In ‘Impeachment’ Talk, Washington Establishment Declares War on Trump Voters

[mystery-ak]

by Joel B. Pollak17 May 2017

Democrats were talking about impeaching Donald Trump long before he took office. The media have taken up the refrain in the past several days, insisting that the Washington Post and New York Times “scoops” — neither of which showed Trump doing anything illegal — are grounds for impeachment. Now some Republicans, like Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), are chiming in.

They are not just attacking Trump, but his voters. And they all may soon regret it.

Trump voters understand what is going on here. Trump declared he would “drain the swamp”; the swamp is fighting back.

more
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/17/in-impeachment-talk-washington-establishment-declares-war-on-trump-voters/

[flowers]

Trump voters understand what is going on here

  Yes they do.

[kevindavis007]

Looks like Breitbart is still covering for Trump...

[Jarhead]

Looks like Breitbart is still covering for Trump...

Covering what exactly? The fact that nothing criminal has been committed that would call for the impeachment of a President and they've been hollering for this before sworn in?

That is covering?

[beandog]

Looks like Breitbart is still covering for Trump...

Please tell us exactly what Breitbart is covering up.   

[geronl]

Trumpbart is back I guess.

Maybe they should be called Trump Harem?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Trump voters understand what is going on here. Trump declared he would “drain the swamp”; the swamp is fighting back.

Yes, we get it. 

[Jarhead]

Please tell us exactly what Breitbart is covering up.   

Interesting, Breitbart is historically a conservative site bashed by Hillary surrogates. Hmmmm

[Jarhead]

Trumpbart is back I guess.

Maybe they should be called Trump Harem?

You don't agree with the article?

[geronl]

Covering what exactly?

This article is nothing but foul smelling hot air produced by the author.

Trump declared he would “drain the swamp”; the swamp is fighting back.

Full of meaningless phrases and empty praises for their new lord and master.

[geronl]

You don't agree with the article?

There is nothing to agree or disagree with in the "article", it's nothing but fluff and farts.

[Right_in_Virginia]

This article is nothing but foul smelling hot air produced by the author.
Full of meaningless phrases and empty praises for their new lord and master.

Methinks you need some fresh air .... why not go take a long walk?

[Jarhead]

This article is nothing but foul smelling hot air produced by the author.
Full of meaningless phrases and empty praises for their new lord and master.

It's blatantly obvious you didn't read a word of it beyond maybe the headline. So with that said do you disagree with the following?

"There is no substance to the claims against him. There is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia. There is no evidence he compromised national security in sharing terror intelligence with Russia — as Obama had done. And the idea that he obstructed justice in talking with former FBI director James Comey is demonstrably untrue."

[corbe]

Interesting, Breitbart is historically a conservative site bashed by Hillary surrogates. Hmmmm

   Breitbart was a historically Conservative site when Andrew ran it, BUT since bannon turned it into Trumpbart their Conservative credentials went right out the window. @Jarhead

[Jarhead]

There is nothing to agree or disagree with in the "article", it's nothing but fluff and farts.

Your hatred for the man is obvious. I mean I don't agree with about 20% of his agenda and think they are bad policies however you attack him through personal hatred so it begs to question who do you support?

[Jarhead]

   Breitbart was a historically Conservative site when Andrew ran it, BUT since bannon turned it into Trumpbart their Conservative credentials went right out the window. @Jarhead

What conservative then may I ask do you stand behind? Because I can tell you not a single one would have changed what is taking place or have the impact Trump has had on the establishment. And he wasn't even my first choice

[ABX]

Looks like Breitbart is still covering for Trump...

I'm not sure 'covering' is the right way to look at it in the case of this article. This, however, is clear manipulation of the readers. What the article is doing is making it personal to the reader that the attack is on them. It gets them emotionally involved. When you act out of emotions, your rationality is set aside, then, they'll believe anything negative about the President is a personal attack on them.

We saw the same thing under Obama. Any attack on him was not only 'racist' against him, but it was made personal, it was a racist attack against his voters. People on the left didn't look at any attack or charge rationally to find if there was truth in it, they took it as a personal attack against them.

