Discussion in 'United States' started by Lucifer, Feb 7, 2020.
So any republican will do?
You an lower the bar if you'd like. Dig as far as you can then show us.
Do you think it at all odd that there is still no confirmation of the hearsay printed in The New York Times?
Specifically what hearsay are you referring to? Perhaps you can link to the Times article
Are you really incapable of understanding that if Obamacare is overturned protection for pre existing conditions goes away? Or are you pretending that if current protection goes away the Trump administration will propose and pass new legislation.
no actually the Constitution sets the bar for removing a President from office. And it says noting about felonies or witness tampering.
Yes without Obamacare the world couldn't have insurance that covers pre-existing conditions.
This is bad news for all countries that don't have Obamacare.
We should panic.
The New York Times is behind a paywall.
Nevertheless, the story has been breathlessly repeated. You might remember it.
The Times article reported that some anonymous person alleged that Bolton wrote something in a book.
Does it not seem odd that that still unconfirmed 'Bombshell' was released at such a strategically opportune time?
"In his upcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton writes that President Donald Trump told him he did not wish to release military aid to Ukraine until that country helped with investigations that could be damaging to Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, according to media reports." [Ha! More like one media report, endlessly repeated.]
Those are 2 high crimes, Trump committed no crimes. If he did cite the statute.
High crimes and misdemeanors do nor require a statute Are you not capable of understanding the Constitution.
Sorry lost your point assuming you had one.
Let me know if you can find one Republican bill that legislates healthcare for people with pre existing conditions. Otherwise you have no ground to stand on.
There's a little 'up' arrow; just after a quoted poster's name. That arrow is a link to the quoted post. It then becomes an easy task to backtrack to the beginning of a particular line of discussion.
Here. I did the work for you.
That's why he was acquitted.
That is funny!
The strength of their candidates (forgive the late response. Work has been nuts)
The Senate set the bar for removal from office by leaving Clinton in office after committing perjury in front of a Federal Grand Jury and witness tampering by attempting to get another potential witness to lie under oath as well, both felonies. If that's not enough to get an impeached President removed from office, nothing Trump did either. Why should Trump be removed for any less?
Reckon you are right, but did those terms exist when the Constitution was drawn?
Is your point that the Constitution is obsolete?
Because of course soliciting ( or bribing if you prefer) a foreign country it interfere with the election process is a whole lot worse and actually does rise to the high crimes requirement.
Well I agree. But then I think Trump will be too afraid to debate anyway. He appears to be in serious mental decline forgetting words, slurping his speech, being totally unable to recall facts or historical events unless of course he is reading from a teleprompter which isn’t allowed in the Presidential debates.
Yes, way out of date.
Huh? Every high crime or misdemeanor is listed in the crime code, it’s it’s not there it’s not a crime
Yes there is a crime code for bribery. That wasn’t even alleged in the articles of impeachment.
High crimes are felonies and witness tampering is one
Separate names with a comma.