Almost IMPOTUS II

Sorry, novice here at Img. Been "trolling political" of both streams for awhile. Truly dislike the bias on both sides, as an independent, I'd like an honest debate to change my mind. No hate, just debate

The argument against trump is that he colluded with foreign governments to influence the election. The counter argument is there's no proof, just empty accusations. And there's actually no proof, just empty accusations. There's actually way more proof of democratic party corruption that has been exposed by this whole investigation than anything. The left and right are two heads of the same snake and this political theater puppet show is being used to renew the patriot act and push through the biggest spending bill in history. It's all done to distract the weak minded while both parties continue to extract from their cash crop= you.

read the "transcript"

and

"Russia if you are listening"

Trump could shoot someone on national tv and his cult would say "wheres the proof?"

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/russia-if-youre-listening/

Is the proof in the pudding? Or should I look somewhere else?

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the April 21 statement had been prepared by the National Security Council's Ukraine expert. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the NSC's Ukraine specialist, has provided closed-door testimony to the inquiry about the April and July calls. Vindman, who listened to the calls as they happened, is slated to testify at a public hearing on Tuesday.

"""" Who listened to the calls as they happened""""

"I would like you to do us a favor though".... ffs not to mention the HUNDREDS of documents he has failed to provide and witnesses he told not to testify despite lawful congressional subpoenas, if you cant tell trump is a corrupt incompetent unfit impotus by now, then there is little hope for you to ever figure it out ..

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6429025-Unclassified09-2019.html#document/p1

Personally, I do look at evidence. For example: Bill Clinton DID obstruct justice and was guilty of perjury. However my my feelings about what he did aside. He WAS guilty as charged.
As much I as a person" dislike Trump as a person, every bit of his impeachment is on partisan leanings.
No one should be could guilty based on wha another 'heard'. Doing this is nothing more than a reenactment of the Salem witch trials.
Again, don t care for the man, though do care about true justice...
I have more, would love to debate though this will be buried

yes bill did obstruct justice over a question that has nothing to do with running the country... trump IS GUILTY as he has prevented testimony and withheld documents and about a question that does have to do with the country.... HIS OWN "TRANSCRIPT" PROVES he is guilty of withholding aid for political purposes.... jfc smh.

the only difference here is Mitch Mconnel has ACTUALLY SAID he does not care about the evidence an will do whatever trump wants....

Personally, I want a trial. I want all of the people brought in for closed door questioning to be heard. To me, this is a truly Partisan effort to impeach a sitting President.
I also HATED the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Was he GUILTY of perjury and obstruction of justice? Yes. Did his acts warrant a boot no.
Corruption, in all guises should be looked into. Whether Trump or anyone benefits is inconsequential. Hillary Clinton should have been charged at the least for a security breach due to her handling of information.
Though it seems to me we, as a nation, gloss over the truth as long as it fits the present narrative

Put trump under oath and see if he is not guilty of perjury... he has already obstructed congress, foreign corruption is a foreign problem, its for their countries to deal with not ours, we need to worry about corruption in the US and there are few more corrupt than trump. "Im a very greedy person OK?"

Should I go ahead and eat more pudding then? It's still in there right?

Would it be better if during the 2016 campaign that Hillary Clinton was convicted (as any hourly/salaried government employee would have been) of failure to secure Top Secret information? She was eloquent, non-vulgar, and always had the appropriate demeanor of an "appropriate" Pesident, correct?

Though why wasn't Hillary held to that standard as Secretary of State? Much was made of Obama's unsecure BlackBerry on assuming office though steps were taken. A meeting with a former President, her husband Bill on a plane, on the tarmac, with the sitting Attorney General, not with standing. However, Hillary was given a pass. Again, why?

give it a rest -

https://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-whatsapp-ivanka-trump-clinton-emails-1371897

Thank you for the link. Didn't know about Kushner using WhatsApp. That is truly insecure. If placed in that position and he didn't change it the minute he was made aware, he, too should be prosecuted as Hillary should have been. Are you aware of any changes since that time of it's posting?

Comparing the two is pathetic.

Would you mind elaborating on why the comparison isn't equal?

With Clinton Some personal emails sent before 2014 had been deleted. Comey said there was no evidence of a cover-up.

Kushner's and Ivankas use of WhatsApp is far more serious and real. This is foreign business interactions and, by the way, it's being blocked from other parts of the U.S. government. This means foreign leaders have a better understanding about what the White House is communicating than our own intelligence community, our own law enforcement, and our own allies.

As I wrote above, I agree with you regarding Kushner. The article you referenced stated that Ivanka changed habits after being informed. Though since Hillary was exonerated for the same "careless handling" of Top Secret information, should both of them also be given a pass?

In my opinion, no, because all three would be given a pass for something an hourly/salaried person would not be. So all three should be charged for that offense.

To add, I believe that Trump overstepped with Biden's alleged involvement with his son's appointment. However, I do believe that tie should be investigated fully for possible corruption.

No it was not the same, and even after all the "Lock her up" nonsense they go and do way worse. She faced years of investigations... the trumps nothing. Its pathetic.

Really? She faced "years of investigations"? Where are those? However, Trump has been investigated since day one of his inauguration, perhaps before considering the report requested by the Clinton campaign. Could that be investigated as well for election tampering from a "foreign source"?

you ever hear of google, not just years, decades... it never ends with the cds...

https://www.npr.org/2016/06/12/481718785/clinton-scandals-a-guide-from-whitewater-to-the-clinton-foundation

CDS? Making a guess here, are you inferring that I have Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Funny, if that's the case. If not, what does CDS stand for?

and anyway going back to trump being a foul mouthed divisive traitor....

