Mooch gets walking papers after 10 days in office

[Serk]

Bwahahahahahaahaha!

[The emperor has no clothes]

Are you unwilling or unable to hold him accountable for his words and actions?

Trump was the second worst possible candidate on the ballot.

But SCOTUS Associate Justice Gorsuch (And hopefully a few more before this is all over) is all the justification I need to support my vote against Hillary.

A president is fleeting, a SCOTUS justice can shape the nation for a generation.

The ends justify the means ?

[Serk]

Are you unwilling or unable to hold him accountable for his words and actions?

Trump was the second worst possible candidate on the ballot.

But SCOTUS Associate Justice Gorsuch (And hopefully a few more before this is all over) is all the justification I need to support my vote against Hillary.

A president is fleeting, a SCOTUS justice can shape the nation for a generation.

The ends justify the means ?

If the ends means saving our republic? Yes.

Far greater men than you and I have done far FAR worse to save our republic.

[Willow]

Are you unwilling or unable to hold him accountable for his words and actions?

Trump was the second worst possible candidate on the ballot.

But SCOTUS Associate Justice Gorsuch (And hopefully a few more before this is all over) is all the justification I need to support my vote against Hillary.

A president is fleeting, a SCOTUS justice can shape the nation for a generation.

The ends justify the means ?

An unworthily narrow interpretation from someone who voted otherwise.

The honest assessment would be that the avoidance of the alternative was worth whatever negative might be acquired.  Isn't that how we make all our voting decisions?  I find it rare that I agree with 100% of what a candidate stands for but when I consider I assess a value on what I agree with and what I don't agree with.  That determines my vote.  In this case for many of us the one issue (Supreme Court nominations) was enough to offset what we disagreed with in a particular candidate.  Honestly for me it wasn't that difficult as the stack of disagreement was huge on one side.

The ends justify the means?  We didn't have a third, fourth, fifth or sixth choice to select from.  Well, some were driven to a fifth.   

[Wizzard]

some were driven to 2 or 3 fifths. And they are still drinking whatever is in those fifths. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Are you unwilling or unable to hold him accountable for his words and actions?

Trump was the second worst possible candidate on the ballot.

But SCOTUS Associate Justice Gorsuch (And hopefully a few more before this is all over) is all the justification I need to support my vote against Hillary.

A president is fleeting, a SCOTUS justice can shape the nation for a generation.

The ends justify the means ?

An unworthily narrow interpretation from someone who voted otherwise.

The honest assessment would be that the avoidance of the alternative was worth whatever negative might be acquired.  Isn't that how we make all our voting decisions?  I find it rare that I agree with 100% of what a candidate stands for but when I consider I assess a value on what I agree with and what I don't agree with.  That determines my vote.  In this case for many of us the one issue (Supreme Court nominations) was enough to offset what we disagreed with in a particular candidate.  Honestly for me it wasn't that difficult as the stack of disagreement was huge on one side.

The ends justify the means?  We didn't have a third, fourth, fifth or sixth choice to select from.  Well, some were driven to a fifth.   

Unworthily ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Carl, the question isn't whether one finds a candidate less deplorable than the other. That has been made clear by both sides. The question I was trying to ask is there no amount of foreign subversion that would have deterred a vote ?

[Serk]

no amount of foreign subversion

Seeing as it appears the worst "foreign subversion" the other side has been able to point to is the possibility that the Russians informed him of some of Hillary's crimes, not really. What's worse, the reporting of a crime (That the US media tries to ignore, thus he finds out about it from a foreign source) or the commission of the crime itself?

I mean, if Trump had learned about some of Hillary's wrongdoing's by watching a foreign news source such as the BBC or Al Jazeera, would that be the same thing?

[The emperor has no clothes]

no amount of foreign subversion

Seeing as it appears the worst "foreign subversion" the other side has been able to point to is the possibility that the Russians informed him of some of Hillary's crimes, not really. What's worse, the reporting of a crime (That the US media tries to ignore, thus he finds out about it from a foreign source) or the commission of the crime itself?

