Trump should be impeached. Again.

[Dans La Lune]

The Soleimani assassination should be fully investigated, under an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not Trump broke federal law, violated international law, and violated the Constitution in ordering this assassination. Republicans should be fact witnesses and be forced to testify under oath at what went down at Marilago. The intel should be examined to see if there was an imminent threat (the legal justification).

 

[The AntiDonald]

The Soleimani assassination should be fully investigated, under an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not Trump broke federal law, violated international law, and violated the Constitution in ordering this assassination. Republicans should be fact witnesses and be forced to testify under oath at what went down at Marilago. The intel should be examined to see if there was an imminent threat (the legal justification).

Sure am glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Trump and his sycophants have been changing their story about this since it happened. They have ZERO credibility with me.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I would not rule it out, I can see plenty of reason for another impeachment inquiry.

 

[jonny5]

The Soleimani assassination should be fully investigated, under an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not Trump broke federal law, violated international law, and violated the Constitution in ordering this assassination. Republicans should be fact witnesses and be forced to testify under oath at what went down at Marilago. The intel should be examined to see if there was an imminent threat (the legal justification).

I like where this is going. Maybe we can finally reign in all the illegal stuff the govt does. I suspect this newfound care about rule of law only applies to Trump though. Obama, Bush, Clinton also did plenty of illegal things (not to mention every congress member), and no one really cared. But hey, thanks to Trump for finally getting people to care again.

 

[Condor060]

The Soleimani assassination should be fully investigated, under an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not Trump broke federal law, violated international law, and violated the Constitution in ordering this assassination. Republicans should be fact witnesses and be forced to testify under oath at what went down at Marilago. The intel should be examined to see if there was an imminent threat (the legal justification).

My first question would be, how could you even consider Soleimani not an imminent threat? His reason for turning oxygen into carbon dioxide is civilian murders through terrorism.

You need look no further than the 2500 Suni's who were killed under his command by drilling holes in their heads and hanging the bodies on meat hooks in several mosque.

When did the left decide Soleimani wasn't going to continue the very same terror on innocents he has done for decades? But it does tell the country where you stand on Terrorism. You would blindly excuse any and all past history of one of the worlds most horrific terrorist (to include planning the attack on a US Embassy) to go after Trump?

You're on the wrong side.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Hope you guys realize eventually impeachments aren't going to mean anything any more. But go ahead knock yourselves out I love a good clown show as much as the next guy.

 

[HumblePi]

My first question would be, how could you even consider Soleimani not an imminent threat? His reason for turning oxygen into carbon dioxide is civilian murders through terrorism.

You need look no further than the 2500 Suni's who were killed under his command by drilling holes in their heads and hanging the bodies on meat hooks in several mosque.

When did the left decide Soleimani wasn't going to continue the very same terror on innocents he has done for decades? But it does tell the country where you stand on Terrorism. You would blindly excuse any and all past history of one of the worlds most horrific terrorist (to include planning the attack on a US Embassy) to go after Trump?

You're on the wrong side.

Soleimani was a threat, there's no doubt about that. The burning question is, was the 'threat' so imminent that there was no time to consult with the 'Gang of Eight', Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel and Mark Esper? Was the risk of getting the U.S. involved in a major war in the Middle East, one that could easily escalate to a nuclear conflict, worth that risk?

The only word that matters here is "imminent".

 

[Grandpappy]

LOL they'll never give up...:mrgreen:. If Trump gets a parking ticket, they'll consider it an impeachable offense.
The level of stupid is intense.

 

[Condor060]

Hope you guys realize eventually impeachments aren't going to mean anything any more. But go ahead knock yourselves out I love a good clown show as much as the next guy.

Thats what I don't get about Democrats. They have no rear view mirrors. They couldn't get Liberal judges confirmed through the Senate requiring 60 votes so they decided to change it to 50.

McConnell told them it would come back to bite them if they did this but did they listen?

Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were confirmed with less than 60 votes.

Having impeachment hearings, refusing to allow opposing witness testimony (Because they can) and getting articles on impeachment without a single witness that can testify in court, is just the start of things to come. You have just witnesses the beginning of Congress (Under both parties) that will hold impeachment hearings for every president in the future while nothing gets done for the American people.

