• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Impeachment as a non-partisan action

NotreDame said:
Impeachment “always considered an option” is tantamount to the president’s head always on Robespierre’s guillotine and counting the number of thumbs pointed down as to determine whether to attempt to chop off the head of the president.

“Always considered an option”? That absolute statements covers, unfortunately, what arguably is appropriate behavior by the executive but not palatable behavior from the perception of the House. So, to fashion a Northern Star to guide future presidents of what the House deems appropriate by its collective opinion, they impeach the president for arguably appropriate behavior.

Impeachment isn’t “always considered an option.” It is more akin to the nuclear option, reserved for consideration for the most egregious conduct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Still an option, even when it's a very bad one(period) Hence the statement about being ready to bring the proof worthy of such a big decision
 
Taking the previous two posts together on essentially this point (and I appreciate the non-partisan tone):
NotreDame said:
Impeachment isn’t “always considered an option.” It is more akin to the nuclear option, reserved for consideration for the most egregious conduct.
Click to expand...

My response, generally, is that I disagree. I think any federal office holder should behave as if the sword of Damocles was hanging over their head, to behave as if the post is not theirs by right and could be taken away at any time, to be as chaste as Caesar's wife. Remember, the House is voted every two years, so if they screw up, they get replaced.

The framers expected impeachment to be much more prevalent and the House to be the primary legislative body - the motivator of the government, and closest to the people. The approach that it is "last resort" is a modern invention. They were chary of executives arrogating power to themselves, and debated the standard extensively. There are built-in checks: first, a super majority is required for removal; second, the option to bar such official from further office (or not); and third, as mentioned, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard. All militate against invoking it willy-nilly, but none lower the expectation of unimpeachable behavior - which literally means "beyond reproach" - in office.
[Y]our reasoning lead[s to] unimpeded, well justifies is more accurate, impeachment when and where the House wants to set a “standard” for “appropriate behavior.”
Click to expand...
Yes, yes it does. That is part of the constitutional checks and balances.
 
Last edited:
chuckiechan said:
In a perfectly moral world, all you would be doing is impeaching. And where would you get your candidates? Great men usually have great flaws.
Click to expand...

Those flaws do not always encapsulate running the white house like your personal mafia club, like Trump.
 
Keridan said:
Still an option, even when it's a very bad one(period) Hence the statement about being ready to bring the proof worthy of such a big decision
Click to expand...

But impeachment “shouldn’t always be an option.” When “it’s a very bad one” then impeachment “shouldn’t be an option” for the “very bad one” or for conduct that isn’t bribery, treachery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.
Click to expand...

well I think we need to have the ability to impeach the president but in this case what is it about? Phone call quid pro quo you have to have evidence to support this, so far there isn't any.

This isn't a criminal proceeding but it's hard not to think about criminal proceedings in the same way. The only reason we see impeachment being spoken about over this call to the Ukraine is because it involved candidate running for election in 2020.

Donald Trump was asking for an investigation into Hunter Biden. There is reasonable suspicion to believe that there was some wrongdoing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

In this case the president is doing his job.
 
NotreDame said:
But impeachment “shouldn’t always be an option.” When “it’s a very bad one” then impeachment “shouldn’t be an option” for the “very bad one” or for conduct that isn’t bribery, treachery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Go ahead and give me the constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors - hint, there isn't one and most scholars think it means something congress doesn't like
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.
Click to expand...

Can Congress abuse their power of impeachment? I mean, if is really this bad, why did they take off for Thanksgiving? Why wont they go to court and seek to adjudicate Bolton or Giulliani executive privilege arguments?
Is Congress behaving appropriately for the standards of impeachment?
 
Keridan said:
Go ahead and give me the constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors - hint, there isn't one and most scholars think it means something congress doesn't like
Click to expand...

First, I’m incredulous that “most scholars think it means something congress doesn’t like.”

Second, reducing the analysis to a popularity contest establishes only the number of people in agreement. Such head counting is not indicative of who is right, who is wrong, or what is or isn’t a strong, logical argument.

Third, the conclusion you made was qualified with the word “should.” More specifically, impeachment “should always be an option.” I interjected that such a broad statement would encapsulate behavior by a president that is appropriate.

I then opined impeachment shouldn’t be considered for the exercise of power that is appropriate.

You’re contesting that claim which suggests you take the view that even for appropriate behavior, impeachment should be option. That view isn’t logical.

