TRUMP CAN INDICT US, LETS GET RID OF HIM!

fvcking them may be................

Why Leave empty space when they cal call him two things on one page?

Hes also just a pedophile. But liberals always take a pseudo moral high ground instead so wouldn't run just on victim statements they need the justice system that doesn't respect victims to first decide that they don't believe the victims so no one goes to jail and everyone just fains emotional support for the traumatized.

Liberals...

Oops forgot a colon.

What criminals has he exposed?

Again, not sure who you're talking about.

Where are the indictments?
Who's been arrested?
Who's in jail?

Only most of Trumps former cabinet is in jail.

Virtually NONE of them are doing that. Bernie has a very straightforward plan on how to pay for things. It is the right who wants everything, doesn't make any cuts in programs, and reduces taxes.

They want everything and they don't want to pay for it.

Bernie Sanders admitted that his plan will result in higher taxes on the middle class.

It’s the Democrats who want distribution of wealth so they get everything and don’t have to work and pay for it.

OF COURSE, DEMOCRAT MENTALITY = TAKE TAKE TAKE!

Between 1954 and 1969, the greatest growth years of the American middle class, America's top tax bracket was 91% on earnings over 200,000.

Before WWI, only the rich were taxed.

This isn't a new philosophy, it's going back to traditional American values. America used to help lift those from below, up to succeed as well.

Instead, today we make college students pay 8% on student loans, tax the rich 22%, the lowest rate because most of their income is through dividends and stock market growth, while the working stiff making under 200k gets taxed the highest rates of any American.

“tax the rich 22%”
No, the rich get taxed at 35% or more. 22% is the rate for those making $34k to $84k. Those making less than that are taxed 12% or less.

In 1954 the poorest Americans were taxed at 20% and up. Is that what you’re voting for? Then you prove my point that Democrats sucker you to vote for higher taxes on yourself.

The rich do not pay 35% in tax. Most of their income is found through stocks and bonds.
You sound like you're thinking wages. They don't make their income through wages.
Wages are taxed the highest. That's what I was saying.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/

America has always had a strongly progressive tax rate, driving and investing in people at the bottom. That's gone now.

Cops who break the law to put bad guys in jail end up in jail themselves.

Fair. Cops who break the law to put bad guys in jail *deserve to* end up in jail themselves.

everyone who breaks the law should be in jail, but some skate because of politics, even when there is 10000% proof. "We had pics and video tape" "we had everything" ~ Robach

yup

Back to the original meme, though...if Trump broke the law to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, should he be impeached?

"If" anyone breaks the law they should go to jail.. ALL of them but they often dont, see photo. pics and video, how does that sit with u?

If anyone breaks the law, they should pay for their crime. She's got verifiable proof that Clinton was there, and committed a crime while there? I want it known, and appropriate justice served. No matter if I think he was a good president - justice over party.

So what about you? If Trump broke the law, should he be impeached?

do you know what "Anyone" means? .

does video tape and pics in the act count as "Proof" ? (her words)

I do know what the word means. You seem averse to writing the words, though, as though specifically stating that your guy should go to jail if he did something wrong is a defeat in some way.

If she's got evidence of a crime (and those things do count as evidence), I want it out. Especially if it's incontrovertible. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to secure adequate protection from Trump's DOJ, if she was worried about retaliation.

you must be Stevie wonder.. blind

"I've had the story for three years. I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts. [...] she told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. [...] it was unbelievable what we had. Clinton. We had everything. [...] What we had was unreal. Other women backing it up - yup. Brad Edwards, the attorney, three years ago saying, 'There will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.' [...] There were a lot of men in those planes, a lot of men who visited that island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment. [...] Ghislaine Maxwell, I had all sorts of stuff on her too. [...] She knows everything. [...] she went out and recruited all of these girls."

This text, right here, is literally all there is in this video. You don't have tapes from ABC, you don't have tapes or pictures from Virginia Roberts, you don't have names of the other women backing it up, you don't have Brad Edwards on tape making that statement, you don't have any specifics of who was on the plane, on the island, or in the apartment, or when, you don't have any corroboration from Ghislaine Maxwell.

This monologue is not proof. It is just words. It is an angry rant. It is a very specific accusation, from a seemingly credible source. It is *absolutely* a reasonable basis for a subpoena to gather the *actual* evidence she claims she had (and if she had it at any point, I'd be shocked if she didn't keep a few copies of it for her own safety). IT IS NOT PROOF, in and of itself. If you think it is, then I've got a few emails from Nigerian princes to send your way.

Einstein"simplify things" My bad, I thought you knew what "Anyone" means.. very simple but apparently not for you..

I want the evidence out too but Trump or the DOJ has zero jurisdiction because the girl in question moved to Australia for "fear of getting killed"

So there's no evidence available to the authorities because the only one with the evidence left the country. She told some folks about what she had, and once word got out that she had it she left in fear.

If what she has is legit, then that's terrible and the US has ways of getting that information without jeopardizing their relationship with Australia. Seriously, the only way this would pose a problem is if Australia granted her asylum, and the US tried to bring her back to the US. She doesn't have to be here to hand over evidence. All she has to do is walk into the US Embassy and give it to Ambassador Culvahouse Jr., who is Trump's guy and who'll gladly send it directly to where it should go.

If what she has is legit, then Trump's DoJ would offer her every bit of protection the US government can afford, and if that level of protection isn't enough then Hillary Clinton is more powerful than the entire US Government. Which is a ludicrous statement. Also, if she was worried about getting killed, she's just as easy to find there as she is here and isn't likely to have been offered any protection by the Aussies. So she's either already dead or (more likely) was never in any real danger.

Either she doesn't have anything that constitutes irrefutable evidence so it's not worth it to protect her, she doesn't have anything AT ALL and just doesn't want to go to jail for crimes she's committed, or she genuinely believes that Trump can't protect her from Clinton. If it's the first two, then whatever. If it's the last, then that's dumb and someone needs to give her a stern talking to.

Let's say Trump actually did pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden, withholding aid funding in a quid pro quo arrangement. That's illegal, right? Should he be impeached for that? What evidence would you need to convince you that's what happened? Or, let's say Trump's tax returns come out and he's guilty of tax evasion, a crime that doesn't always carry a prison sentence but shows a dishonest character and a willingness to break the law. Should he be impeached? I just want to know the threshold of impeachment for a Trumper. What would it take for you to accept impeachment of Donald Trump as an actual legitimate constitutional process rather than a political stunt?

just watch the robach tape, it will simplify it.

I see about as much proof in that tape as you do in the impeachment testimony. It's intriguing, and I'd like to know more, but in and of itself it is not proof. It's a journalist's unhappiness at missing out on a scoop.