The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on January 05, 2019, 09:36:50 pm
-
Steyer Dumps More Cash Into Impeach Movement As Dems Jump On Board
3:07 PM 01/05/2019 | Elections
Chris White | Energy Reporter
Billionaire Tom Steyer is dumping more money into his campaign to oust President Donald Trump as incoming Democratic lawmakers consider jumping on board the movement to impeach the president.
Steyer is plowing another $6 million into what some Democratic leaders worry is an ill-fated attempt to impeach the president, The Daily Beast reported Friday. Some liberal progressive lawmakers are warming to the idea, while House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi pushes back.
He remains focused on “getting Donald Trump out of the White House,†Need to Impeach strategist Kevin Mack told reporters. “We’d like to have that happen through impeachment but if we have to we’ll beat him at the ballot box in 2020,†he noted, referring to speculation of Steyer’s political ambition.
That bulk of the cash will go to national cable and broadcast advertising in early presidential primary states like Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. Approximately $2.5 million will go to television campaigns while another $3.5 million is expected to be plowed into a digital effort.
more
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/05/nancy-pelosi-impeachment/
-
I would like to know just what these impeach Trump folks expect to charge him with. I don't like Trump, but that's not enough cause for impeachment. Until and unless all these investigations produce something that would be considered an impeachable offense, an impeachment is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
-
I would like to know just what these impeach Trump folks expect to charge him with. I don't like Trump, but that's not enough cause for impeachment. Until and unless all these investigations produce something that would be considered an impeachable offense, an impeachment is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitutional Republic The Low-Info morons think we have a Parliamentary System, where the Prime Minister can be chucked out by a simple vote of No Confidence.
-
So, instead of working on border security, instead of making a budget (if they even remember what one of those is on Capitol Hill) these twits are hell bent on trying Trump for ...just what, exactly?
Delusion writ large. They have started believing their own bullshit.
-
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitutional Republic The Low-Info morons think we have a Parliamentary System, where the Prime Minister can be chucked out by a simple vote of No Confidence.
Hey...They got him now.
-
Hey...They got him now.
Go ahead Steyer.
Dump it all into impeachment and the rest of us won't have to see you "In The NEWS" once you're broke.
-
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Delusion writ large. They have started believing their own bullshit."
When have they NOT "believed their own b.s." ??
-
In spite of GOP stellar's like Issa, Gowdy and the like unable to bring one single charge against that ho, hellary, Trump has baggage and these morons will find it, unfortunately.
It's how they roll.
-
Hey...They got him now.
888high58888
-
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Delusion writ large. They have started believing their own bullshit."
When have they NOT "believed their own b.s." ??
LBJ seemed a mite cynical when he signed the Act that would have 'the n______s voting Democrat for 50 years'. Do I think he believed the BS? Nope. It was a calculated move. Between then and now, they've started believing their own crap, or at least some of them have.
-
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitutional Republic The Low-Info morons think we have a Parliamentary System, where the Prime Minister can be chucked out by a simple vote of No Confidence.
So "I don't like him" is not an impeachable offense? The democrats will be SOOOO disappointed.
-
LBJ seemed a mite cynical when he signed the Act that would have 'the n______s voting Democrat for 50 years'. Do I think he believed the BS?
@Smokin Joe
Of course he believed it. Why else do you think he and the people who supported him went to all that trouble?
And he was right,too. More than 90 percent of the blacks that vote,vote Dim.
In some districts,the Dims get more than 100 percent of the black vote. People who are dead,cartoon characters,and other imaginary people vote Dim in those districts.
-
So "I don't like him" is not an impeachable offense? The democrats will be SOOOO disappointed.
Article 1. He's a motherf....r
Article 2. Ahh
-
Don't they realize they get Pence, even if it gets past the Senate? Are these people this crazy?
-
Don't they realize they get Pence, even if it gets past the Senate? Are these people this crazy?
This from a party that believes that whomever wins the popular vote wins the Presidency.
Oh That was a Rhetorical question! Nevermind.
-
This from a party that believes that whomever wins the popular vote wins the Presidency.
Oh That was a Rhetorical question! Nevermind.
And if the Got Pence they'd be howling about how much More Extreme he is than Trump was, and it'll be Off To The Races Again with these Brownshirts.
-
And if the Got Pence they'd be howling about how much More Extreme he is than Trump was,...
@To-Whose-Benefit?
That's because it is their default position on anything they don't promote.