A good ol’ fashion logical reading of the plain text doesn’t support the suggestion impeachment “should always be an option.” After all, the impeachment clause contemplates illegality, such as “treason, bribery,” both which are inappropriate conduct. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” wrap up the phrase but are lumped together, to read, “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Now, assuming for a moment the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” lacks a definition as you contend, (that’s not entirely accurate based on the scholarly articles I’ve read), the phrase read together allows for the implication that appropriate conduct shouldn’t be subjected to impeachment. The entirety of the phrase can rationally be understood to exclude certain conduct, conduct which is appropriate.

It doesn’t make much sense to take the position of, “Bravo Mr. President, you behaved in an appropriate manner, you saved the Republic, but impeachment for your Herculean efforts is on the table.” That sets, as I said before, a potentially chilling precedent for presidents, of walking on egg shells even when their behavior is appropriate. Where behavior is appropriate, it is desirous for a president to act, free from any notion that impeachment can be wielded even for the most prudent conduct.

So, no, I’m not convinced by your view that impeachment “should always be an option.” Your thoughts above do nothing to strengthen that claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
First, I’m incredulous that “most scholars think it means something congress doesn’t like.”

Second, reducing the analysis to a popularity contest establishes only the number of people in agreement. Such head counting is not indicative of who is right, who is wrong, or what is or isn’t a strong, logical argument.

Third, the conclusion you made was qualified with the word “should.” More specifically, impeachment “should always be an option.” I interjected that such a broad statement would encapsulate behavior by a president that is appropriate.

I then opined impeachment shouldn’t be considered for the exercise of power that is appropriate.

You’re contesting that claim which suggests you take the view that even for appropriate behavior, impeachment should be option. That view isn’t logical.

A good ol’ fashion logical reading of the plain text doesn’t support the suggestion impeachment “should always be an option.” After all, the impeachment clause contemplates illegality, such as “treason, bribery,” both which are inappropriate conduct. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” wrap up the phrase but are lumped together, to read, “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Now, assuming for a moment the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” lacks a definition as you contend, (that’s not entirely accurate based on the scholarly articles I’ve read), the phrase read together allows for the implication that appropriate conduct shouldn’t be subjected to impeachment. The entirety of the phrase can rationally be understood to exclude certain conduct, conduct which is appropriate.

It doesn’t make much sense to take the position of, “Bravo Mr. President, you behaved in an appropriate manner, you saved the Republic, but impeachment for your Herculean efforts is on the table.” That sets, as I said before, a potentially chilling precedent for presidents, of walking on egg shells even when their behavior is appropriate. Where behavior is appropriate, it is desirous for a president to act, free from any notion that impeachment can be wielded even for the most prudent conduct.

So, no, I’m not convinced by your view that impeachment “should always be an option.” Your thoughts above do nothing to strengthen that claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sorry, not interesting enough to keep going, but thanks for the polite discourse and I wish you a nice day!
 
NWRatCon said:
Taking the previous two posts together on essentially this point (and I appreciate the non-partisan tone):

My response, generally, is that I disagree. I think any federal office holder should behave as if the sword of Damocles was hanging over their head, to behave as if the post is not theirs by right and could be taken away at any time, to be as chaste as Caesar's wife.

The framers expected impeachment to be much more prevalent and the House to be the primary legislative body - the motivator of the government, and closest to the people. The approach that it is "last resort" is a modern invention. They were chary of executives arrogating power to themselves, and debated the standard extensively. There are built-in checks: first, a super majority is required for removal; second, the option to bar such official from further office (or not); and third, as mentioned, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard. All militate against invoking it willy-nilly, but none lower the expectation of unimpeachable behavior - which literally means "beyond reproach" - in office.
Click to expand...

I think any federal office holder should behave as if the sword of Damocles was hanging over their head, to behave as if the post is not theirs by right and could be taken away at any time
Click to expand...

I take the phrase “any time” literally, to include all behavior, even the most righteous behavior, the most appropriate behavior, is included. But the Constitution doesn’t contemplate those federal positions to potentially “be taken away at any time.” The impeachment provisions reference treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, which excludes appropriate behavior. Unless of course it is logical to think appropriate behavior can constitute as treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.

Those federal positions should worry about impeachment when they’ve acted inappropriately, or engaged in wrongful conduct, including of course illegal action. They shouldn’t have to worry about the possibility of Robespierre’s guillotine falling even when and where they’ve acted appropriately.

