1 hour ago, GoBigBlack said:

 

The moral of the story is that you’re better off economically than you were four years ago. Period. And it doesn’t fit the narrative so you refuse to admit it. 
 

I didn’t bring up the election, you did. My comments are all regarding the current state of the economy and absolutely nothing more. So maybe that’s why you’re repeatedly bringing up the angels stat — it’s just you projecting again. 

 

Absolutely, among other things. See, you got there all on your own.

1) You have no idea about that. None. You're making shit up to fit your narrative. 🤡

2) So the American people's view of the economy - even many on the left - is that it's shit. Project that, Sport. 

3) So the non-economic stuff completely explains the national view on the economy? Not even you believe that.

1 hour ago, GoBigBlack said:

So you’re worse off? It’s a simple yes or no question that everyone in the poll answered. And your friends, family, neighbors, and most people where you work can probably guess whether or not you’re better off than you were four years ago. And some of them may know exactly what position you are in because you’ve literally told them. But when it comes to strangers on the internet who only know you as #432957 and will never know who you are or ever know in any meaningful way you can’t manage a simple “yes” or “no.” There’s a reason for that, and it’s not “privacy.”
 

 

 

Yes 🫡

2 hours ago, GoBigBlack said:

@Crusader12-0 are you worse off than you were four years ago? Your house is worth less? You got laid off and can’t find a job? Investments tanked? How you doing buddy?

I’m Definitely worse off. This is not a good job economy and I’m stuck with not I’m not satisfied with, despite my best efforts. Here in North Jersey, the price of food and every household item you can think of are so much higher than they were a few years back. 

“Don’t get me wrong, we could make cuts and we chose to have (by today’s standards) a large family.

But there’s no doubt that in about a 3 year period, everything has gone up so much that a middle to upper middle class families are pinching pennies for normal lifestyles.

This doesn’t even touch on utilities and gas, compared to even just 3 years ago.

Got a kid turning 16? Wait until you see the prices on cars with 150k-200k miles on them. And don’t even get me started on insurance.

I don’t understand how anyone short of millionaires don’t throw their shoe at the TV when they see Biden claim “the economy is strong!”

“Don’t believe your own lying eyes”, I guess is the phrase.”

1 hour ago, concha said:

1) You have no idea about that. None. You're making shit up to fit your narrative. 🤡

Am I making it up? You know the answer for absolute certain, and you’re the only one here who does. But rather than just answer the question you want to play some game like a little girl. 
 

1 hour ago, concha said:

2) So the American people's view of the economy - even many on the left - is that it's shit. Project that, Sport

“Even on the left”? Meaning what?

2 hours ago, concha said:

3) So the non-economic stuff completely explains the national view on the economy? Not even you believe that.

 

You’re asking me to confirm something I never said. 

2 hours ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Yes 🫡

Cool. Concha claimed I’m not interested in why people think they’re worse off. He’s wrong, I am.
 

So how are you worse off? In what ways?

57 minutes ago, Crusader12-0 said:

I’m Definitely worse off. This is not a good job economy and I’m stuck with not I’m not satisfied with, despite my best efforts. Here in North Jersey, the price of food and every household item you can think of are so much higher than they were a few years back. 

Why are you stuck? And what have your “best efforts” been?

52 minutes ago, Crusader12-0 said:

“Don’t get me wrong, we could make cuts and we chose to have (by today’s standards) a large family.

But there’s no doubt that in about a 3 year period, everything has gone up so much that a middle to upper middle class families are pinching pennies for normal lifestyles.

This doesn’t even touch on utilities and gas, compared to even just 3 years ago.

Got a kid turning 16? Wait until you see the prices on cars with 150k-200k miles on them. And don’t even get me started on insurance.

I don’t understand how anyone short of millionaires don’t throw their shoe at the TV when they see Biden claim “the economy is strong!”

“Don’t believe your own lying eyes”, I guess is the phrase.”

