been kicked out of office if that was the case. He lost his sexual harassment case. That was not an impeachable offense. And due to his lying on the stand the Arkansas State Supreme Court suspended his license for five years. But when it came to his impeachment trial in the Senate no guilty verdict was returned:

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

There is evidence that he was involved in the illegal payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Those may rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

You're right...my bad, Those payments, BTW, have not been shown to be illegal at this point. Seems we all make mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right...my bad, Those payments, BTW, have not been shown to be illegal at this point. Seems we all make mistakes.

They don't need to be shown to be illegal to be evidence. In fact at this point in time the defense would have to show that they are not illegal. They are evidence for the case as they stand. The only hope that they have is to use the Gary Hart defense, but that is very questionable considering the timing of the payments.

 

[BSM1]

They don't need to be shown to be illegal to be evidence. In fact at this point in time the defense would have to show that they are not illegal. They are evidence for the case as they stand. The only hope that they have is to use the Gary Hart defense, but that is very questionable considering the timing of the payments.

Sooo...what exactly is the impeachable offense in these payments?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sooo...what exactly is the impeachable offense in these payments?

Really? You have not been following this and you claim "no evidence"? That is not wise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ce-laws/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5a237be83080

"During the 2016 election cycle, Trump’s presidential campaign couldn’t accept a contribution of more than $2,700 from an individual and couldn’t take money from corporations at all. (The exception: Trump could lend himself as much as he wanted.) Expenses related to the campaign had to be paid from money that was collected for the campaign under those limits which, after all, is the heart of contribution limits: If you could take any money from anywhere or spend any money you wanted, there would be no point to setting limits in the first place. Those contributions and payments then have to be reported publicly"

Even if the money from Cohen was a "loan" that should have been in his records. And the payments also should have been recorded and submitted;

"$300,000.00 payment to keep the skanks quiet."