Jump to content

Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat


Recommended Posts

Trump recent bogus claims that when Hillary wins, she would be impeached or tied up with investigations is just projection on his part. He is the one who would be tied up in investigations of his frauds, sexual assaults, rapes, monumental lies, and Russian connections. He would also very probably get impeached for being such a clueless treasonous fascist and tanking the country's economy.....or maybe nuking Finland...

 

Here is a intelligent analysis of his fraudent claims and lies.

 

Donald Trumps Impeachment Threat

The New York Times

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

NOV. 3, 2016

Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign -- warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.

 

Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous. In effect, what theyre saying is, Mrs. Clinton wont be able to govern, because we won't let her. So dont waste your vote on her. Vote for us.

 

In a rational world -- you know, one that values comity and progress in the national interest -- this line of argument would be seen as incendiary at worst and hopelessly wacky at best. Not so in Trumpland, where the candidate himself warns (as he did in Miami on Wednesday) that a Clinton victory would "create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis" raising the specter that government would be severely hobbled by congressional Republicans' open-ended investigations and a determination to impeach Mrs. Clinton. All this even if she was fairly elected by a majority of American voters.

 

"Havent we just been through a lot with the Clintons?" Mr. Trump asked. The work of government would grind to a halt if she were ever elected.

 

The tactic is a rejection of the nations need of a functioning government and a tacit concession that Mr. Trump may be losing and that he can be saved only by more scare tactics. Other Republican candidates in tight races have picked up this theme. The G.O.P. phrase du jour is "constitutional crisis," depicting a hog-tied executive and a Republican Congress obsessed with perpetuating their demonization of Mrs. Clinton. Senator Richard Burr, campaigning for re-election in North Carolina, took the Trump fantasy one step further, telling supporters: "Could she pardon herself? And the answer is yes."

 

Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr. Trumps most zealous acolytes, echoed this cry to carry the battle forward into a Clinton administration. "I guarantee you in one year shell be impeached and indicted," Mr. Giuliani promised Iowa voters this week. "It's just going to happen. Were going to sort of vote for a Watergate."

 

As nonsensical as this strategy appears, these threats could cause real damage by encouraging Republicans in the next Congress to effectively take the government hostage, exacting revenge by making sure that nothing Mrs. Clinton proposes ever comes to pass. President Obama put it well in underlining the dangers. "Right now, because a lot of them think that Trump will lose, theyre already promising even more unprecedented dysfunction in Washington," he told North Carolina voters this week. "How does our democracy function like that?"

 

That is not a question remotely of interest to Mr. Trump, in his kamikaze politicking. Yet in recalling the tumultuous impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Mr. Trump neglects to note that he was opposed to it, writing in 2000 that he "got a chuckle out of all the moralists in Congress and in the media." Mr. Giuliani, before his servile devotion to Mr. Trump, also opposed Mr. Clintons impeachment.

 

Beyond simple hypocrisy, the Republicans' impeachment threat demonstrates their gathering disrespect for democracy. If they can't gain control of government fairly, they'll simply undermine it. It is the clearest warning yet that voters must deliver a firm rejection of the politics of division that Mr. Trump represents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump recent bogus claims that when Hillary wins, she would be impeached or tied up with investigations is just projection on his part. He is the one who would be tied up in investigations of his frauds, sexual assaults, rapes, monumental lies, and Russian connections. He would also very probably get impeached for being such a clueless treasonous fascist and tanking the country's economy.....or maybe nuking Finland...

 

Here is a intelligent analysis of his fraudent claims and lies.

 

Donald Trumps Impeachment Threat

The New York Times

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

NOV. 3, 2016

Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign -- warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.

 

Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous. In effect, what theyre saying is, Mrs. Clinton wont be able to govern, because we won't let her. So dont waste your vote on her. Vote for us.

 

In a rational world -- you know, one that values comity and progress in the national interest -- this line of argument would be seen as incendiary at worst and hopelessly wacky at best. Not so in Trumpland, where the candidate himself warns (as he did in Miami on Wednesday) that a Clinton victory would "create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis" raising the specter that government would be severely hobbled by congressional Republicans' open-ended investigations and a determination to impeach Mrs. Clinton. All this even if she was fairly elected by a majority of American voters.