No doubt. But you also have people ranting about “don’t tell me SHIT until I can buy a week’s worth of groceries for my family of four for UNDER $150/week!” And you have people like Concha defending that. Do the math. He’s saying “fuck you, you fucking liberals I want every meal for my family to cost under $1.75 per person.” 

And yeah, of course we can make cuts. But we will keep paying the prices being demanded and then bitch and complain like fucking morons when the prices continue to climb… because we’re paying them. 

A Big Mac by itself cost $2.50 in the 1990s, and people here are defending someone demanding every meal of their lives for under $1.75? And that includes all snacks, drinks, and miscellaneous shit consumed throughout the day? Get. The. Fuck. Out.

You (the collective you) don’t have an economy problem. You have a budgeting and self control problem.

On 1/31/2024 at 1:00 AM, Slotback Right said:

Never attempt to calculate the quantity of juvenile poultry, prior to the completion of the entire process of incubation.

The hatch date was postponed most likely, surprise surprise, because Donald’s former CFO is now negotiating a guilty plea for lying under oath during his trial. I don’t know what sort of influence that will have on the judges ruling, but if he comes in anywhere near what the prosecution asked for then Trump will undoubtedly be selling assets… but that’s according to his own calculations.

Never conflate wishful thinking with reality.

36 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Cool. Concha claimed I’m not interested in why people think they’re worse off. He’s wrong, I am.
 

So how are you worse off? In what ways?

I’m in sales…clients are tightening their budgets…gas, food, car utilities etc …you name it…prices skyrocketing .  It was never like this under DJT. Now we are slotting 400m so every ILLEGAL gets free attorneys.  Bet those scumbags that beat cops are happy about that….oh wait they were released without bail…and no where near NYC so they are in the wind….this mindless shit never happened under DJT.  IT WAS MAGA….not MIG make illegals greater) while they flip us the bird while gettin $9K prepaid ( by you and I) debit cards.

yet you defend Biden and all of his “accomplishments “  🐑 

12 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

I’m in sales…clients are tightening their budgets…gas, food, car utilities etc …you name it…prices skyrocketing .  It was never like this under DJT. Now we are slotting 400m so every ILLEGAL gets free attorneys.  Bet those scumbags that beat cops are happy about that….oh wait they were released without bail…and no where near NYC so they are in the wind….this mindless shit never happened under DJT.  IT WAS MAGA….not MIG make illegals greater) while they flip us the bird while gettin $9K prepaid ( by you and I) debit cards.

yet you defend Biden and all of his “accomplishments “  🐑 

I’m in sales, too. If you’re blaming businesses tightening their wallets on the economy then you’re just flat out wrong. The rest of your post I can’t make sense of. 

18 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

I’m in sales, too. If you’re blaming businesses tightening their wallets on the economy then you’re just flat out wrong. The rest of your post I can’t make sense of. 

Of course you can’t..what a shock!😳😳😳🐑🐑

2 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Of course you can’t..what a shock!😳😳😳🐑🐑

I can’t make sense of it because it looks like a bunch of headlines from fucking crazy right wing news sites and Twitter accounts. And, for the seventh time, I don’t watch or follow any of that crap outside of the snippets that are unavoidable. 
 

By the way, you haven’t addressed your pedophile stuff in the other thread. But you seem to be active on the board so I just wanted to make you aware that I addressed your concern in the other thread. So you’re clear to reply now.

1 minute ago, GoBigBlack said:

I can’t make sense of it because it looks like a bunch of headlines from fucking crazy right wing news sites and Twitter accounts. And, for the seventh time, I don’t watch or follow any of that crap outside of the snippets that are unavoidable. 
 

By the way, you haven’t addressed your pedophile stuff in the other thread. But you seem to be active on the board so I just wanted to make you aware that I addressed your concern in the other thread. So you’re clear to reply now.

 Nice try junior!  Carry on🫡

7 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

 Nice try junior!  Carry on🫡

I’d want to carry on, too, if I thought the things you think.