Remember, the House is voted every two years, so if they screw up, they get replaced.
Click to expand...

Hardly a comforting remedy for the person impeached, or impeached, convicted, and removed for behaving appropriately.

The framers expected impeachment to be much more prevalent
Click to expand...

I do not know whether that was an expectation or not. It is intriguing, however, that those very same framers with that alleged expectation made little use of impeachment and weren’t an often singing choir for it while they were prevalent from 1790 onward.

Regardless, it doesn’t really matter what the framers expected. We shouldn’t be bound to the framers’ expectation of prevalent use of impeachment. The framers have their expectations, subsequent generations are free to have their own and differing expectations. The constitution does not enumerate how often impeachment should be invoked, we are free to set our own expectations, not strive to meet some other generations’ expectations.

The approach that it is "last resort" is a modern invention.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I’m not taking this point of view.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CLAX1911 said:
well I think we need to have the ability to impeach the president but in this case what is it about? Phone call quid pro quo you have to have evidence to support this, so far there isn't any.

This isn't a criminal proceeding but it's hard not to think about criminal proceedings in the same way. The only reason we see impeachment being spoken about over this call to the Ukraine is because it involved candidate running for election in 2020.

Donald Trump was asking for an investigation into Hunter Biden. There is reasonable suspicion to believe that there was some wrongdoing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

In this case the president is doing his job.
Click to expand...

It's not about phone call only, but about a massive, months long campaign that Trump had his associates do on his behalf to pressure Ukraine NOT to investigate but to ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY investigation of his likely political rival.

Phone call itself was damning too of course - Zelensky asked for military help and Trump's immediate response was to "do us a favor though" as far as the Crowdstrike CT and Biden investigations. I don't understand how can you NOT see that as evidence when it's in plain site.

Further, as witnesses testified, this was no big mystery. Everyone knew about what Trump wanted. Everyone understood him to want PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation into Bidens. If he really wanted investigations, he would NOT want them to be PUBLICLY announced. It's pretty clear why someone wants public announcement (likely to undermine actual investigation, not help it) over the actual investigation.

Finally, this of course fits the pattern of Trump behavior where he welcomed and encouraged Russian help into investigations and public announcements against his 2016 rival, as well as attempts to ask China to investigate his opponents. And all this is just what is already known to public.
 
Slavister said:
It's not about phone call only, but about a massive, months long campaign that Trump had his associates do on his behalf to pressure Ukraine NOT to investigate but to ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY investigation of his likely political rival.
Click to expand...
my applause to Donald Trump seeking out corruption and making it known.

if I didn't want this to come back and bite him on the ass then he shouldn't have done it.
Phone call itself was damning too of course - Zelensky asked for military help and Trump's immediate response was to "do us a favor though" as far as the Crowdstrike CT and Biden investigations. I don't understand how can you NOT see that as evidence when it's in plain site.
Click to expand...
the evidence that he's investigating a criminal act?

Again that's his job.
Further, as witnesses testified, this was no big mystery. Everyone knew about what Trump wanted. Everyone understood him to want PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation into Bidens. If he really wanted investigations, he would NOT want them to be PUBLICLY announced. It's pretty clear why someone wants public announcement (likely to undermine actual investigation, not help it) over the actual investigation.
Click to expand...
The public has the right to know. Again applause for Trump for draining the swamp.


Finally, this of course fits the pattern of Trump behavior where he welcomed and encouraged Russian help into investigations and public announcements against his 2016 rival, as well as attempts to ask China to investigate his opponents. And all this is just what is already known to public.
Click to expand...

Oh yes the Russia hoax why didn't you impeach him on that? Is it because it was a hoax?
 
CLAX1911 said:
my applause to Donald Trump seeking out corruption and making it known.
Click to expand...

...except he did not. He repeated a right-wing theory without proof and you believed it.

CLAX1911 said:
if I didn't want this to come back and bite him on the ass then he shouldn't have done it.
the evidence that he's investigating a criminal act?
Click to expand...

There is no investigation of a criminal act because there is no criminal act as far as we know. You ignoring that he just wanted a public statement rather than investigation just underscores your unwillingness to see what it is he is really after - just a baseless smear and nothing else.

CLAX1911 said:
The public has the right to know. Again applause for Trump for draining the swamp.
Click to expand...

Public has a right to hear right wing conspiracy theory without anything backing them? There is 0 proof, no matter how much Trump wishes for it.

