Sign of Republicans Lawmakers Turning on Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

It doesn't matter what they think. They are winning because they have the numbers. They are winning because the United States does not have an Attorney General.

The FEC Chair has plainly said that it's illegal. Repeatedly. But laws only matter if they are enforced.

Impeach Trump if you think he is violating the law and accept the decision by the Senate if they choose not to convict him. It is the way our system works.

You have another option whether you impeach him or not: convince the voters that Trump is someone who does not obey the law and therefore does not deserve to be reelected. If the voters still decide to reelect him, then accept that verdict and move on - again, the system worked even if you did not like the end result.

They system cannot work when it is intentionally obstructed and when the people who are empowered to enforce it fail to do so. That is the point.

[Anonymous]

And if you think there won't be more interference in the 2020 election, I have a bridge to sell you.

It is getting worse, with more jurisidictions using the hackable electronic voting systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

It doesn't matter what they think. They are winning because they have the numbers. They are winning because the United States does not have an Attorney General.

The FEC Chair has plainly said that it's illegal. Repeatedly. But laws only matter if they are enforced.

Impeach Trump if you think he is violating the law and accept the decision by the Senate if they choose not to convict him. It is the way our system works.

You have another option whether you impeach him or not: convince the voters that Trump is someone who does not obey the law and therefore does not deserve to be reelected. If the voters still decide to reelect him, then accept that verdict and move on - again, the system worked even if you did not like the end result.

They system cannot work when it is intentionally obstructed and when the people who are empowered to enforce it fail to do so. That is the point.

Just because you are not able to get the end result that you would like does not mean that the system does not work. The founders wisely established a very high threshold for removing a duly elected president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

It doesn't matter what they think. They are winning because they have the numbers. They are winning because the United States does not have an Attorney General.

The FEC Chair has plainly said that it's illegal. Repeatedly. But laws only matter if they are enforced.

Impeach Trump if you think he is violating the law and accept the decision by the Senate if they choose not to convict him. It is the way our system works.

You have another option whether you impeach him or not: convince the voters that Trump is someone who does not obey the law and therefore does not deserve to be reelected. If the voters still decide to reelect him, then accept that verdict and move on - again, the system worked even if you did not like the end result.

They system cannot work when it is intentionally obstructed and when the people who are empowered to enforce it fail to do so. That is the point.

Just because you are not able to get the end result that you would like does not mean that the system does not work. The founders wisely established a very high threshold for removing a duly elected president.

Did they envision a senate that was compromised by special interests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

Nixon did it. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

Nixon did it. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

Um. Nixon did it is not a great defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

It doesn't matter what they think. They are winning because they have the numbers. They are winning because the United States does not have an Attorney General.

The FEC Chair has plainly said that it's illegal. Repeatedly. But laws only matter if they are enforced.

Impeach Trump if you think he is violating the law and accept the decision by the Senate if they choose not to convict him. It is the way our system works.

You have another option whether you impeach him or not: convince the voters that Trump is someone who does not obey the law and therefore does not deserve to be reelected. If the voters still decide to reelect him, then accept that verdict and move on - again, the system worked even if you did not like the end result.

They system cannot work when it is intentionally obstructed and when the people who are empowered to enforce it fail to do so. That is the point.

Just because you are not able to get the end result that you would like does not mean that the system does not work. The founders wisely established a very high threshold for removing a duly elected president.

That is a sideways non-response, ignoring process. The very high threshold does not allow obstruction and dereliction of duty. You basically said, yes, we are cheating, but that doesn't mean the system doesn't work. The system does work, but you have to participate it in as required by law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

It doesn't matter what they think. They are winning because they have the numbers. They are winning because the United States does not have an Attorney General.

The FEC Chair has plainly said that it's illegal. Repeatedly. But laws only matter if they are enforced.

Impeach Trump if you think he is violating the law and accept the decision by the Senate if they choose not to convict him. It is the way our system works.

You have another option whether you impeach him or not: convince the voters that Trump is someone who does not obey the law and therefore does not deserve to be reelected. If the voters still decide to reelect him, then accept that verdict and move on - again, the system worked even if you did not like the end result.

They system cannot work when it is intentionally obstructed and when the people who are empowered to enforce it fail to do so. That is the point.

Just because you are not able to get the end result that you would like does not mean that the system does not work. The founders wisely established a very high threshold for removing a duly elected president.

The election was compromised by russia. We already know that, it is proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

Nixon did it. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

Ok, wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

Nixon did it. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

The story is interesting, but if we're trying to figure out whether asking a foreign power to intervene in an election is wrong and should be punished, you need to show that presidents who haven't been impeached have done it. Is there any evidence that a Democrat has behaved in this way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

Nixon did it. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

Um. Nixon did it is not a great defense.

How about Clinton?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/08/tucker-carlson-uncovers-electionyear-request-from-bill-clinton-to-tony-blair-n2554331

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

Nixon did it. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

Um. Nixon did it is not a great defense.

How about Clinton?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/08/tucker-carlson-uncovers-electionyear-request-from-bill-clinton-to-tony-blair-n2554331

Is there any evidence other than from Tucker Carlson, who isn't exactly a non biased real journalist.

Senate R lead Intelligence Committee just came out with a report stating that Russians interfered in our elections in support of Trump. Have they found any proof that any other government had this much affect on our elections in support of a Dem?

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-in-2016

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that it's neither illegal, nor an impeachable offense, for a politician--including the President--to use his or her position to seek political favors. It's standard operating procedure and all the swamp creatures in Washington do it, constantly. That's part of "politics."

Asking genuinely to Trump supporters: why do you think this? Can you think of another example where a president has asked a foreign power for help in an election?

The irony is that by refusing to punish his behavior, you are ensuring that from now on, we will in fact get the swamp that you think we already have.

Nixon did it. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

Um. Nixon did it is not a great defense.

How about Clinton?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/08/tucker-carlson-uncovers-electionyear-request-from-bill-clinton-to-tony-blair-n2554331

Is there any evidence other than from Tucker Carlson, who isn't exactly a non biased real journalist.

Senate R lead Intelligence Committee just came out with a report stating that Russians interfered in our elections in support of Trump. Have they found any proof that any other government had this much affect on our elections in support of a Dem?

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-in-2016

Just because Tucker Carlson found the evidence does not mean it is biased. If you look at the article you will see it is the official transcript of the call. It is pretty clear

[Anonymous]

Here is the transcript itself, direct from the archives

https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/48779

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if you think there won't be more interference in the 2020 election, I have a bridge to sell you.

It is getting worse, with more jurisidictions using the hackable electronic voting systems.

They’re promoting propaganda now.