This was very obvious....of course he doesn't have immunity to commit crimes...f*in idiot....🙄

1 / 2

Trump Capitol Riot

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media at a Washington hotel, Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2024, after attending a hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals at the federal courthouse in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals panel ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, rejecting the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution and breathing life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen while the court considered the arguments.

The decision marks the second time in as many months that judges have spurned Trump’s immunity arguments and held that he can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. But it also sets the stage for additional appeals from the Republican ex-president that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court and result in further delays.

The one-month gap between when the appeals court heard arguments and when it issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of any trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with the judge overseeing the case last week canceling the March 4 date that was initially set and not immediately scheduling a replacement one. The judges gave Trump until February 12 to ask the Supreme Court to pause the ruling.

 

The trial date carries obvious and enormous political ramifications, with special counsel Jack Smith's team hoping to prosecute Trump this year and the Republican primary front-runner seeking to delay it until after the November election. If Trump were to defeat President Joe Biden, he could presumably try to use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases or he potentially could seek a pardon for himself.

The unanimous ruling, which had been expected given the skepticism with which the three judges on the panel greeted the Trump team's arguments, was unsparing in its repudiation of the claim that a former president could be shielded from prosecution for actions taken while in office.

“Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the judges wrote.

They also sharply rejected Trump’s claim that “a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results.”

“Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count,” they wrote.

The appeals court took center stage in the immunity dispute after the Supreme Court in December said it was at least temporarily staying out of it, rejecting a request from Smith's team to take up the matter quickly and issue a speedy ruling. But the court could yet still decide to act on a Trump team appeal, adding to the uncertainty of a trial date.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.

They said the actions Trump was accused of in his failed bid to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election to Biden, including badgering his vice president to refuse to certify the results of the election, all fell within the “outer perimeters” of a president’s official acts.

But Smith’s team has said that no such immunity exists in the U.S. Constitution or in prior cases and that, in any event, Trump’s actions weren’t part of his official duties.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, rejected Trump’s arguments in a Dec. 1 opinion that said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

Trump’s lawyers then appealed to the D.C. appeals court, but Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in first, in hopes of securing a fast and definitive ruling and preserving the March 4 trial date. The high court declined the request, leaving the matter with the appeals court.

The case was argued before Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointees of Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The judges made clear their skepticism of Trump’s claims during arguments last month, when they peppered his lawyer with tough questions and posed a series of extreme hypotheticals as a way to test his legal theory of immunity — including whether a president who directed Navy commandos to assassinate a political rival could be prosecuted.

Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, answered yes — but only if a president had first been impeached and convicted by Congress. That view was in keeping with the team’s position that the Constitution did not permit the prosecution of ex-presidents who had been impeached but then acquitted, like Trump.

The case in Washington is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House this year. He faces federal charges in Florida that he illegally retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a case that was also brought by Smith and is set for trial in May. He’s also charged in state court in Georgia with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election and in New York in connection with hush money payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Just wait until the Supreme Court overturns this corrupt Marxist Communist Facist Leftist Nazi ruling.

2 hours ago, GoBigBlack said:

Just wait until the Supreme Court overturns this corrupt Marxist Communist Facist Leftist Nazi ruling.

they shouldn't even take the case...it's a joke.

9 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

they shouldn't even take the case...it's a joke.

They probably won’t.

Another failure for the Republicans....wonk...wonk...

 

Mayorkas Interview

FILE - Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testifies during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on threats to the homeland, Oct. 31, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. As Republicans in the House of Representatives threaten to make Mayorkas the first Cabinet official impeached in nearly 150 years, Mayorkas says, in a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, he is “totally focused on the work" that his agency of 260,000 people conducts and not distracted by the politics of impeachment. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough, File)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a dramatic setback, House Republicans failed Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, forced to shelve a high-profile priority — for now — after a few GOP lawmakers refused to go along with the party’s plan.