If he really wanted to, he should direct DOJ to investigate and let them contact Ukraine as needed via regular channels.

But he was only interested in baseless accusations to be made by Ukraine, nothing else. That's what witnesses testified to but you ignore them of course.

CLAX1911 said:
Oh yes the Russia hoax why didn't you impeach him on that? Is it because it was a hoax?
Click to expand...

Mueller report has more than enough to impeach Trump based on his obstruction alone.

He did not prove criminal conspiracy with Russia but it does not mean it was not there. In case you did not know, Roger Stone went to prison for lying about this very topic to investigators.
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.
Click to expand...

A lot of these people are mad at Democrats for making impeachment a partisan political tool. There is no way to have a fair impeachment process when the whole thing is totally partisan in the first place. Even Pelosi did not want to impeach unless she had some Republicans going along for the ride and then she got backed into a corner she could not get out of. Democrats are now putting on their show and soon the Republicans will be putting on their show. The handful of Republicans who did have an open mind in the beginning are now going to Trump's corner because they realize what a sham the whole thing is.
 
Slavister said:
...except he did not. He repeated a right-wing theory without proof and you believed it.
Click to expand...
So?


There is no investigation of a criminal act because there is no criminal act as far as we know. You ignoring that he just wanted a public statement rather than investigation just underscores your unwillingness to see what it is he is really after - just a baseless smear and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Smear on Joe Biden? Why?


Public has a right to hear right wing conspiracy theory without anything backing them? There is 0 proof, no matter how much Trump wishes for it.
Click to expand...
that seems to be just what politics is.
If he really wanted to, he should direct DOJ to investigate and let them contact Ukraine as needed via regular channels.
Click to expand...
or he could call them himself.
But he was only interested in baseless accusations to be made by Ukraine, nothing else. That's what witnesses testified to but you ignore them of course.
Click to expand...
it doesn't seem baseless Hunter Biden somehow managed to get an executive job despite never worked in the industry or having executive experience.


Mueller report has more than enough to impeach Trump based on his obstruction alone.
Click to expand...
if it weren't imaginary.
He did not prove criminal conspiracy with Russia but it does not mean it was not there. In case you did not know, Roger Stone went to prison for lying about this very topic to investigators.
Click to expand...
WHO CARES?
 
chuckiechan said:
In a perfectly moral world, all you would be doing is impeaching. And where would you get your candidates? Great men usually have great flaws.
Click to expand...

Then why are going with a loser with great flaws like Trump?
 
CLAX1911> my applause to Donald Trump seeking out corruption and making it known.
Slavister> ...except he did not. He repeated a right-wing theory without proof and you believed it.
CLAX1911 said:
So?
Click to expand...

So your statement was wrong. He is not seeking out corruption and making it known. He is repeating right-wing theory without proof and is pushing foreign government(s) to help him smear his political opponent

CLAX1911 said:
Smear on Joe Biden? Why?
Click to expand...

Because Joe Biden was by far going to be his most likely opponent in 2020 based on all the polls at the time.

Plus because Joe is a very visible politician who has been very critical of Trump all this time.

CLAX1911 said:
that seems to be just what politics is.
Click to expand...

In bizzarro 3rd world banana republic that we call USA under Trump? Ok, sure.

CLAX1911 said:
it doesn't seem baseless Hunter Biden somehow managed to get an executive job despite never worked in the industry or having executive experience.
Click to expand...

The company wanted an image, so Biden name did it for them. Yeah, so? You don't seem to be bothered that Trump has appointed his family without having any experience at critical government positions. In Biden's case, at least it was a private company in another country, not the freaking White House.

CLAX1911 said:
if it weren't imaginary.
Click to expand...

What was imaginary in the Mueller report?

CLAX1911 said:
WHO CARES?
Click to expand...

Who cares that the only reason Mueller did not go for Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy is because Roger Stone lied to him about it, while being the critical link and the go-between in that conspiracy? I guess you don't. But then don't make silly claims about "hoax" that you don't know much about and apparently don't care to know about.
 
Slavister said:
CLAX1911> my applause to Donald Trump seeking out corruption and making it known.
Slavister> ...except he did not. He repeated a right-wing theory without proof and you believed it.


So your statement was wrong. He is not seeking out corruption and making it known. He is repeating right-wing theory without proof and is pushing foreign government(s) to help him smear his political opponent
Click to expand...
I disagree evidence points to Biden being corrupt.

I'm going to vote for him because of him going after Biden for his corruption.

