Yes sir!!!!!

Guess we can put a pin in this one until the democrats decide that they are gonna impeach trump for something else.

I would take the under on them trying to impeach him again for something by the end of march

Finally!

Interested in Trump supporters thoughts on the below. Do you feel like the President should be getting involved with cases of friends that are directly linked to him and his campaign? Does it not matter since it appears that the President is likely to pardon him anyways?

statefan91 said:

---

Interested in Trump supporters thoughts on the below. Do you feel like the President should be getting involved with cases of friends that are directly linked to him and his campaign? Does it not matter since it appears that the President is likely to pardon him anyways?

---

Not normally, but since the rule of law only applies to one political party in regards to things like this then I guess this is what we are gonna have to go with

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Interested in Trump supporters thoughts on the below. Do you feel like the President should be getting involved with cases of friends that are directly linked to him and his campaign? Does it not matter since it appears that the President is likely to pardon him anyways?

---

Not normally, but since the rule of law only applies to one political party in regards to things like this then I guess this is what we are gonna have to go with

---

I don't really understand what you're saying, can you please explain?

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Interested in Trump supporters thoughts on the below. Do you feel like the President should be getting involved with cases of friends that are directly linked to him and his campaign? Does it not matter since it appears that the President is likely to pardon him anyways?

---

Not normally, but since the rule of law only applies to one political party in regards to things like this then I guess this is what we are gonna have to go with

---

I don't really understand what you're saying, can you please explain?

---

We have found out that on of the jurors in this case probably committed perjury in the questionnaire, the FBI lied to the FISA court to get a warrants, several members of the FBI leaked classified information, James Comey and Andrew McCabe lied under oath to congress, several members of the FBI had an "insurance policy" in case a political candidate they didn't agree with was elected to office, a member of the NSC told a foreign government to ignore the elected president of this country because he didn't agree with him, and the FBI opened a special investigation into a president because they had a dossier that an opposition party put together that it was known that the information wasn't true.

All of these things are punishable by law, and none of which you have brought up here at all. But the one thing that you do bring up is about is someone complaining about the recommended sentencing by a group of prosecutors that was more then drug dealers, bank robbers, and rapist get. The most Stone should of been looking at is 1-2 years tops, but 7-9 years is crazy for a first time offender.

Your asking about what I think about the president weighing in on something with one case, and I want to know why all of the people from my first paragraph weren't charged with something. The only difference that I see is political party.

I'm not sure I follow why you want me to be worried about whether Trump's DOJ decides to prosecute James Comey and Andrew McCabe. If they broke the law they should absolutely be held accountable.

The "one person" you're talking about is the "one person" that's the Chief Executive of the United States of America who can wield undue influence over sentencing of someone that worked for him.

I remember one time when conservatives were outraged Bill Clinton meet Loretta Lunch for 30 minutes. But everyone is fine with Trump tweeting about the DoJ and directly interfering in cases with his buddies?

cowboypack02 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

I remember one time when conservatives were outraged Bill Clinton meet Loretta Lunch for 30 minutes. But everyone is fine with Trump tweeting about the DoJ and directly interfering in cases with his buddies?

---

I'm beyond the point of caring. The truth is that I am suppose to accept things one way, but not the other. I'm done dude.

If the republicans decide to put the next president and the people around him through the same thing that the democrats did i'm all for it.

---

Still not sure what he was put through? The Mueller investigation was opened and led by Trump appointees in his DOJ. Impeachment was a valid investigation into whether he withheld aid in exchange for political favors from an ally. Just because he was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't do it. He's admitted to doing it. Multiple times.

I hope any President is held accountable for any behavior like that.

^ Then why weren't Obama & Biden held to that standard? Obama claimed executive privilege something like 13 times, but he wasn't impeached for it yet the dem's impeached Trump for claiming executive privilege. Biden threatened to withhold &1 billion dollars in US aid if Ukraine didn't fire a prosecutor who would likely have investigated Buresma - no different than Trump yet the dem's impeached him. Sure looks like a double standard to me.

Are you asking me why the Republican House and Senate didn't hold Obama or Biden accountable? I would have to defer to them?

The answer is that the demoncrats tried to weaponize impeachment by changing the standard required. They tried to weaken Trump & instead shat their own bed.

82TxPackFan said:

---

The answer is that the demoncrats tried to weaponize impeachment by changing the standard required. They tried to weaken Trump & instead shat their own bed.

---

What do you mean the "standard required?"

PackBacker07 said:

---

I remember one time when conservatives were outraged Bill Clinton meet Loretta Lunch for 30 minutes. But everyone is fine with Trump tweeting about the DoJ and directly interfering in cases with his buddies?

---

Tweeting is "directly interfering"? Lol. The incessant cry wolf of the Dems will he felt in the election.

packgrad said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

I remember one time when conservatives were outraged Bill Clinton meet Loretta Lunch for 30 minutes. But everyone is fine with Trump tweeting about the DoJ and directly interfering in cases with his buddies?

---

Tweeting is "directly interfering"? Lol. The incessant cry wolf of the Dems will he felt in the election.

---

He keeps saying the quiet part loud haha

statefan91 said:

---

82TxPackFan said:

---

The answer is that the demoncrats tried to weaponize impeachment by changing the standard required. They tried to weaken Trump & instead shat their own bed.

---

What do you mean the "standard required?"

---

I'll give you a hint - check what the constitution says & the history of presidential impeachments. If you can't understand after doing that then I can't help you.

82TxPackFan said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

82TxPackFan said:

---

The answer is that the demoncrats tried to weaponize impeachment by changing the standard required. They tried to weaken Trump & instead shat their own bed.

---

What do you mean the "standard required?"

---

I'll give you a hint - check what the constitution says & the history of presidential impeachments. If you can't understand after doing that then I can't help you.

---

Here's what I found: "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#cite_note-5][5][/url] A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

Are you disputing that the President asked for investigations into the Bidens in exchange for continuation of military aid to Ukraine? Bribery, quid pro quo, call it what you will but he's clearly admitted to it.

This seems like a weird pardon for someone passionate about fighting corruption in Ukraine.

Seeing as the "impeachment" is over with and Trump was acquitted by the Senate, I will lock this one up. If you would like to discuss other matters such as Trump yawned so he should be removed from office or things such as Pelosi blinked twice so she should be removed from the house, feel free to start that thread. Whenever the Democrats nominate their candidate for president, I will start another thread for the 2020 election. Thanks to all for the back and forth here and I wish you all a very happy election season!