 

[Incredulous]

Hope you guys realize eventually impeachments aren't going to mean anything any more. But go ahead knock yourselves out I love a good clown show as much as the next guy.

Well yeah. When the Senate Majority Leader asserts that he will work "in total coordination" with the White House on an impeachment vote, it will be a clown show.

 

[Hypothetical]

Well yeah. When the Senate Majority Leader asserts that he will work "in total coordination" with the White House on an impeachment vote, it will be a clown show.

well you'd probably have a lot more supporters for that belief if the House hearings hadn't been run like a three ring circus.

 

[Incredulous]

well you'd probably have a lot more supporters for that belief if the House hearings hadn't been run like a three ring circus.

Sounds like an excuse to conduct kangaroo court and let Trump skate on by. Those who would sacrifice accountability of our president to engage in tit-for-tat politics are part of the problem here. Our two-party system is counting on the public buying into their us vs. them mentality. The reality is that us = the American people and them = our government. Too many are doggedly toeing the party line at our expense. Wake up people.

 

[Condor060]

Soleimani was a threat, there's no doubt about that. The burning question is, was the 'threat' so imminent that there was no time to consult with the 'Gang of Eight', Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel and Mark Esper? Was the risk of getting the U.S. involved in a major war in the Middle East, one that could easily escalate to a nuclear conflict, worth that risk?

The only word that matters here is "imminent".

How you could even consider him not an imminent threat is beyond comprehension. Decades of murdering hundreds of thousands and all of a sudden you though he was going to change and not continue his rein of terror?

Nuclear conflict with Iran? Please.

We are not dealing with a civil nation. We are dealing with the largest supporter of global terrorism. If you don't respond to their attacks, they just do more attacks.

Iran even gave a heads up to their missile launch because they didn't want to kill Americans. You fight Terrorism with force hence why ISIS is now destroyed.

 

[HumblePi]

How you could even consider him not an imminent threat is beyond comprehension. Decades of murdering hundreds of thousands and all of a sudden you though he was going to change and not continue his rein of terror?

Nuclear conflict with Iran? Please.

We are not dealing with a civil nation. We are dealing with the largest supporter of global terrorism. If you don't respond to their attacks, they just do more attacks.

Iran even gave a heads up to their missile launch because they didn't want to kill Americans. You fight Terrorism with force hence why ISIS is now destroyed.

I did not say that, did I. Perhaps you should read my comment again. I clearly said that Soleimani was a threat, I also said that it is very questionable as to how 'imminent' of a threat he was. I will repeat this once more, the key word here is 'imminent'.

 

[Dans La Lune]

LOL they'll never give up...:mrgreen:. If Trump gets a parking ticket, they'll consider it an impeachable offense.
The level of stupid is intense.

The president cannot legally assassinate a foreign official, without congressional approval, without a sufficient justification. The intel has to support it. If it doesn’t the it’s both illegal and a violation of the constitution. In additional to being against international law. He may not be guilty. Let’s see what the evidence says.

Of course this is more a mental exercise because Pelosi would never impeach Trump over this, even though this is far more egregious than the Ukrainian scandal.

 

[bluesmoke]

The Soleimani assassination should be fully investigated, under an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not Trump broke federal law, violated international law, and violated the Constitution in ordering this assassination. Republicans should be fact witnesses and be forced to testify under oath at what went down at Marilago. The intel should be examined to see if there was an imminent threat (the legal justification).

Pelosi's "delay" is/was good strategy, if that, to give Trump and the situation more time to hang him. His pathology is to do worse tomorrow than done today and yesterday. It is thus inevitable that there will be more than simply adequate reason for impeachment as time marches on. This point has been made a number of times before. As Trump increases speed heading into each turn, the Trumplicans lean against the curve. Trump is a national security threat and a disaster in motion.

 

[Condor060]

Sounds like an excuse to conduct kangaroo court and let Trump skate on by.

If you are going to ignore the idiocy of how we got here, its only going to happen now with EVERY president coming in the future.

Democrats frothing at the mouth to impeach Trump has gone beyond reality.