I mean, if Trump had learned about some of Hillary's wrongdoing's by watching a foreign news source such as the BBC or Al Jazeera, would that be the same thing?

I think you are convienantly overlooking his top Security Chief recieving money from Foreign sources, secret meetings by the Son in Law trying to subvert our laws, money received by the Russian Oligarchy, trying to obstruct justice by firing the FBI chief. It goes on and on.

[Willow]

no amount of foreign subversion

Seeing as it appears the worst "foreign subversion" the other side has been able to point to is the possibility that the Russians informed him of some of Hillary's crimes, not really. What's worse, the reporting of a crime (That the US media tries to ignore, thus he finds out about it from a foreign source) or the commission of the crime itself?

I mean, if Trump had learned about some of Hillary's wrongdoing's by watching a foreign news source such as the BBC or Al Jazeera, would that be the same thing?

I think you are convienantly overlooking his top Security Chief recieving money from Foreign sources, secret meetings by the Son in Law trying to subvert our laws, money received by the Russian Oligarchy, trying to obstruct justice by firing the FBI chief. It goes on and on.

Unfortunately you have mixed known activity with assumed intent and alleged activities.  People by and large will choose to believe what they choose to believe regardless of contradictory evidence.  As to a large part of the population if something is said loudly enough and often enough it will be accepted as truth disregarding any proof to the contrary.

As to the unworthily in the previous post it meant that I had come to expect more of you.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

no amount of foreign subversion

Seeing as it appears the worst "foreign subversion" the other side has been able to point to is the possibility that the Russians informed him of some of Hillary's crimes, not really. What's worse, the reporting of a crime (That the US media tries to ignore, thus he finds out about it from a foreign source) or the commission of the crime itself?

I mean, if Trump had learned about some of Hillary's wrongdoing's by watching a foreign news source such as the BBC or Al Jazeera, would that be the same thing?

I think you are convienantly overlooking his top Security Chief recieving money from Foreign sources, secret meetings by the Son in Law trying to subvert our laws, money received by the Russian Oligarchy, trying to obstruct justice by firing the FBI chief. It goes on and on.

Unfortunately you have mixed known activity with assumed intent and alleged activities.  People by and large will choose to believe what they choose to believe regardless of contradictory evidence.  As to a large part of the population if something is said loudly enough and often enough it will be accepted as truth disregarding any proof to the contrary.

As to the unworthily in the previous post it meant that I had come to expect more of you.   

I am more than willing to listen to any contradictory evidence you may have. Those items I mentioned have no refuting evidence that I have seen.

But my question still stands. Surely there is going to be point that Trump supporters finally throw their hands up. The question is, how far are they willing to follow him down the hole ?

[Gavin_Sons]

no amount of foreign subversion

Seeing as it appears the worst "foreign subversion" the other side has been able to point to is the possibility that the Russians informed him of some of Hillary's crimes, not really. What's worse, the reporting of a crime (That the US media tries to ignore, thus he finds out about it from a foreign source) or the commission of the crime itself?

I mean, if Trump had learned about some of Hillary's wrongdoing's by watching a foreign news source such as the BBC or Al Jazeera, would that be the same thing?

I think you are convienantly overlooking his top Security Chief recieving money from Foreign sources, secret meetings by the Son in Law trying to subvert our laws, money received by the Russian Oligarchy, trying to obstruct justice by firing the FBI chief. It goes on and on.

Unfortunately you have mixed known activity with assumed intent and alleged activities.  People by and large will choose to believe what they choose to believe regardless of contradictory evidence.  As to a large part of the population if something is said loudly enough and often enough it will be accepted as truth disregarding any proof to the contrary.

As to the unworthily in the previous post it meant that I had come to expect more of you.   