-
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitutional Republic The Low-Info morons think we have a Parliamentary System, where the Prime Minister can be chucked out by a simple vote of No Confidence.
I used to think the bar had to be set pretty high, but then looking back on the two impeachments in our history, frankly they were for relatively minor things.
Andrew Johnson had 13 articles of impeachment- mostly around him firing and hiring people in the war department congress didn't like. The 12th and 13th article were basically 'disrespecting congress' - he mocked members of congress and the body in public.
Of course, we all know Bill Clinton's story. The investigation started with possible illegal structuring of land deals (Whitewater) and ended up being charged with lying about an affair and instructing others to lie.
Ideally, the bar for 'high crimes' should be very, very high, but our history shows that a congress willing to act, will set that bar very low if they don't like someone.
-
I used to think the bar had to be set pretty high, but then looking back on the two impeachments in our history, frankly they were for relatively minor things.
Andrew Johnson had 13 articles of impeachment- mostly around him firing and hiring people in the war department congress didn't like. The 12th and 13th article were basically 'disrespecting congress' - he mocked members of congress and the body in public.
Of course, we all know Bill Clinton's story. The investigation started with possible illegal structuring of land deals (Whitewater) and ended up being charged with lying about an affair and instructing others to lie.
Ideally, the bar for 'high crimes' should be very, very high, but our history shows that a congress willing to act, will set that bar very low if they don't like someone.
@ABX Yup.
Whenever I see somebody post, "Is that an impeachable offense?" I always answer: "An 'Impeachable offense' is whatever the House wants it to be." They can Impeach the President over a Tweet if they want to.
-
@ABX Yup.
Whenever I see somebody post, "Is that an impeachable offense?" I always answer: "An 'Impeachable offense' is whatever the House wants it to be." They can Impeach the President over a Tweet if they want to.
At least with Clinton I believe they waited until he was found in contempt of Court, right?
To me, that's a good bar for impeachment.
-
@ABX Yup.
Whenever I see somebody post, "Is that an impeachable offense?" I always answer: "An 'Impeachable offense' is whatever the House wants it to be." They can Impeach the President over a Tweet if they want to.
True. But then if there aren't real high crimes, etc involved the congress, or more specifically the party in control, runs the real political risk of looking really, really stupid. Sets one helluva crappy precedent too.
-
I believe Pelosi is waiting for Mueller's report; I heard her say that so maybe she meant that. Certainly if the report has a legal criminal charge against Trump, she will go for impeachment. A judge, yesterday or the day before, extended the life of the grand jury dealing with the Mueller investigation.
-
I believe Pelosi is waiting for Mueller's report; I heard her say that so maybe she meant that. Certainly if the report has a legal criminal charge against Trump, she will go for impeachment. A judge, yesterday or the day before, extended the life of the grand jury dealing with the Mueller investigation.
She wants the political cover. Something/anything from the Mueller report will be the basis for Impeachment, and a lot of GOP will support it because they hate Trump as much as the Rats. We'll see support for the charges right here on TBR. I can make book on that.
-
She wants the political cover. Something/anything from the Mueller report will be the basis for Impeachment, and a lot of GOP will support it because they hate Trump as much as the Rats. We'll see support for the charges right here on TBR. I can make book on that.
I'd expect that from the rats, they're nucking futs. But coming from 'republicans' takes sour grapes to an entirely new level.
-
@ABX Yup.
Whenever I see somebody post, "Is that an impeachable offense?" I always answer: "An 'Impeachable offense' is whatever the House wants it to be." They can Impeach the President over a Tweet if they want to.
Which as crazy as it sounds, is in line with Andrew Johnson's impeachment.
Example, this was Article 10 of Johnson's impeachment:
That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:
-
In spite of GOP stellar's like Issa, Gowdy and the like unable to bring one single charge against that ho, hellary, Trump has baggage and these morons will find it, unfortunately.
It's how they roll.
They will not find anything impeachable. They will find behavioral flaws but that will only draw attention to worse flaws among former democrat presidents; i.e Clinton and Kennedy.
-
Which as crazy as it sounds, is in line with Andrew Johnson's impeachment.
Example, this was Article 10 of Johnson's impeachment:
The Rats can just Cut And Paste that and they are good to go.
-
They will not find anything impeachable. They will find behavioral flaws but that will only draw attention to worse flaws among former democrat presidents; i.e Clinton and Kennedy.