1. Holding closed door hearings to eliminate any testimony they don't want the public to hear

2. Refusing any testimony that is in opposition of their claims

3. Refusing to allow the opposing party their minority day

4. Hosting only hearsay witnesses that can't testify in a Senate trial

5. Secretly leaking phone calls of opposing political opponents to the media and making false claims as to their content

6. Leaking testimony from closed door hearings to the media that supports your claims

Having articles of impeachment that have no witnesses that can testify knowing you will never be able to remove a president but moving forward anyway tells the complete story of how this is a scam impeachment.

The worst part is now the gloves have come off and every president that holds office will go through the very same treatment, stagnating Congress, and the only losers will be the American people.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I did not say that, did I. Perhaps you should read my comment again. I clearly said that Soleimani was a threat, I also said that it is very questionable as to how 'imminent' of a threat he was. I will repeat this once more, the key word here is 'imminent'.

Agreed. ‘Imminent threat’ is the legal justification required to make this not a crime and not a violation of the constitution. Let’s see the intel and call witnesses, under oath, from the Marilago meeting.

 

[Condor060]

I did not say that, did I. Perhaps you should read my comment again. I clearly said that Soleimani was a threat, I also said that it is very questionable as to how 'imminent' of a threat he was. I will repeat this once more, the key word here is 'imminent'.

Unless you thought he was going to stop the decades of terror, I don't understand how you would not consider him an imminent threat. The very fact that his job was continuing the policies of Iran kind of speaks for itself.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The Soleimani assassination should be fully investigated, under an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not Trump broke federal law, violated international law, and violated the Constitution in ordering this assassination. Republicans should be fact witnesses and be forced to testify under oath at what went down at Marilago. The intel should be examined to see if there was an imminent threat (the legal justification).

Exactly. Killing military leaders conspiring to do harm to this country should be against the law. Only US citizens should be assassinated instead having their day in court or any rights.

 

[Condor060]

Agreed. ‘Imminent threat’ is the legal justification required to make this not a crime and not a violation of the constitution. Let’s see the intel and call witnesses, under oath, from the Marilago meeting.

Most people (including the Iranian people) would not even think to propose that after decades of murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians through terrorist activities, that Soleimani, the military leader of Iran, could ever be considered not an imminent threat.

You would have to argue and convince a Senate jury that Soleimani was never going to murder civilians again and his decades of terror ended when he planned the attack on the US Embassy.

Best of luck with that argument.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Most people (including the Iranian people) would not even think to propose that after decades of murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians through terrorist activities, that Soleimani, the military leader of Iran, could ever be considered not an imminent threat.

You would have to argue and convince a Senate jury that Soleimani was never going to murder civilians again and his decades of terror ended when he planned the attack on the US Embassy.

Best of luck with that argument.

Do you know what imminent means?

 

[Condor060]

Do you know what imminent means?

I know what the actual definition of Imminent means.

Its a clear indication of impending, approaching, forthcoming, looming, threatening, expected, anticipated action.

Not really sure what the new Democrat definition of imminent means.

 

[Incredulous]

If you are going to ignore the idiocy of how we got here, its only going to happen now with EVERY president coming in the future.

Democrats frothing at the mouth to impeach Trump has gone beyond reality.

1. Holding closed door hearings to eliminate any testimony they don't want the public to hear

2. Refusing any testimony that is in opposition of their claims

3. Refusing to allow the opposing party their minority day

4. Hosting only hearsay witnesses that can't testify in a Senate trial

5. Secretly leaking phone calls of opposing political opponents to the media and making false claims as to their content

6. Leaking testimony from closed door hearings to the media that supports your claims

Having articles of impeachment that have no witnesses that can testify knowing you will never be able to remove a president but moving forward anyway tells the complete story of how this is a scam impeachment.

The worst part is now the gloves have come off and every president that holds office will go through the very same treatment, stagnating Congress, and the only losers will be the American people.

Sounds like more excuses to engage in tit-for-tat politics.

 

[Condor060]

Sounds like more excuses to engage in tit-for-tat politics.

Not really sure how you equate actual historical events as excuses. If you are just going to ignore the conditions of the current impeachment hearings, you aren't going to get much traction on your claims.