Senate Intel Committee releases Russian INTERFERENCE REPORT
 

Nothing to see here, IRA=The Russian Internet Research Agency

One communication obtained by the Committee details an IRA employee's description of Election Day 2016, from the vantage of an information warfare operative: "On November 9, 2016, a sleepless night was ahead of us. And when around 8 a.m. the most' important result of our work arrived, we uncorked a tiny bottle of champagne ... took one gulp each and looked into each other's eyes .... We uttered almost in unison: "We made America great."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...rt_Volume2.pdf

The GOP-led Senate intelligence committee reaches a conclusion that it's GOP-led House counterpart did not reach back in 2018: that the online troll farm campaign was directed by the Kremlin to harm Hillary Clinton and benefit Donald Trump.

So let me understand this every single federal agency and now the Senate intel confirms what the hoax mueller investigation laid out and yet the only one left who either doesn’t believe it or won’t admit it is the one person benefiting the most by that help. I guess that explains why he hasn’t supported or pushed for broad sweeping moves to address foreign powers interfering in our democratic process. Oh wait, what am I saying, of course he won’t, in fact he knows he needs that help and is actively seeking it against what our founders said was an impeachable offense.

I love the right on this board constantly complaining about how the left just can’t accept they lost the election, I see the flip side which is as clear as a bell; Trump is obsessed with proving and defending the legitimacy of his win. I suggest that obsession and his impulsive tendencies explain a lot about his governing style and wacky tweeting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly the greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What no insult first, your slipping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dummycraps have been obsessed with characterizing his win as illegitimate since seconds after the announcement of his win and they've gone to relentless despicable lengths to destroy his presidency...soooo...

Repeat, repeat, repeat, I get your position, my word it's as clear as SD constantly posting best president of our lifetime. Could be congress is doing it's job and trying to hold a president accountable, one who clearly thinks he is above the law, but keep telling yourself its all a vendetta.

Here are a couple of calls for Trump's opponent to be impeached prior to election, look around and you can find more.

National Review
August 1, 2016
If the government were functioning properly, Congress would impeach Hillary Clinton, not refer her misconduct to the same administration that indulged it in the first place.

If Hillary Is Corrupt, Congress Should Impeach Her
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
August 23, 2016 4:20 PM
The Framers gave Congress a tool to police corrupt executive-branch officials — Congress should use it.
For our recent “Tricky Hillary” issue (National Review, Aug. 1, 2016, on NR Digital), I wrote a feature arguing that Mrs. Clinton should be impeached. Given that, through the last quarter-century of our politics, we have learned that pending Clinton scandals are interrupted only by new Clinton scandals, it comes as no surprise that my point has just been proven by a scandal that erupted last week.

Now Hillary didn't get elected but the second article is interesting and applicable to the current debacle.

The test of fitness for an office of public trust is whether an official is trustworthy, not whether she is convictable in a criminal court. Consequently, as I outlined in Faithless Execution, “high crimes and misdemeanors” — the Constitution’s trigger for impeachment — need not be violations of the penal code. As Hamilton explained, impeachable offenses are misconduct stemming “from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” and are thus properly “denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

A public official may not be indicted by a grand jury for an extensive pattern of deceiving Congress and the public. There is no such penal offense. But it is most certainly grist for impeachment.

There is a commonsense reason why impeachable offenses are easier to prove than criminal offenses: Impeachment has nothing to do with the deprivation of a fundamental right — liberty and property are not at stake as they would be if a term of imprisonment and a fine could be imposed, as in a criminal case. In impeachment, the sole issue is whether a public trust should be removed because a government official has shown herself to be unworthy of it.

In impeachment, the official is held to a higher standard of conduct because public office is an extraordinary privilege, not a fundamental right. Public office is a trust with awesome attendant powers; a person may be manifestly unfit for it without having committed indictable crimes. Therefore, high crimes and misdemeanors — which, again, need not be indictable penal offenses — are easier to prove: Congress may fashion its own rules for the proceeding, there is no judicial oversight, and no requirement that all essential elements of criminal offenses be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under strict rules of evidence — Congress must merely determine that violations of the public trust have occurred and that they warrant removal of that trust. By contrast, because a criminal prosecution does involve the potential deprivation of fundamental rights, the standards of proof are more exacting and the protections of judicial due process are guaranteed.

This should be obvious for yet another reason: If impeachment were the equivalent of a criminal conviction, an impeached official could not be subjected to prosecution in addition to being impeached. That would violate the Constitution’s double-jeopardy principle. Our law, however, expressly prohibits such an outcome. In directing that the penalty for impeachment is limited to removal from office and disqualification from holding office in the future, the Constitution (in Article I, Section 3) provides that “the Party convicted [in a Senate impeachment trial] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Again: The point is for Congress to strip the undeserving official of trust and power. Whether she also warrants criminal prosecution is separately determined by executive branch prosecutors.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

GS, he won the election, and humiliated them in the processes. are you going to deny they hate him?

you had maxine waters and congresswoman talib calling for
impeachment on day one, they weren’t even trying to hide the fact that they were looking to impeach.

sure it’s possible he fairly deserves to be impeached. it’s also possible that this isn’t appropriate, that it is in fact a personal vendetta.

there was a guy on cnn, head of the psychology department at Duke, who says that trump may have killed
millions more than hitler. that went unchallenged. manic says he’s exterminating latinos. is that what you’d call a sane environment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Won’t argue that he is easy to despise and it’s clear even on both sides even if they won’t verbalize it, a ton of people despise Trump; there isn’t anyone who comes to mind easier to hate.

In my opinion and unless you completely disagree with every poll out there, this impeachment inquiry is 100% valid and congress is doing its job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can we at least all agree that “impeachment overturns an election” is an idiotic talking point? Last I checked the constitution, Mike Pence would become president if Trump is removed, not Hillary Clinton.

where do you get this stuff?

Multiple polls show a majority of those polled agree that the inquiry is valid and necessary. Unlike the imaginary polls Trump refers to which apparently have his numbers through the roof. I really think he just isn't getting enough sleep and carpel tunnel syndrome is probably on the near horizon for him.

:rollem:

The Stable Genius is bizarrely saying that impeachment is unconstitutional (even though the process is literally written into the Constitution) while suggesting that various House members should be impeached, which is not something that is allowed for in the Constitution.

And as the president and House Republicans throw around charges of a “kangaroo court,” this might be a good time to remind people that it was the Republicans who changed House rules in 2015 to give committee chairmen unilateral subpoena power.

You assume to much Pete, he doesn't read and I'd be amazed if he has even read the constitution.

Fixed it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I do admit Pete has been a busy boy, but there is a major difference between a guy posting up a storm on a fishing board, than a president tweeting angrily at the world, while making foreign policy decisions on the fly by tweet and without consulting ANYONE other than a foreign leader. Glad you pulled your head out of the sand for a moment to catch a breath, I was beginning to worry.

Things will come to an end very soon now that Trey Gowdy is on the case since they have him on record as saying it is inapropriate for the President to withhold documents and information from Congress.

Joe DeGenerate says Impeachment is Regicide.

I don't have time to even come close to the Stable Genius, just today he has 25 tweets and probably as many retweets.
I have to work for a living, I guess you have more time if you are President.

Nothing to worry about with Putin's Puppet in charge.