@Emjay
You are not paying attention, and you underestimate the slobbering love affair between the Rats and the press. A "reason" will be trumped up.
-
@Emjay
You are not paying attention, and you underestimate the slobbering love affair between the Rats and the press. A "reason" will be trumped up.
Oh, believe me, I understand the depths to which the Rats and the press will sink. But remember the Kavanaugh debacle? They don't talk about that much anymore, do they?
-
@ABX Yup.
Whenever I see somebody post, "Is that an impeachable offense?" I always answer: "An 'Impeachable offense' is whatever the House wants it to be." They can Impeach the President over a Tweet if they want to.
Yeah... cuz.... you know....
it's not like the Democrat-controlled House has anything, like credibility, to lose. :laugh:
-
Oh, believe me, I understand the depths to which the Rats and the press will sink. But remember the Kavanaugh debacle? They don't talk about that much anymore, do they?
No. No, they don't. Especially since Kavanaugh sided with the left over the Planned Parenthood ruling review. Which makes me think that those of us that were pro-Kavanaugh's confirmation have been ""played"".
-
Yeah... cuz.... you know....
it's not like the Democrat-controlled House has anything, like credibility, to lose. :laugh:
I see a lot of Democrats who have been chomping at the bit to get revenge for the Clinton impeachment, even though it is 20 years later. They will do whatever it takes to have a 'back atcha' moment and want nothing more than to get Trump under oath to likely perjure himself (and thus, mirror Clinton's impeachment charges). Remember, the Clinton impeachment didn't start about an affair with an intern but improper structuring of land deals (Whitewater) and Ken Starr 'followed the investigation wherever it would go' similar to Muller starting out with the phony Russia scandal and just 'following it wherever it goes'.
In many ways, the Republicans created the template now being used and really set themselves up if it does happen, by throwing everything behind someone who brags about how good of a liar he is.
-
I see a lot of Democrats who have been chomping at the bit to get revenge for the Clinton impeachment, even though it is 20 years later. They will do whatever it takes to have a 'back atcha' moment and want nothing more than to get Trump under oath to likely perjure himself (and thus, mirror Clinton's impeachment charges). Remember, the Clinton impeachment didn't start about an affair with an intern but improper structuring of land deals (Whitewater) and Ken Starr 'followed the investigation wherever it would go' similar to Muller starting out with the phony Russia scandal and just 'following it wherever it goes'.
In many ways, the Republicans created the template now being used and really set themselves up if it does happen, by throwing everything behind someone who brags about how good of a liar he is.
So when, exactly, has Trump bragged about being a good liar? I must have missed that.
Also, Bubba (I call him BJ for obvious reasons...) lied not just under oath, but also to the American public on national TV. If you can come up with a "lie" from Trump that rivals that, please do so.
-
She wants the political cover. Something/anything from the Mueller report will be the basis for Impeachment, and a lot of GOP will support it because they hate Trump as much as the Rats. We'll see support for the charges right here on TBR. I can make book on that.
@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
Trump made the words, "hate" and "unfair" the most used words in the universe.
The word "hate" means nothing which is why people throw it around to attack someone. I do not use it to attack a person; only use it if I am defining it or responding to someone who called me a "hater".
So, your comment "...a lot of GOP will support it because they hate Trump..." doesn't say why they are "against" Trump. There has to be a reason why they don't support Trump and "hate" is a throw away word that is used because it is so easy to type without defining the composition of the word.
An example is:
"I hate Trump because he has an orange face." That sentence tells us the composition of "hate" in that sentence. One could use another word except "hate" which connotes meaning, such as, "Trump's orange face is ridiculous, showing his desire to be "with it" just as combing his back hair over his scalp to the front which is bald, is ridiculous.
-
So when, exactly, has Trump bragged about being a good liar? I must have missed that.
Also, Bubba (I call him BJ for obvious reasons...) lied not just under oath, but also to the American public on national TV. If you can come up with a "lie" from Trump that rivals that, please do so.
The Art of the Deal, he has a whole chapter on it. He called it 'Truthful Hyperbole' and even had several stories about it including how he lied to get financing for a project by tricking investors by 'just moving dirt around' to make it look like work was being done.
In relation to Bubba's lying, what he said on TV didn't matter- it was under oath is what got him. That's what I mentioned above- the Dems want him under oath for anything. They'll find the lie. And frankly, Bubba's lie about an affair was pretty insignificant and didn't have anything to do with policy, so you don't want to go down that path of rival lying.