The stunning roll call fell just a few votes short of impeaching Mayorkas, stalling the Republicans’ drive to punish the Biden administration over its handling of the U.S-Mexico border. With Democrats united against the charges, the Republicans needed almost every vote from their slim majority to approve the articles of impeachment.

The House is likely to revisit plans to impeach Mayorkas, but next steps are highly uncertain.

 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who could lose only a few Republicans from his slim majority, said he personally spoke to the GOP holdouts acknowledging the “heavy, heavy” vote as he sought their support.

“It’s an extreme measure,” said Johnson, R-La.. “But extreme times call for extreme measures.”

Not since 1876 has a Cabinet secretary faced impeachment charges and it's the first time a sitting secretary is being impeached — 148 years ago, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just before the vote.

The impeachment charges against Mayorkas come as border security is fast becoming a top political issue in the 2024 election, a particularly potent line of attack being leveled at President Joe Biden by Republicans, led by the party's front-runner for the presidential nomination, Donald Trump.

Record numbers of people have been arriving at the southern border, many fleeing countries around the world, in what Mayorkas calls an era of global migration. Many migrants are claiming asylum and being conditionally released into the U.S., arriving in cities that are underequipped to provide housing and other aid while they await judicial proceedings which can take years to determine whether they may remain.

The House Democrats united against the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, calling the proceedings a sham designed to please Trump, charges that do not rise to the Constitution's bar of treason, bribery or “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“A bunch of garbage,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. He called Mayorkas “a good man, a decent man,” who is simply trying to do his job.

Even if Republicans are able to impeach Mayorkas, he is not expected to be convicted in a Senate trial where Republican senators have been cool to the effort. The Senate could simply refer the matter to a committee for its own investigation, delaying immediate action.

The impeachment of Mayorkas landed quickly onto the House agenda after Republican efforts to impeach Biden over the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, hit a lull, and the investigation into the Biden family drags.

The Committee on Homeland Security under Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., had been investigating the secretary for much of the past year, including probing the flow of deadly fentanyl into the U.S. But a resolution from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a Trump ally, pushed it to the fore. The panel swiftly held a pair of hearings in January before announcing the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

Unlike other moments in impeachment history, the arguments played out to an almost empty chamber, without the fervor or solemnity of past proceedings.

Greene, who was named to be one of the impeachment managers for the Senate trial, rose to blame Mayorkas for the “invasion” of migrants coming to the U.S.

Republican Rep. Eli Crane if Arizona said Mayorkas had committed a “dereliction of duty.”

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Mayorkas impeachment vote was a stunt designed by Republicans to sow “chaos and confusion" and appease Trump — rather than to govern.

“No reasonable American can conclude that you're making life better for them by this sham impeachment,” Jeffries said.

A former federal prosecutor, the secretary never testified on his own behalf, but submitted a rare letter to the panel defending his work.

Tuesday's vote arrives at a politically odd juncture for Mayorkas, who has been shuttling to the Senate to negotiate a bipartisan border security package, earning high marks from a group of senators involved.

But that legislation, which emerged Sunday as one of the most ambitious immigration overhauls in years, is heading toward instant defeat in a Wednesday test vote. Trump sharply criticized the bipartisan effort, other Republicans are panning it and Speaker Johnson says it's “dead on arrival.”

One Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Ca., announced his opposition saying the charges “fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.”

The conservative McClintock said in a lengthy memo that the articles of impeachment from the committee explain the problems at the border under Biden's watch. But he said, “they stretch and distort the Constitution.”

Another Republican, retiring Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, also said he was against impeaching Mayorkas.

Impeachment, once rare in the U.S., has been used as both a constitutional check on the executive and increasingly as a political weapon.

The House Republicans have put a priority this session of Congress on impeachments, censures and other rebukes of officials and lawmakers, setting a new standard that is concerning scholars and others for the ways in which they can dole out punishments for perceived transgressions.