[musiclady]

Interesting, Breitbart is historically a conservative site bashed by Hillary surrogates. Hmmmm

Bizarre implication of a false accusation.

Are you saying that anyone who recognizes that Breitbart is no longer conservative and is in the middle of a love affair with Donald Trump is a Hillary surrogate?

You don't know much about conservatism or the conservatives on this board do you?

The opposition to Trump on this board is that Trump is far, far too liberal and unprincipled.


Maybe you got confused, or sumpin.........   

@Jarhead

[geronl]

It's blatantly obvious you didn't read a word of it beyond maybe the headline. So with that said do you disagree with the following?

"There is no substance to the claims against him. There is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia. There is no evidence he compromised national security in sharing terror intelligence with Russia — as Obama had done. And the idea that he obstructed justice in talking with former FBI director James Comey is demonstrably untrue."

demonstrably untrue? really? He can demonstrate that when the most powerful man on Earth suggests the FBI director not look into that unregistered foreign agent who was appointed to National Security Advisor, that this is anything other than an order disguised as a request? Then weeks later he fires the man he was praising and hugging just months ago?

He appointed an unregistered foreign agent to a highly sensitive position and then apparently tried to shut down any investigation.

[geronl]

What conservative then may I ask do you stand behind? Because I can tell you not a single one would have changed what is taking place or have the impact Trump has had on the establishment. And he wasn't even my first choice

He has embraced the establishment.

[Jarhead]

Bizarre implication of a false accusation.

Are you saying that anyone who recognizes that Breitbart is no longer conservative and is in the middle of a love affair with Donald Trump is a Hillary surrogate?

You don't know much about conservatism or the conservatives on this board do you?

The opposition to Trump on this board is that Trump is far, far too liberal and unprincipled.


Maybe you got confused, or sumpin.........   

There is NO DOUBT he is moderate however most of his positions and policies are far more conservative than what any so called conservative has thrown up in the last 30 years.

Border security through wall
Cut off immigration
Invest in America
Kill Obamacare
Bring jobs back (I don't agree 100% with his policy on this one)
Cut taxes across the board
Kill regulations crippling business
Openly talk about faith
Kill EPA regs
Open up land reserved by the Feds and place back under State control

So educate me on conservatism in what above isn't conservative? I'll holler louder than anyone when he steps outside of conservatism such as his tarrifs policy but this has been about the media working in cahoots with liberals on overthrowing a constitutionally elected President.

[Jarhead]

He has embraced the establishment.

Daily news scandals and Congresscritter and their money masters statements say otherwise. Again who do you support?

[corbe]

What conservative then may I ask do you stand behind? Because I can tell you not a single one would have changed what is taking place or have the impact Trump has had on the establishment. And he wasn't even my first choice

   @Jarhead there was only ONE Conservative running in that recent fiasco you call an election and had he not been caught with 6 mistresses and his Dad in on the JFK killing he might of had a chance.   As far as the rest of your dribble I guess we'll never know.

[Jarhead]

demonstrably untrue? really? He can demonstrate that when the most powerful man on Earth suggests the FBI director not look into that unregistered foreign agent who was appointed to National Security Advisor, that this is anything other than an order disguised as a request? Then weeks later he fires the man he was praising and hugging just months ago?

He appointed an unregistered foreign agent to a highly sensitive position and then apparently tried to shut down any investigation.

I didn't know he was an unregistered foreign agent. Really? That's criminal. Did I miss the subpoena and indictment or testimony of the numerous who have testified that stated this? You make accusations and cast judgement  without a scintilla of evidence or proof

[Jarhead]

   @Jarhead there was only ONE Conservative running in that recent fiasco you call an election and had he not been caught with 6 mistresses and his Dad in on the JFK killing he might of had a chance.   As far as the rest of your dribble I guess we'll never know.

I supported and hell still support Cruz as well! However Cruz would have been under the same crap Trump is going through and quite honestly don't know he'd be able to handle it any better.