I thank him for doing that it's why I voted for him in the first place.


Because Joe Biden was by far going to be his most likely opponent in 2020 based on all the polls at the time.

Plus because Joe is a very visible politician who has been very critical of Trump all this time.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider Joe Biden his competition.

Joe Biden is a joke. And he has clearly corrupt and once again I think Donald Trump for exposing that.

Three cheers for Donald Trump for draining the swap.


In bizzarro 3rd world banana republic that we call USA under Trump? Ok, sure.
Click to expand...
the USA doesn't even export bananas.

do you know what a banana republic is or did you hear someone say that and just think it meant something that it doesn't mean?


The company wanted an image, so Biden name did it for them. Yeah, so?
Click to expand...
if that's what happened feel free to prove it.
You don't seem to be bothered that Trump has appointed his family without having any experience at critical government positions.
Click to expand...
no I'm not bothered by that at all I don't know why I should be.
In Biden's case, at least it was a private company in another country, not the freaking White House.
Click to expand...
all presidents appoint people to government positions that's their job.


What was imaginary in the Mueller report?
Click to expand...
the one that contains NE evidence that would be incriminating against Donald Trump it's fake cuz that doesn't exist.


Who cares that the only reason Mueller did not go for Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy is because Roger Stone lied to him about it, while being the critical link and the go-between in that conspiracy? I guess you don't. But then don't make silly claims about "hoax" that you don't know much about and apparently don't care to know about.
Click to expand...
I'm going to call the Russia hoax a hoax because I call a spade a spade and a hoax a hoax.
 
JustHanging said:
Then why are going with a loser with great flaws like Trump?
Click to expand...

Mostly because I don't think his flaws are that great he trolls cry babies on the internet and likes to have fun with ladies.

The things he does like exposing fighting for his corruption building the wall on the border working on getting the illegal alien issue dealt with, dumping the worthless Paris Accord. Pulling out of the middle East, lowering taxes.

Those are the exact things I want in a president. I think it's funny that his personality bothers you that wouldn't be enough for me to re-elect him but it's a bonus.

Basically put I like Donald Trump.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I disagree evidence points to Biden being corrupt.
Click to expand...

:lamo What evidence? There is NO evidence.

CLAX1911 said:
I wouldn't consider Joe Biden his competition.
Click to expand...

Who cares whether YOU personally consider Biden his competition? Clearly he was (if not still is) the most likely competition.

CLAX1911 said:
Joe Biden is a joke. And he has clearly corrupt
Click to expand...

Cool, you now moved on to "clearly corrupt" based on 0 evidence. Nice. Propaganda clearly works.

CLAX1911 said:
if that's what happened feel free to prove it.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove it. It's on YOU to prove your baseless accusations.

CLAX1911 said:
no I'm not bothered by that at all I don't know why I should be. all presidents appoint people to government positions that's their job.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Of course you are not bothered when Trump appoints his daughter and her husband, neither of which have any experience (nor apparently deserving security clearance that he had to overwrite) to top government positions to run this country, but you claim Joe Biden is clearly corrupt because his son was hired by a private company in some other country despite having relevant experience!

You can't make this up!


CLAX1911 said:
the one that contains NE evidence that would be incriminating against Donald Trump it's fake cuz that doesn't exist.

I'm going to call the Russia hoax a hoax because I call a spade a spade and a hoax a hoax.
Click to expand...

Ok, sure, Mueller report is "fake" now. Good job.
 
Slavister said:
:lamo What evidence? There is NO evidence.
Click to expand...
So Hunter Biden is not an oil executive?

Who cares whether YOU personally consider Biden his competition? Clearly he was (if not still is) the most likely competition.
Click to expand...
Lol sure.


Cool, you now moved on to "clearly corrupt" based on 0 evidence. Nice. Propaganda clearly works.
Click to expand...
You assume based on zero evidence.


I don't have to prove it. It's on YOU to prove your baseless accusations.
Click to expand...
I never made a baseless accusation.


:lamo

Of course you are not bothered when Trump appoints his daughter and her husband, neither of which have any experience (nor apparently deserving security clearance that he had to overwrite) to top government positions to run this country, but you claim Joe Biden is clearly corrupt because his son was hired by a private company in some other country despite having relevant experience!

You can't make this up!
Click to expand...
Nope, don't care.


Ok, sure, Mueller report is "fake" now. Good job.
Click to expand...
No, the claim that it's incriminating is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom