Monker wrote:You're wrong.
You are not the arbiter of right/wrong and true/false. You are a disgusting proven liar.
Here is an April 2016 article talking about Trump impeachment and this was BEFORE the general election!
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ent-213817Here is a Time article documenting groups pushing for Trump impeachment and this was BEFORE Trump was sworn in.
http://time.com/4641233/donald-trump-in ... n-impeach/Many more like these. So you're wrong, as usual.
Monker wrote:But, if you TRULY wanted to know the evidence you would want an independent investigation.
We investigate crimes, not evidence. Name the crime. For that matter, name some evidence.
Monker wrote:That is not your aim, nor is it the aim of the alt-right. Your aim, and there's, is to continue a Trump presidency regardless of anything he has said or done that may prevent it.
The aim is the Trump agenda (MAGA). That is what we voted for. As proven above, the impeachment talk already began long before the election. It's knee-jerk, silly, and reactionary.
Monker wrote:You don't care about 'facts'. What you care about are ways to either ignore them, contradict them, or simply to avoid knowing them.
I love facts.
99.999% of my posts on here are disproving your lies with REAL FACTS. Not pushing alternative facts like "Hillary had permission to use a private server" or your claim above that the impeachment talk did not pre-date the election. Which it did.
Monker wrote:There is a scene in "All the President's Men" where they thought they got something wrong. They were both prepared to resign. The fact is that sometimes the press gets it wrong.
So your basis for an investigation is reporters who are continually wrong. Very strong case.
Monker wrote:You are living in a fantasy. Nobody gives a shit about a President who has 30-35% approval rating,
Where have I heard this before?
Prior to the election, major newspapers said Trump had 180 predicted electoral votes to Hillary's secured 300 electoral votes. Huffington Post gave Trump a 1.6% chance to win. NYTimes gave Trump a 24% chance to win. The figures, data, and models you hold up to support your outdated worldview are now meaningless. We just saw this again in Georgia. In reality, Trump's approval is probably above 50%.
Monker wrote:...and who has not passed a single piece of significant legislation.
Not how presidencies work. Most of FDR's New Deal agenda failed. Voters came back because he appeared to be fighting and trying.
And if Bannon succeeds in raising taxes on the rich - oh boy, look out - Trump will solidify the blue collar Reagan democrat vote for a decade.
Monker wrote:The investigations are there for very good reasons - I'm not even going to get into that because you are simply so far in denial that it senseless.
Because you can't. Every reason you have stated previously, (like citing intelligence community consensus), has crumbled.
Monker wrote:It is illegal to have such business ties with Russia, or meetings with Russian govt officials, and be selected to significant positions where you have to fill out security documents which require you to disclose such things. Not disclosing on those forms is punishible by jail time. Oops. That is why someone like Manafort retroactively admitted his ties to Turkey - to avoid going to prison.
So now the crime has gone from "Russian collusion" to forgetting to check a tiny box on an SF 86 form. Is this really the best you got?
Monker wrote:I'm so tired of this. If you watch the interview above, there is an entire section where Buckley very carefully (and skillfully) dances around accusing the press of putting Nixon on trial via their stories. Their answer was that is what the committees and special prosecutor are for. Yes, they may share some of the same information. Some even given to them via leaks. But, the press only sees the tip of the iceberg of what the real evidence is...which is what I have been saying - from the beginning of this. Imagine that...everything Woodward and Bernstien reported, the Watergate papers, the tapes - that was just THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG as far as evidence goes.
I don't care about the racist and homophobic Buckley. He would probably be a NeverTrumper if still around. I don't care about Nixon comparisons either. It's as lazy and desperate as Hitler comparisons. Can you debate facts and reality as it exists today in July 2017? All indications point to NO.
Monker wrote:The same thing is going on right now with Trump...and you will NOT know what all the evidence is. Period.
Like I said, you would make a great tour guide at the Area 51 gift shop.
Monker wrote:And, witch hunt. That's bullshit. You love Dershowitz so much...he said that on a scale of one to 10 that this "witch hunt" ranks about a 4. He said there was more a witch hunt of Bill Clinton because of how far the investigation dove into his private life.
In other words, you hate witch hunts except when they are aimed at Republicans. I haven't provided my opinion on Ken Starr either way. To paraphrase you, go start a Clinton thread and discuss that shit over there.