-
@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
Trump made the words, "hate" and "unfair" the most used words in the universe.
The word "hate" means nothing which is why people throw it around to attack someone. I do not use it to attack a person; only use it if I am defining it or responding to someone who called me a "hater".
So, your comment "...a lot of GOP will support it because they hate Trump..." doesn't say why they are "against" Trump. There has to be a reason why they don't support Trump and "hate" is a throw away word that is used because it is so easy to type without defining the composition of the word.
An example is:
"I hate Trump because he has an orange face." That sentence tells us the composition of "hate" in that sentence. One could use another word except "hate" which connotes meaning, such as, "Trump's orange face is ridiculous, showing his desire to be "with it" just as combing his back hair over his scalp to the front which is bald, is ridiculous.
An even better example is:
"I hate Trump because, like a typical elitist leftist idiot double-wrapped in a moron, I am against anything or anyone that is pro-America or anyone that is for improving the US economy, which helps the middle class....(vs. sending never-ending foreign aid to people that hate America and 'also', like myself and my leftist cohorts, want to see the USA fail or be destroyed)."
-
Oh, believe me, I understand the depths to which the Rats and the press will sink. But remember the Kavanaugh debacle? They don't talk about that much anymore, do they?
@Emjay
I see your point. :beer:
-
Go ahead Steyer.
Dump it all into impeachment and the rest of us won't have to see you "In The NEWS" once you're broke.
I am reminded of the tens of millions spent to defeat Ted Cruz. I love it when the Marxists pour money into a losing proposition.
-
@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
Trump made the words, "hate" and "unfair" the most used words in the universe.
The word "hate" means nothing which is why people throw it around to attack someone. I do not use it to attack a person; only use it if I am defining it or responding to someone who called me a "hater".
So, your comment "...a lot of GOP will support it because they hate Trump..." doesn't say why they are "against" Trump. There has to be a reason why they don't support Trump and "hate" is a throw away word that is used because it is so easy to type without defining the composition of the word.
An example is:
"I hate Trump because he has an orange face." That sentence tells us the composition of "hate" in that sentence. One could use another word except "hate" which connotes meaning, such as, "Trump's orange face is ridiculous, showing his desire to be "with it" just as combing his back hair over his scalp to the front which is bald, is ridiculous.
I stand corrected. There are plenty of GOP who "dislike" him enough.
-
They will not find anything impeachable. They will find behavioral flaws but that will only draw attention to worse flaws among former democrat presidents; i.e Clinton and Kennedy.
Obstruction of Justice (Comey firing). Or the never used Crimes Against the USA (Russia or whatever).
-
No. No, they don't. Especially since Kavanaugh sided with the left over the Planned Parenthood ruling review. Which makes me think that those of us that were pro-Kavanaugh's confirmation have been ""played"".
Kavanaugh sided on the side of states rights, I do not have a problem with that.
-
Kavanaugh sided on the side of states rights, I do not have a problem with that.
Uh... I think you're confused. It sounds to me like he ruled for Planned Parenthood and against the rights of Kansas and Louisiana.
The Maine senator was referring to the fact that earlier in the day -- over the dissent of conservatives Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- the court decided not to take up two cases brought by Kansas and Louisiana concerning defunding Planned Parenthood.
At issue was whether the states could terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care -- like cancer screening and birth control -- to low-income women.
Lower courts ruled against Kansas and Louisiana, handing a victory to Planned Parenthood.
https://www.waaytv.com/content/national/502414181.html (https://www.waaytv.com/content/national/502414181.html)
-
The Art of the Deal, he has a whole chapter on it. He called it 'Truthful Hyperbole' and even had several stories about it including how he lied to get financing for a project by tricking investors by 'just moving dirt around' to make it look like work was being done.
In relation to Bubba's lying, what he said on TV didn't matter- it was under oath is what got him. That's what I mentioned above- the Dems want him under oath for anything. They'll find the lie. And frankly, Bubba's lie about an affair was pretty insignificant and didn't have anything to do with policy, so you don't want to go down that path of rival lying.
Yeah, well... I don't really care about what he said to cinch a real estate deal back in the day. I only care about what he said to get elected and what he says now.
As for Bubba's lie.... he and his (better/worse ?) half pretty much lie every time their lips move... and they lie about things that negatively effect American lives. None of Trump's lies to make a real estate deal had much impact on Americans. So as far as I'm concerned, there is NO comparison whatsoever.