I am more than willing to listen to any contradictory evidence you may have. Those items I mentioned have no refuting evidence that I have seen.

But my question still stands. Surely there is going to be point that Trump supporters finally throw their hands up. The question is, how far are they willing to follow him down the hole ?

I don't know, Hillary supporters followed her right to the realms of Hell.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Why is it that always the line ? Surely you can answer a question about Trump without saying "yeah, but Clinton was worse"  ???

[Wizzard]

Seems many have a great desire to see Trump fail. What happens when he does? Will they be satisfied with whats next?
There were things in past presidents that I never liked, always will be that way, but I do not have an incessant desire to see them fail.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Seems many have a great desire to see Trump fail. What happens when he does? Will they be satisfied with whats next?
There were things in past presidents that I never liked, always will be that way, but I do not have an incessant desire to see them fail.

I truly have no desire to see him fail. If that happens it makes the entire country look bad. Plus as you say, then we get Pence. My desire for our country not being subverted by the Russians is greater.

[Wizzard]

Personally,, I am not worried about the Russians. We got way bigger problems. Its a distraction from our real problems.
This stuff reminds me of growing up in the late 50's early 60's as everything was " The commies are coming"
Very similar

[G-Man]

A few points to bring up, none of which are even disputed:

Trump's campaign manager was meeting with Putin's agents.  Trump's son was meeting with Putin's agents.  Jared Kushner was meeting with the Russians, and trying to set up secret communications with the Russians using Russian communication equipment so that the US intelligence agencies couldn't hear what they are talking about. 

Trump's National Security Advisor was fired because of lying about meetings with the Russians, and not disclosing he was a foreign agent being paid by the Russians and Turks.  General Flynn asked for immunity in exchange for testifying.  If no laws were broken, what would he need immunity from?

The Attorney General recused himself from the Russian investigation after it was discovered HE LIED TO CONGRESS about meeting with the Russians himself.

Trump himself said he fired FBI Director Comey because he was thinking about "the Russia thing".  If he had nothing to hide, then why obstruct an investigation?

Trump personally dictated to his son to lie to the media about the reasons for him meeting with the Russians.  Why?

I know that none of you conservatives care.  Anything Trump does to try to destroy American democracy is just a "fart in the wind" to you.  Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to see him colluding with the Kremlin?

There are those of us that love America though, and do not want to see it's institutions destroyed by foreign adversaries.  We don't see an investigation as a witch hunt, but rather an honest investigation by an unimpeachable man into what has occurred, who is responsible, and how to prevent it in the future.

It's no secret I voted for Obama twice, and was a Bernie supporter that held my nose and voted for Clinton in the general election.  Even though I thought Obama was a great president, he had his flaws.  Bernie has flaws.  Hillary has flaws.  Are you conservatives really completely incapable of seeing how deeply flawed Trump is?  Are you unwilling or unable to hold him accountable for his words and actions?  You should be an American first and a Republican second.

Yep, all true.

Where's the crime?  What have you typed above, can't be said about every administration and one foreign gov't or another?

On the other hand, you are a hypocrite.  Even though you held your nose, you ACTUALLY did vote for someone who ACTUALLY did commit crimes, including collusion and obstruction of justice.

Our votes for Trump were cast before this witch hunt began.  You voted with knowledge that the Democrats ACTUALLY did undermine the election (DNC e-mails re: Bernie proved this).

Yet you're OK with all that ACTUALLY PROVEN behavior, voted for it, and now turn around and accuse the other guy of said behavior.  Again, you are a hypocrite, respectfully, of course.

[Serk]

But my question still stands. Surely there is going to be point that Trump supporters finally throw their hands up. The question is, how far are they willing to follow him down the hole ?

I'm still waiting on something credible to come up against Trump worse than being boorish and forcing the Democrats to deliver on their promises of transparency. If the worse that ya'll can dig up on President Trump is that he's rude and helped bring to light the real crimes of the Democrats, then no, I'm not too worried about him and will continue to support him when he does the right thing and criticize him when he doesn't.

[Wizzard]

But my question still stands. Surely there is going to be point that Trump supporters finally throw their hands up. The question is, how far are they willing to follow him down the hole ?

I'm still waiting on something credible to come up against Trump worse than being boorish and forcing the Democrats to deliver on their promises of transparency. If the worse that ya'll can dig up on President Trump is that he's rude and helped bring to light the real crimes of the Democrats, then no, I'm not too worried about him and will continue to support him when he does the right thing and criticize him when he doesn't.

Me too,, but all I keep hearing is,, "you wait, it will happen"

[G-Man]

But my question still stands. Surely there is going to be point that Trump supporters finally throw their hands up. The question is, how far are they willing to follow him down the hole ?

I'm still waiting on something credible to come up against Trump worse than being boorish and forcing the Democrats to deliver on their promises of transparency. If the worse that ya'll can dig up on President Trump is that he's rude and helped bring to light the real crimes of the Democrats, then no, I'm not too worried about him and will continue to support him when he does the right thing and criticize him when he doesn't.

Me too,, but all I keep hearing is,, "you wait, it will happen"

Because they are banking on this......... “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

[3fan4life]

I am more than willing to listen to any contradictory evidence you may have. Those items I mentioned have no refuting evidence that I have seen.

The point that you are either missing or blatantly ignoring is that there is NO evidence of criminal or collusion on Trump's part.

There is only conjecture and hopeful supposition.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I am more than willing to listen to any contradictory evidence you may have. Those items I mentioned have no refuting evidence that I have seen.

The point that you are either missing or blatantly ignoring is that there is NO evidence of criminal or collusion on Trump's part.

There is only conjecture and hopeful supposition.

Agreed, until it goes to Court or the Senate.

[baldo]

A few points to bring up, none of which are even disputed:

Trump's campaign manager was meeting with Putin's agents.  Trump's son was meeting with Putin's agents.  Jared Kushner was meeting with the Russians, and trying to set up secret communications with the Russians using Russian communication equipment so that the US intelligence agencies couldn't hear what they are talking about. 

Trump's National Security Advisor was fired because of lying about meetings with the Russians, and not disclosing he was a foreign agent being paid by the Russians and Turks.  General Flynn asked for immunity in exchange for testifying.  If no laws were broken, what would he need immunity from?

The Attorney General recused himself from the Russian investigation after it was discovered HE LIED TO CONGRESS about meeting with the Russians himself.

Trump himself said he fired FBI Director Comey because he was thinking about "the Russia thing".  If he had nothing to hide, then why obstruct an investigation?

Trump personally dictated to his son to lie to the media about the reasons for him meeting with the Russians.  Why?

I know that none of you conservatives care.  Anything Trump does to try to destroy American democracy is just a "fart in the wind" to you.  Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to see him colluding with the Kremlin?

There are those of us that love America though, and do not want to see it's institutions destroyed by foreign adversaries.  We don't see an investigation as a witch hunt, but rather an honest investigation by an unimpeachable man into what has occurred, who is responsible, and how to prevent it in the future.

It's no secret I voted for Obama twice, and was a Bernie supporter that held my nose and voted for Clinton in the general election.  Even though I thought Obama was a great president, he had his flaws.  Bernie has flaws.  Hillary has flaws.  Are you conservatives really completely incapable of seeing how deeply flawed Trump is?  Are you unwilling or unable to hold him accountable for his words and actions?  You should be an American first and a Republican second.

Yep, all true.

Where's the crime?  What have you typed above, can't be said about every administration and one foreign gov't or another?

On the other hand, you are a hypocrite.  Even though you held your nose, you ACTUALLY did vote for someone who ACTUALLY did commit crimes, including collusion and obstruction of justice.

Our votes for Trump were cast before this witch hunt began.  You voted with knowledge that the Democrats ACTUALLY did undermine the election (DNC e-mails re: Bernie proved this).

Yet you're OK with all that ACTUALLY PROVEN behavior, voted for it, and now turn around and accuse the other guy of said behavior.  Again, you are a hypocrite, respectfully, of course.

I'll bet you're kickass at this game.....

[baldo]

But my question still stands. Surely there is going to be point that Trump supporters finally throw their hands up. The question is, how far are they willing to follow him down the hole ?

I'm still waiting on something credible to come up against Trump worse than being boorish and forcing the Democrats to deliver on their promises of transparency. If the worse that ya'll can dig up on President Trump is that he's rude and helped bring to light the real crimes of the Democrats, then no, I'm not too worried about him and will continue to support him when he does the right thing and criticize him when he doesn't.

We shall see what we shall see.....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer-exclusive-idUSKBN1AH5F9

[Robert]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-huma-abedin-emails-reveal-transmission-classified-information-clinton-foundation-donors-receiving-special-treatment-clinton-state-department/

Judicial Watch: Huma Abedin Emails Reveal Transmission of Classified Information and Clinton Foundation Donors Receiving Special Treatment from Clinton State Department

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 1,606 pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing repeated use of unsecured communications for classified information and numerous examples of Clinton Foundation donors receiving special favors from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff.

The documents, containing emails from the unsecure, non-government account of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff, also show Clinton or her staff expressing interest in visiting Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and North Korean dictator Kim Jung II.

The documents included 91 Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 530 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to the State Department.

On March 12, 2009, Sid Blumenthal, former aide to Bill Clinton and confidant of Hillary Clinton, sent Mrs. Clinton a memo about Northern Ireland that was classified CONFIDENTIAL and the details were withheld from release under FOIA Exemption B1.4(D) (dealing with foreign relations or foreign activities).

On February 27, 2009, Ambassador Melanne Verveer sent Clinton a briefing memo/email on discussions she held with Congolese officials, which was classifiedas CONFIDENTIAL and withheld under FOIA exemption B1.4(D).

On January 22, 2010, Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan sent an email about a call to Chinese Foreign Minister Yang to several State Department officials. It contained information classified as CONFIDENTIAL by State and exempted under FOIA Exemption B1.4(D). It was forwarded to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The email had an attached memorandum of the Clinton-Yang call. State Department official Courtney Beale subsequently tells Assistant Secretary Todd Stern that she had sent that memo previously to him on the “high side” [i.e., via secure email channels].

[Serk]

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up, hopefully one way or another this witch hunt circus will be over soon, it seems Mueller has impaneled a grand jury now...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up, hopefully one way or another this witch hunt circus will be over soon, it seems Mueller has impaneled a grand jury now...

I'm not sure how this works. I thought it would be a report to the Senate for them to decide whether to impeach or not. Is the Grand Jury just for the underlings ?

[Serk]

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up, hopefully one way or another this witch hunt circus will be over soon, it seems Mueller has impaneled a grand jury now...

I'm not sure how this works. I thought it would be a report to the Senate for them to decide whether to impeach or not. Is the Grand Jury just for the underlings ?

If President Trump were to be impeached the first step would be the House of Representatives would have to bring up articles of impeachment and pass them. (Doubt that's gonna happen with the current makeup of the House) with a simple majority.

If articles of impeachment were brought up and passed in the House then the process would move to the senate, where the senate would try the impeachment to decide if the impeachment is worthy to convict him and remove him from office. This would require a 2/3 super majority to pass.

Bill Clinton was impeached by the house, but the senate didn't rise to the 2/3 super majority to convict him and remove him from office.

[Moonshot_1]

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up, hopefully one way or another this witch hunt circus will be over soon, it seems Mueller has impaneled a grand jury now...

I'm not sure how this works. I thought it would be a report to the Senate for them to decide whether to impeach or not. Is the Grand Jury just for the underlings ?

