Yeah, Trump really 'gets things done':

Trevor Noah: Donald Trump’s ‘Accomplishments’ Are Actually Phony --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b01fc18d3ebe2a




<O>

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/marka...-is-fake-news/

and National Public Radio isn't any more co-operative...

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/06/531787...audi-arms-deal

What a great deal maker!

How can you tell Trump is lying? His lips are moving:

Remember the Carrier Jobs Trump 'Saved'? Company Announces 600 Layoffs Before Christmas

http://www.newsweek.com/carrier-comp...s-ahead-614352

Carrier Sends Jobs to Mexico, Workers Say Trump ‘Misled’ Them

http://www.thedailybeast.com/carrier...mp-misled-them

Really, Trump should seek a sponsorship from Bandini; he produces almost as much of their product as they do...




<O>

Looks like the Democrats aren't going to get the smoking gun they crave from Comey. His opening statement was posted today: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...mey-060817.pdf

Add to that the Intel chiefs denial they were pressured in any way: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...be_134125.html

Looks like the Dems have failed again. :haha:

August beat me to the punch.

Comey confirms that he told POTUS 3 times he was not being personally investigated.

On the Flynn thing, I'm sure some will try to twist it into something nefarious, but it is not even close to "obstruction of justice".

Democrats hoping for a quick impeachment will be disappointed. :ping:

Why are you implying that only democrats are hoping for an impeachment?
There are Republicans that don't mistake politics for a silly meaningless team sport to vent some steam, some people still realize that this is actually important and hope for an impeachment/getting rid of him no matter how regardless of political position.

It takes more than hope because you don't like the guy (or gal) to impeach a sitting president. Contrary to popular belief it actually takes discernible evidence to do that and by the looks of things there never has been, not even close.

Just old women gossiping over newspaper articles.

Yes, yes it does.
Did I ever say or imply otherwise?
No, no I did not.

Still, millions of Americans realize(d) that he is bad for the country, and the world, so they do indeed hope to find something serious while digging.
What is wrong with that? As long as Trump is clean, he's got nothing to be afraid of.
I mean, sure ""Republicans"" didn't do so in case of Hillary, did they?
Diiid theeey? :03:

So, your point being?


Mh, "popular belief".
Now if that isn't begging for:

[citation needed]

Otherwise it's moot, like usual.


Oh before I forget:
http://i.imgur.com/JDkjluJ.png


http://i.imgur.com/lGdPQgj.png


Mh, but why would you say such things? :hmmm:

What has Trump done specifically since taking office that indicates he is bad for the country and world?


https://resources.stuff.co.nz/conten...6786923500.jpg

I am sure there are, but as Obama used to say "elections have consequences".

Trump won the 2016 election fair and square and under the U.S. Constitution will be POTUS until january 20th, 2021.

Under the U.S. Constitution, as it should be in any democracy, impeachment is an extraordinary remedy to be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. It is not there just so that the losing Party in the election gets to overturn democratic election results. That would be a horrible precedent which would lead to turning the USA into a "Banana Republic". The U.S.A has survived the Civil War, it can certainly survive Trump. :ping:

I don't agree with everything Trump does, but I also don't agree that he is the Train wreck some on the left make him out to be. At the end of the day, however, none of that matters, voters will decide whether to re-elect him in 2020 or not.

What smoking gun? That Comey wrote memos and that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation? Or am I missing something?

The very first sentence of that article:

That they had 'felt no pressure to do so' doesn't mean they had not been asked to do so.
And as the article says, they both said they were willing to answer questions related to the topic in a closed hearing, i.e. they've more to tell than they want to say in a public hearing.

True, but to impeach the President, which is the only way any of this could hurt POTUS, you need actual open testimony from Coats, Rogers, et al.

In two hearings now, they have said they will not comment. Talking heads can interpret that as they wish, but it gets you no closer to an impeachment, especially when you add:

Coats:

Rogers:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...earings-239242

Again. I agree, fully. Never said or implied otherwise, so I don't see why it is being brought up, really.

impeachment?

It has more to do with throwing a monkey wrench in the GOP agenda I would say. Typical Washington Circus.

You can't really blame the Democrats though, it is really payback for what the GOP did to Obama. i.e.:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=impeach+obama

..which is payback for what the democrats did to Bush:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort...George_W._Bush

...which is payback for what the GOP did to Clinton:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

etc., etc.,...:/\\!!

No, acting as if I, or anybody else here, just wants Trump to go because of a general disappointment regarding the election results.
Not the case, but pro-Trump people often try to imply this, probably to render it unreasonable and dismiss any suspicion, investigation or uncomfortable questions conveniently - because core-beliefs and who knows what one may find?

It isn't unreasonable, and if there's suspicion, there need to be investigations. Naturally, it is difficult to investigate a swamp like this. We're talking power-play and games of the highest order here.

We'll see.