 

"Havent we just been through a lot with the Clintons?" Mr. Trump asked. The work of government would grind to a halt if she were ever elected.

 

The tactic is a rejection of the nations need of a functioning government and a tacit concession that Mr. Trump may be losing and that he can be saved only by more scare tactics. Other Republican candidates in tight races have picked up this theme. The G.O.P. phrase du jour is "constitutional crisis," depicting a hog-tied executive and a Republican Congress obsessed with perpetuating their demonization of Mrs. Clinton. Senator Richard Burr, campaigning for re-election in North Carolina, took the Trump fantasy one step further, telling supporters: "Could she pardon herself? And the answer is yes."

 

Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr. Trumps most zealous acolytes, echoed this cry to carry the battle forward into a Clinton administration. "I guarantee you in one year shell be impeached and indicted," Mr. Giuliani promised Iowa voters this week. "It's just going to happen. Were going to sort of vote for a Watergate."

 

As nonsensical as this strategy appears, these threats could cause real damage by encouraging Republicans in the next Congress to effectively take the government hostage, exacting revenge by making sure that nothing Mrs. Clinton proposes ever comes to pass. President Obama put it well in underlining the dangers. "Right now, because a lot of them think that Trump will lose, theyre already promising even more unprecedented dysfunction in Washington," he told North Carolina voters this week. "How does our democracy function like that?"

 

That is not a question remotely of interest to Mr. Trump, in his kamikaze politicking. Yet in recalling the tumultuous impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Mr. Trump neglects to note that he was opposed to it, writing in 2000 that he "got a chuckle out of all the moralists in Congress and in the media." Mr. Giuliani, before his servile devotion to Mr. Trump, also opposed Mr. Clintons impeachment.

 

Beyond simple hypocrisy, the Republicans' impeachment threat demonstrates their gathering disrespect for democracy. If they can't gain control of government fairly, they'll simply undermine it. It is the clearest warning yet that voters must deliver a firm rejection of the politics of division that Mr. Trump represents.

Editorial board of the New York Times. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you ran. Just like you're still doing, child.

 

 

 

It's true. I chalked you up for a crackpot. I have no intention to discuss "chinagate" with a conspiracy crackpot. You can call it running or whatever you like, but it just ain't happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disrespect for democracy is at the core of conservative government

 

Paul Krugman says all the Clinton hate boils down to their goal of dismantling Medicare

is that the new dem talking point,, its all to kill medicare for the old people lol wont work this time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no intention to discuss "chinagate" with a conspiracy crackpot.

You never did. Just like the woman accusing Trump of rape never had any intention of showing up at Bloom's smear conference.

 

Oh, and by the way pg ...

 

More bad news ...

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/dismal-ratings-for-dicaprios-global-warming-epic-before-the-flood-beaten-by-bubble-guppies/

 

Dismal ratings for DiCaprio’s Global Warming Epic ‘Before the Flood’ – beaten by ‘Bubble Guppies’

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never did. Just like the woman accusing Trump of rape never had any intention of showing up at Bloom's smear conference.

 

Oh, and by the way pg ...

 

More bad news ...

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/dismal-ratings-for-dicaprios-global-warming-epic-before-the-flood-beaten-by-bubble-guppies/

 

 

:D

Just as long as she shows up in court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early December

 

 

No, child.

 

How many times do you have to be told something for it to sink in?

 

Are you this inattentive in your classes?

 

If so, I'm afraid that flipping burgers is your future, Sixteen.

 

Because as I've already pointed out repeatedly, the meeting in December will only be attended by the lawyers.

 

That's what the Judge's order to both parties said.

 

It's a status meeting "for counsel".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, child.

 

How many times do you have to be told something for it to sink in?

 

Are you this inattentive in your classes?

 

If so, I'm afraid that flipping burgers is your future, Sixteen.

 

Because as I've already pointed out repeatedly, the meeting in December will only be attended by the lawyers.

 

That's what the Judge's order to both parties said.

 

It's a status meeting "for counsel".

So what. It's not going away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...