The Independent Counsel is created by the Dept. of Justice. They are under the Exec. Branch and therefore are supposed to be investigating and prosecuting crime. That is their Constitutional function. This is the crux of the argument against the Independent Counsel. They are not investigating a crime here. The impaneling of a Grand Jury should be dependent on an active crime investigation. There does not exist any crime relative to the Independent Counsel to investigate or for a Grand Jury to consider here.  

The reality is that the Independent Counsel and now the impaneled Grand Jury are considering accusations by Trump's political opponents, rivals, reports using unnamed sources and unsubstantiated reports. And not one of them can ever point to a criminal act. Just innuendo, ifs and maybes. This is Banana Republic stuff.

The Genesis of all this must be an established crime. In this case, there isn't one. At least on Trump's side of the equation.

For Impeachment. This is solely a legislative branch function. It is not criminal. The House "investigates" and then the finding sent to the Senate for trial. If the findings are agreed to by the Senate then the President (or the subject of the impeachment) is removed from office. Any criminalities are referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up, hopefully one way or another this witch hunt circus will be over soon, it seems Mueller has impaneled a grand jury now...

I'm not sure how this works. I thought it would be a report to the Senate for them to decide whether to impeach or not. Is the Grand Jury just for the underlings ?

The Independent Counsel is created by the Dept. of Justice. They are under the Exec. Branch and therefore are supposed to be investigating and prosecuting crime. That is their Constitutional function. This is the crux of the argument against the Independent Counsel. They are not investigating a crime here. The impaneling of a Grand Jury should be dependent on an active crime investigation. There does not exist any crime relative to the Independent Counsel to investigate or for a Grand Jury to consider here.  

The reality is that the Independent Counsel and now the impaneled Grand Jury are considering accusations by Trump's political opponents, rivals, reports using unnamed sources and unsubstantiated reports. And not one of them can ever point to a criminal act. Just innuendo, ifs and maybes. This is Banana Republic stuff.

The Genesis of all this must be an established crime. In this case, there isn't one. At least on Trump's side of the equation.

For Impeachment. This is solely a legislative branch function. It is not criminal. The House "investigates" and then the finding sent to the Senate for trial. If the findings are agreed to by the Senate then the President (or the subject of the impeachment) is removed from office. Any criminalities are referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

There are no crimes ? I can think of several right off the top of my head. 

[Moonshot_1]

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up, hopefully one way or another this witch hunt circus will be over soon, it seems Mueller has impaneled a grand jury now...

I'm not sure how this works. I thought it would be a report to the Senate for them to decide whether to impeach or not. Is the Grand Jury just for the underlings ?

The Independent Counsel is created by the Dept. of Justice. They are under the Exec. Branch and therefore are supposed to be investigating and prosecuting crime. That is their Constitutional function. This is the crux of the argument against the Independent Counsel. They are not investigating a crime here. The impaneling of a Grand Jury should be dependent on an active crime investigation. There does not exist any crime relative to the Independent Counsel to investigate or for a Grand Jury to consider here.  

The reality is that the Independent Counsel and now the impaneled Grand Jury are considering accusations by Trump's political opponents, rivals, reports using unnamed sources and unsubstantiated reports. And not one of them can ever point to a criminal act. Just innuendo, ifs and maybes. This is Banana Republic stuff.

The Genesis of all this must be an established crime. In this case, there isn't one. At least on Trump's side of the equation.

For Impeachment. This is solely a legislative branch function. It is not criminal. The House "investigates" and then the finding sent to the Senate for trial. If the findings are agreed to by the Senate then the President (or the subject of the impeachment) is removed from office. Any criminalities are referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

There are no crimes ? I can think of several right off the top of my head. 

I don't know of any one who has been charged with any crime relative to this. I know of no crime out of the Trump camp that has had any impact on the election. I don't see anything like, oh say, a body as in the Fast and Furious case. The elimination of 30k subpoenaed emails for instance. You know, things like that.

