After this's all over, I hope the U.S. gov't bills Trump for the damage he's done to our reputation

[Chankgeez]

Yeah, impeachment is a reach at this point though.

If nothing else, Trump's guilty of extremely bad optics. Seems he never thinks how his actions will be possibly interpreted.

Also, for the most part, he has nobody to blame for his antagonistic relationship with the media but himself. It goes way back before the primaries.

[Jwar]

No president has ever been impeached

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached by the House of Representatives, and Nixon would certainly have joined the list had he not resigned before the House voted. No president has been convicted of impeachment by the Senate, but that is not what I said.

It helps to know what words mean before you use them.

Both Jackson and Clinton were acquitted by the Senate. So it was only a partial impeachment and was overturned. Nixon on the other hand resigned before the full impeachment process took place.

So he's right. No president has been impeached in the sense of what impeachment is meant to be.

IMPEACHMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION. ... "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[Jwar]

So I guess what I mean by that is, yes they were charged, no they were not convicted. Therefore the impeachment process did nothing.

[Jwar]

Also before you answer DOS, I just wanted to say. Your mother.


Ok that is all.

EDIT

Goddamn it I suck at grammar sometimes.

[D.o.S.]

So I guess what I mean by that is, yes they were charged, no they were not convicted. Therefore the impeachment process did nothing.

Well it didn't do nothing (especially as Nixon resigned), but sure.

Also I love you buddy.

[Chankgeez]

Ok that it all.

[repoman]

Hey can someone please explain what exactly the "russian interference" and hacking is?

What exactly does it mean?

Interfered how? Hacked what?

russia hacked the registered voter data base. kellyconway (pollster) and steve bannon? use this info to tell which districts voting machines need to be hacked?

if you dig around this guys twitter, he shows districts with 101-106% voter turnout. one really small historicaly D district that turd won had something like %96 voter turnout, AFAIR anything above 90% is statistically impossible.

https://www.unhackthevote.com/category/voting-machines/

https://www.unhackthevote.com/i-defy-an ... 7-for-gop/

https://www.unhackthevote.com/how-did-b ... ould-flip/

Well, there's this, but there's also hacking into and releasing DNC e-mails.

Not to mention attempts to influence public opinion via social media.

Has this actually been established though? Thats my point, has anyone said "Russia hacked the DNC emails, here is the proof..."

and

"Russias social media actions were ...[and insert the actual evidence, instances here]"

I've completely missed those if they exist. All I've seen is the implication these are actual things through weaselly manipulative reporting.

[Chankgeez]

Yes, I should've included the word "alleged" in those statements. As of now, they're just allegations.

Those things are difficult to prove with any absolute certainty.

Someone hacked the DNC and released those e-mails though. It probably wasn't the Democrats.

Weaselly, manipulative reporting aside, who else is looking into these allegations?

[repoman]

Where did the allegations even come from though?

Don't allegations need to be substantiated before an investigation is conducted?

Wikileaks has said the source was from someone in the DNC.

You can see some republicans pushing back in the war of weasel words in the media leaving little bread crumbs that it was Seth Rich.

(Now there are allegations that wikileaks are a Russian operation too)

[Chankgeez]

So, you think somebody inside the DNC leaked those documents?

[repoman]

I don't know.

[repoman]

look at this shit

"journalism"

[Strange Tales]

My friend mentioned to me yesterday that if this plays out how we expect it to [impeachment/etc] with how far this has a possibility to go down in the ranks, that this might signal the end of the Republican party as a whole.

I think that that's slightly hyperbolic, but I do see where hes coming from.

[Chankgeez]

Well, regardless of whether the allegations that the Trump campaign/administration colluded with the Russians are true or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's appearing more and more that Trump isn't really cut out for the Presidency.

[repoman]

My friend mentioned to me yesterday that if this plays out how we expect it to [impeachment/etc] with how far this has a possibility to go down in the ranks, that this might signal the end of the Republican party as a whole.

I think that that's slightly hyperbolic, but I do see where hes coming from.

I think this is naive.

Trumps appeal was that HE was the one that was going to destroy the GOP.

I think the majority of conservative voters hate the GOP at least as much (if not more) than the DNC.

Conservatives see the vast majority of GOP as conservative in rhetoric and democrats in reality, which is shown how the republicans are in a position of a ton of power and are not doing anything actually conservative, just keeping the status quo thats comfy for the democrats. I think they are two sides of the same coin, will slander each other in the press, and they give each other handjobs behind closed doors.

Trump is legitimately not part of the club, which is why both DNC and GOP hate him so much. Time will tell if he becomes part of the club, I think he will.

The worst of the visible swamp being: McCain, Graham, Ryan, Rubio, and the usual bloviating loud mouth dems like Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Waters, Warren, Feinstein, etc.
(I think the career politicians more or less)