I’d love to stay and chat but the squat rack just opened up. Here’s the thing about all this impeachment nonsense that is going on. The story of the boy who cried wolf is well at work here. The Democratic Party has been calling for his impeachment since the day that he was elected. Every single charge that they have levied hasn’t held up, to include the Russian collusion narrative. The problem that the Democrats have now is that they lack any credibility with a good portion of the American people that any real attempt to remove a duly elected President that they voted for will result in a massive backlash against the Democrats, no matter if the claims are valid or not.
For those that don’t know the story, http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops ... s/boy.html
Factually incorrect - there was not enough evidence collected on the Russia stuff. Three years of legal stonewalling prevented seeing anything from Duetsche Bank AG - and only recently does it look like actual tax docs will be made available to Congress. Your statement is only accurate once ALL evidence has been evaluated and still nothing holds up.
Not enough evidence, AKA not enough evidence to prove that there was Russian collusion. Have you ever argued to convict someone for murder based on a lack of evidence? That’s exactly what you are calling for here.
Now, as far as the boy who cried wolf, the following lists in detail the entire effort to unseat Trump. I know that it is Wikipedia but it’s a convenient source to give with everything in one place. This all started when the Democrats tried passing a law requiring divestiture of assets and failing to do so becoming a “high crime and misdemeanor”.
I’m sorry but the Democrats are crooked as hell.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts ... nald_Trump
The whole world has had to listen to Republicans whine "BUT CLINTON!!!" since 1992. You can not possibly be serious when comparing actual crimes actually being pointed out in real time to big nothing burgers?
Recall that Ken Starr kept changing the scope and goal posts of his investigation every time he came up empty. There simply was no there there. So, he changed the narrative until he found something. And that was a stained dress. Not shaking down a foreign leader for dirt on his opponent.
Compare that with now. No special council changing the scope and focus of investigations. We had one man keeping a very narrow focus showing that, yes, Russia did get involved in our elections. Now, on a completely unrelated topic with no special council or any provocation from any political party, a whistle blower comes forward.
Republicans are so shook they are comparing apples to Plymouth Reliant.