Experts have argued that Mayorkas has simply been snared in a policy dispute with Republicans who disapprove of the Biden administration's approach to the border situation.

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley said impeachment is not to be used for being “a bad Cabinet member.” Lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote, "Whatever else Mayorkas may or may not have done, he has not committed bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors."

Scholars point out that the Constitution's framers initially considered “maladministration” as an impeachable offense, but dropped it over concern of giving the legislative branch too much sway over the executive and disrupting the balance of power.

Three former secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson, said in a letter Tuesday that impeaching the Cabinet official over policy disputes would “jeopardize our national security.”

Senators have shown little interest in a potential impeachment trial. “I don’t think the House should do anything that’s dead on arrival in the Senate,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.

Trump as president was twice impeached — first in 2019 on abuse of power over his phone call with the Ukrainian president seeking a favor to dig up dirt on then-rival Biden, and later on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. He was acquitted on both impeachments in the Senate.

1 hour ago, DBP66 said:

Another failure for the Republicans....wonk...wonk...

House vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas fails, thwarted by Republican defections

LISA MASCARO

Updated Tue, February 6, 2024 at 6:48 PM EST·6 min read

2.9k

 

 

Mayorkas Interview

FILE - Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testifies during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on threats to the homeland, Oct. 31, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. As Republicans in the House of Representatives threaten to make Mayorkas the first Cabinet official impeached in nearly 150 years, Mayorkas says, in a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, he is “totally focused on the work" that his agency of 260,000 people conducts and not distracted by the politics of impeachment. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough, File)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a dramatic setback, House Republicans failed Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, forced to shelve a high-profile priority — for now — after a few GOP lawmakers refused to go along with the party’s plan.

The stunning roll call fell just a few votes short of impeaching Mayorkas, stalling the Republicans’ drive to punish the Biden administration over its handling of the U.S-Mexico border. With Democrats united against the charges, the Republicans needed almost every vote from their slim majority to approve the articles of impeachment.

The House is likely to revisit plans to impeach Mayorkas, but next steps are highly uncertain.

 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who could lose only a few Republicans from his slim majority, said he personally spoke to the GOP holdouts acknowledging the “heavy, heavy” vote as he sought their support.

“It’s an extreme measure,” said Johnson, R-La.. “But extreme times call for extreme measures.”

Not since 1876 has a Cabinet secretary faced impeachment charges and it's the first time a sitting secretary is being impeached — 148 years ago, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just before the vote.

The impeachment charges against Mayorkas come as border security is fast becoming a top political issue in the 2024 election, a particularly potent line of attack being leveled at President Joe Biden by Republicans, led by the party's front-runner for the presidential nomination, Donald Trump.

Record numbers of people have been arriving at the southern border, many fleeing countries around the world, in what Mayorkas calls an era of global migration. Many migrants are claiming asylum and being conditionally released into the U.S., arriving in cities that are underequipped to provide housing and other aid while they await judicial proceedings which can take years to determine whether they may remain.

The House Democrats united against the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, calling the proceedings a sham designed to please Trump, charges that do not rise to the Constitution's bar of treason, bribery or “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“A bunch of garbage,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. He called Mayorkas “a good man, a decent man,” who is simply trying to do his job.

Even if Republicans are able to impeach Mayorkas, he is not expected to be convicted in a Senate trial where Republican senators have been cool to the effort. The Senate could simply refer the matter to a committee for its own investigation, delaying immediate action.

The impeachment of Mayorkas landed quickly onto the House agenda after Republican efforts to impeach Biden over the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, hit a lull, and the investigation into the Biden family drags.

The Committee on Homeland Security under Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., had been investigating the secretary for much of the past year, including probing the flow of deadly fentanyl into the U.S. But a resolution from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a Trump ally, pushed it to the fore. The panel swiftly held a pair of hearings in January before announcing the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

Unlike other moments in impeachment history, the arguments played out to an almost empty chamber, without the fervor or solemnity of past proceedings.

