New CNN Poll Shows 50% of Americans Support Removing Trump From Office

I am not arguing that leaking the questions should happen or that Donna should not have been punished for doing such, but to argue that it provided even a close to remotely significant alteration to that one debate, let alone the entire primary, is laughable.

 

That tells me that you strongly accept government rulers. So what is your beef vs Trump? I realize you think saying you may commit a crime is a crime, but I think one must first commit one for it to be a crime. At least in our legal system.

 

Let's sum it up as thus: It showed bias, the type of bias that shouldn't exist in a coordination between candidate and media sources. It's the type of thing we should be made aware of, without a foreign power's meddling is what I've been trying to say.

I for one, intend to respect the rules of debate if I'm able to get a campaign off the ground. I won't ask for questions in advance.

 

You are really making a terrible argument to claim that a statement is categorically false because of zero proof while simultaneously citing to a TINY FRACTION of the proof provided.

Here's another massive chunk: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

This post is poorly phrased.

 

That is now how law works. Well, until Democrats go dingy over this.

I shall try to levelly reply to things you say.
First one does not snoop for potential.
If this becomes how it is, even you are subject to simply being snooped on by Government due to things you say here.

Say Trump decided to have DOJ investigate you. You stipulated you would obey any subpoena.

A felony is defined by law code. So what law code do you refer to reference Trump?

 

That is the same kind of assessment that caused G.W. Bush to invade Iraq. Are you sure you want to count on those lads?

 

That tells me I hit a nerve and you simply refuse to reply to the points made.

 

Here is how polls work on the forum. A partisan finds ONE poll that supports their confirmation bias then ignores all the other inconvenient polls.

 

G.W. Bush rejected the assessment that Iraq did not have WMDs and demanded a new assessment.

Yes, I want to rely on those lads.

 

You can tell yourself whatever you like, but I still don't understand that particular post.

 

Of course, as in the case with Trump the CIA assessments are always correct, like the WMDs, Bay of Pigs, ISIS, etc...

 

Tell me your level and I shall try to work with that? Should my comments be like to an 8th grader or a 12th grader or some level of college? I can work with you once you establish your own level.

 

Bush as president never stated Saddam had WMD. You are confusing statements by Colin Powell who says he personally spent 2 full weeks at CIA looking at their alleged proof and he was so persuaded he told the UN that Saddam has them.

Bush directly confronted the head of CIA then, one George Tenet who assured Bush that Saddam has plenty.

Bush did say though that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger. I took that to mean that in the future Saddam would perhaps have nuclear bombs.

Keep in mind that Bush never invaded North Korea over perhaps having nuclear bombs. So that can't be the thinking of Bush as to why he invaded Iraq

 

Two people were a major factor in the Bush invasions of Iraq. 1 was the assurance of George Tenet who declared to Bush, will you assure me Mr. Tenet that Saddam has dangerous WMD? Tenet replied, it is a slam dunk. What was Bush to think? 2 Was what Colin Powell told President Bush. Colin researched the CIA data banks and told Bush that of course Saddam has WMD.

Bush was never told that Saddam lacked wmd.

 

That is not true. I know the truth since I have read a plethora of books on this very topic. Bush in fact was taken back when Tenet assured him that Saddam has WMD.

 

If you notice, not one Democrat has produced written evidence that Bush rejected reports by the CIA. They have no proof. Democrats have amnesia since Bush was on public record for what he did actually say. He went so far as to claim Saddam was a grave and gathering danger. Prior to the invasion, this is what Bush told reporters. Notice he does not claim Saddam has WMD. He wanted Saddam to disarm.

 

I have a J.D.

 

The rest of your nonsense aside, you don't have a crime.

 

The rest of your nonsense aside, I don't need to find a crime to establish that an impeachable offense took place. But it just so happens here, that we do have a crime being committed by Trump.

 

Yeah except you don't, other than the one you're trying to imagine into reality.

 

See post #4.

 

The only defensive argument you folks have left for defending Trump's effort to request campaign assistance from a foreign government (a campaign law violation) in the form of an announced investigation against his domestic political rival while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions in military aid, a requested meeting, and a restoration of trade rights is that no one has yet testified that trump personally told them that he wanted those linked. But, of course, Trump has also unilaterally prevented the individuals most likely to possess knowledge of that direct order, which is means that he is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.

And then Trump admitted, publicly, that he held up the military aid because he wanted an investigation into crowdstrike during an interview with Fox & Friends on Friday.

Have you gotten on board the "Trump did not know what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine," train?

 

Yeah except asking for campaign assistance is just your imagination hoping for something to cling to in your desperation.

We don't need to defend him. There's nothing to defend.

Investigating why the VP threatened to withhold aid unless a prosecutor was fired for investigating a corrupt company in a corrupt country that your basically retarded son works for isn't a crime.

 

And therein lies the desperate attempt to spin. You and I both know there is zero evidence to support Shokin being fired because he was investigated Burisma.

But here's the fun part about Trump's idiotic decision to release that memo of the phone call. It is concrete proof that Trump wanted campaign assistance because he wanted an announced investigation against Joe and Hunter Biden specifically. Without that phone call, you could claim a plausible deniability that Trump just wanted an investigation into the 2016 election and Burisma oil (even though, it does not take a retard to understand that Burisma Oil was shorthand for Hunter Biden).