[Gavin_Sons]

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up, hopefully one way or another this witch hunt circus will be over soon, it seems Mueller has impaneled a grand jury now...

I'm not sure how this works. I thought it would be a report to the Senate for them to decide whether to impeach or not. Is the Grand Jury just for the underlings ?

The Independent Counsel is created by the Dept. of Justice. They are under the Exec. Branch and therefore are supposed to be investigating and prosecuting crime. That is their Constitutional function. This is the crux of the argument against the Independent Counsel. They are not investigating a crime here. The impaneling of a Grand Jury should be dependent on an active crime investigation. There does not exist any crime relative to the Independent Counsel to investigate or for a Grand Jury to consider here.  

The reality is that the Independent Counsel and now the impaneled Grand Jury are considering accusations by Trump's political opponents, rivals, reports using unnamed sources and unsubstantiated reports. And not one of them can ever point to a criminal act. Just innuendo, ifs and maybes. This is Banana Republic stuff.

The Genesis of all this must be an established crime. In this case, there isn't one. At least on Trump's side of the equation.

For Impeachment. This is solely a legislative branch function. It is not criminal. The House "investigates" and then the finding sent to the Senate for trial. If the findings are agreed to by the Senate then the President (or the subject of the impeachment) is removed from office. Any criminalities are referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

There are no crimes ? I can think of several right off the top of my head. 

Ok lets hear them.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Flynn lying to the FBI, Flynn not reporting info on his security clearance, Jr. trying to get info from the Russians during the campaign, Manafort not reporting being a lobbyist for a foreign govt., Kushner trying to set up secret meetings with Russian operatives. (I'm sure there are more)

[Gavin_Sons]

Flynn lying to the FBI, Flynn not reporting info on his security clearance, Jr. trying to get info from the Russians during the campaign, Manafort not reporting being a lobbyist for a foreign govt., Kushner trying to set up secret meetings with Russian operatives. (I'm sure there are more)

Yet none have been prosecuted for these "crimes".

[The emperor has no clothes]

Flynn lying to the FBI, Flynn not reporting info on his security clearance, Jr. trying to get info from the Russians during the campaign, Manafort not reporting being a lobbyist for a foreign govt., Kushner trying to set up secret meetings with Russian operatives. (I'm sure there are more)

Yet none have been prosecuted for these "crimes".

Uh....isn't that what the Grand Jury is impaneled for ? To see if there is enough evidence to go forward ? It's amazing how quickly some are willing to convict a thief, drug dealer, petty criminal. But be cursed if its a politician of their party.  ???

[Gavin_Sons]

Flynn lying to the FBI, Flynn not reporting info on his security clearance, Jr. trying to get info from the Russians during the campaign, Manafort not reporting being a lobbyist for a foreign govt., Kushner trying to set up secret meetings with Russian operatives. (I'm sure there are more)

Yet none have been prosecuted for these "crimes".

Uh....isn't that what the Grand Jury is impaneled for ? To see if there is enough evidence to go forward ? It's amazing how quickly some are willing to convict a thief, drug dealer, petty criminal. But be cursed if its a politician of their party.  ???

If they had evidence of anything they would have already prosecuted.  The only things they are finding are the illegal things obama and his people did.

[baldo]

If they had evidence of anything they would have already prosecuted.  The only things they are finding are the illegal things obama and his people did.

Quote: "Ok lets hear them."

[Gavin_Sons]

If they had evidence of anything they would have already prosecuted.  The only things they are finding are the illegal things obama and his people did.

Quote: "Ok lets hear them."

Find them yourself, I'm not your personal news outlet.

[The emperor has no clothes]

If they had evidence of anything they would have already prosecuted.  The only things they are finding are the illegal things obama and his people did.

Quote: "Ok lets hear them."

Find them yourself, I'm not your personal news outlet.

brilliant !

[Wizzard]

Lol..