Greene, who was named to be one of the impeachment managers for the Senate trial, rose to blame Mayorkas for the “invasion” of migrants coming to the U.S.

Republican Rep. Eli Crane if Arizona said Mayorkas had committed a “dereliction of duty.”

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Mayorkas impeachment vote was a stunt designed by Republicans to sow “chaos and confusion" and appease Trump — rather than to govern.

“No reasonable American can conclude that you're making life better for them by this sham impeachment,” Jeffries said.

A former federal prosecutor, the secretary never testified on his own behalf, but submitted a rare letter to the panel defending his work.

Tuesday's vote arrives at a politically odd juncture for Mayorkas, who has been shuttling to the Senate to negotiate a bipartisan border security package, earning high marks from a group of senators involved.

But that legislation, which emerged Sunday as one of the most ambitious immigration overhauls in years, is heading toward instant defeat in a Wednesday test vote. Trump sharply criticized the bipartisan effort, other Republicans are panning it and Speaker Johnson says it's “dead on arrival.”

One Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Ca., announced his opposition saying the charges “fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.”

The conservative McClintock said in a lengthy memo that the articles of impeachment from the committee explain the problems at the border under Biden's watch. But he said, “they stretch and distort the Constitution.”

Another Republican, retiring Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, also said he was against impeaching Mayorkas.

Impeachment, once rare in the U.S., has been used as both a constitutional check on the executive and increasingly as a political weapon.

The House Republicans have put a priority this session of Congress on impeachments, censures and other rebukes of officials and lawmakers, setting a new standard that is concerning scholars and others for the ways in which they can dole out punishments for perceived transgressions.

Experts have argued that Mayorkas has simply been snared in a policy dispute with Republicans who disapprove of the Biden administration's approach to the border situation.

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley said impeachment is not to be used for being “a bad Cabinet member.” Lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote, "Whatever else Mayorkas may or may not have done, he has not committed bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors."

Scholars point out that the Constitution's framers initially considered “maladministration” as an impeachable offense, but dropped it over concern of giving the legislative branch too much sway over the executive and disrupting the balance of power.

Three former secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson, said in a letter Tuesday that impeaching the Cabinet official over policy disputes would “jeopardize our national security.”

Senators have shown little interest in a potential impeachment trial. “I don’t think the House should do anything that’s dead on arrival in the Senate,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.

Trump as president was twice impeached — first in 2019 on abuse of power over his phone call with the Ukrainian president seeking a favor to dig up dirt on then-rival Biden, and later on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. He was acquitted on both impeachments in the Senate.

Nothing to really see here.  All they would do is replace one lefty who sucks at his job with another…all will change January 2025

24 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Nothing to really see here.  All they would do is replace one lefty who sucks at his job with another…all will change January 2025

do you know how much time and effort they put into this B.S.??....this was going to be the big gift for their supporters...getting rid of him....it was a high priority....guess not....wonk...wonk...more egg on their faces...🙄...maybe they can pass the Border bill in the Senate now...like he W.S.J. said they should??

36 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

do you know how much time and effort they put into this B.S.??....this was going to be the big gift for their supporters...getting rid of him....it was a high priority....guess not....wonk...wonk...more egg on their faces...🙄...maybe they can pass the Border bill in the Senate now...like he W.S.J. said they should??

All politicians waste time and money….so he gets impeached and who replaces him? Someone tougher on border security? I think not.  Just have to wait until November…but sadly how many more will pour over the border.  And Joey blaming 5he border crisis on Trump is borderline insanity/ dementia…..shows how scared and desperate the Dems are…..it’s all falling apart Joey can’t blame anyone but yourself…..but why would you? You can’t put three sentences together or exit the podium correctly!

Defend this! Can you imagine him up against Iran, Putin, Xi?

can’t wait for your reply @World Citizen  @GoBigBlack @golfaddict1