As for foul mouthed. I'll give you that. Point blank it's true in my opinion. As for traitor? I disagree, similarly as I stated to Kylie in a different thread. In summary of that, my belief is that corruption on any scale should be brought to light. Did this also serve him politically, yes.

Even so, as investigations regarding Trump should be given the light of a trial with all witnesses so, we, as an electorate can form an unbiased opinion, rather than closed door proceedings of the impeachment hearings. Shouldn't the possibility of corruption be pursued in all areas, to include former administrations? Yes

And 3 years of investigations into Trump since his election with nothing proven should be allowed?

Fact: Bill Clinton commited perjury
Fact: Hillary should have been prosecuted for improper security of Top Secret information
Fact: In both of these cases they were not prosecuted while if, either you or myself did, we'd be prosecuted and facing jail time.

Manhattan gets upset, as many of us do, when defenders of Trump say nothing has been proven. Trump has plainly lied, plainly attempted his quid pro quo, and plainly obstructed congressional investigation. how much proof is required?

also, i've never heard of a court saying 'well, pal, you're guilty as hell but i'm gonna let it slide 'cause these other people weren't prosecuted'.

Bill clinton lied about a bl***ob... oh the horror of the perjury, meanwhile trump has lied about pretty much anything.... we are done, your pretend bipartisanship is a farce

True, could care less about the act. Did he commit perjury, yes. Doesn't matter about the reason. He dragged it out, until finally repenting and admitting the TRUTH. THAT is also what I hope for and continually state regarding Trump. ALL witnesses need to be heard in a trial. As he's been impeached by the House. Instead of a "Let's see what sticks" mentality from Democrats for the last 3 years. Collusion, unproven. Treason, unproven. And so on...

Please move on and stop focusing on allegations rather than what is PROVEN. After all, under our rule of law, isn't EVERYONE, innocent until PROVEN guilty?

This last statement is not directed at you, specifically, more toward my hope for Congress. As you said stop retrying the past.

please... we are done dude, you are trying to appear fair, but you are a partisan hack...

May 29, 2019 - Mueller III, the special counsel, declined on Wednesday to clear President Trump of obstruction of justice in his first public characterization of his two-year investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential electio

In addition, I am anything but a partisan hack and actually take a bit of offense at that. Am I conservative? Yes.
To put this in perspective, in presidential elections, I've voted for an independent twice and three Republicans.
In state reps, I've voted for the same Democrat for 20 years.
For Governor, split 3-2 Republican

As you may not wish to be labeled, I don't either

True, though as I've said repeatedly, he was not convicted of a crime and is therefore innocent. Allegations are not a presumption of guilt in any court of law

I truly hope this is not the case. Honestly, as I've previously stated ALL witnesses from both sides need to be called.

smh... what is so hard about keeping up? yes that is the case. and the crooked people you keep supporting are the ones doing it.... clinton had lots of witnesses, and did not tell people not to testify when called.

I truly can keep up. As you obviously do, I research all available and form my own opinions based on the information from ALL sides.
My feelings regarding Hillary have been stated so I'll leave it be.

However, if you're willing to look at evidence regarding involvement of Trump's family in corruption and insecure communications, shouldn't we, as an electorate have a discussion (at the least) or more pertinent, and investigation of Biden and his family into corruption as well?

As for giving it a rest. To what are you referring? My stance on Hillary? I truly believe she should've been prosecuted. However, should we give passes to Kushner, and others for the same offense without acknowledging the previous offenders as people link Trump to Nixon?

On a complete aside, I would truly love our elected representatives in House and Senate to actually pass a balanced budget. Another one of their collective jobs that they have failed at consistently for over a decade! Hopefully, we can at least agree on that, no matter who is the Executive

The problem though is that it is now impossible to balance the budget without raising tax revenue and the Republicans are staunchly against that. In 2011, for the first time in our nation's history, the debt was raised to more than 100 percent of our gross domestic product.

Republicans still believe that trickle-down economics is a viable option but it's shown at least twice times in our nation's history that it doesn't work. The other option is to cut spending, but most Republicans are more inclined to cut everything but their own paychecks, which they continuously vote to raise; and military spending, and very little financial support to inactive or wounded veterans.

But it seems like what all our representatives are doing, on both sides, is gambling with our taxes in a kind of winner take all game before we inevitably default. They're consolidating the finances to themselves and the military purely to keep what little control they'll have once it all goes kablooie.

On that note, I agree that the Republicans that were voted in DID NOT do their job on election to balance the budget. However, how much of that was the Affordable Care Act that was NOT affordable and did NOT allow those, such as myself to keep my health plan. Instead, it forced employers to pass on costs to their employees. Personally, went from 10% as a family care plan to nearly 30% of my income since it was enacted. So perhaps you may forgive bitterness at that.
Btw, I'm at the upper lower end of the tax bracket with no hope of getting to middle income status. As such, I never get the helping hand of government. Make just a bit too much for subsidies after YEARS of working.

No, the ACA had nothing to do with balancing the budget. Nor would it's mandatory payments on any middle-class Americans have benefited nor strictly hindered the budget either.

Manhattan. Could you tell me the last time a balanced budget was passed?

I used to think there were no stupid questions, since the advent of the internet and the ability to look things up, you are changing my mind on that.

Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget. The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000.

If you haven't figured it out by now, I HATE both parties for not doing their Damn jobs. Just saying as a non-party HACK

lmao imagine an image of george washington defending richard nixon being produced just to own conservatives. hell world