The Road to Impeachment

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

If so, I wonder if the fact that his dad killed JFK will come up in the hearings.

Oh, and will he be "Justice Lyin' Ted" or "Lyin' Justice Ted"?
If it makes the sore losers more butt hurt, I'm all for it.
 
If so, I wonder if the fact that his dad killed JFK will come up in the hearings.

Oh, and will he be "Justice Lyin' Ted" or "Lyin' Justice Ted"?
Actually, I would LOVE Trump to nominate Ted Cruz. If there's one person you could get bipartisan opposition to in the Senate, it's Ted "Wacko Bird" Cruz.
 
Impeachment.

Is this the next "hope" that is going to be dashed to the ground like the others?

:lol:
 
Impeachment.

Is this the next "hope" that is going to be dashed to the ground like the others?

:lol:

Pretty much. But it is awesome watching the Cali reservoirs getting filled by the liberal tears.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-its-letter-or-spirit/?utm_term=.06f652b773b7

Whether or not one concludes that Trump’s business dealings violate the letter or the spirit of the Emoluments Clause, the underlying controversy is almost certainly non-justiciable. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which someone would have standing to challenge Trump’s arrangements, and even harder to think what sort of remedy could be ordered by a court. In other words, if there are concerns about how President Trump handles his various investments, the only remedies will be political.
 
I don't know about others, but this level of bull shit will get extremely old in short order. I am sick of the bitching already.
 
MoveAlong.org needs to something to appear relevant.
 
From the Norseman. Trump and Obama accepting monies for a foreign source. What is different?
Trump is selling hotel rooms at standard rates he was before he ran.
 
Trump is selling hotel rooms at standard rates he was before he ran.

True but both are selling something. Trump is selling rooms and Trump. Obama is selling bullshit and Obama. Both before, during and after.
 
http://freebeacon.com/politics/sena...ck-ethics-violations-benefited-bank-bailouts/

Congressional records show that Schumer, who has relied extensively on Wall Street fundraising, held investments in banks that were bailed out during the 2008 financial crisis under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) while he served on the Finance and Banking Committees that were tasked with overseeing the $700 billion rescue package.

Financial disclosures from 2008 show Schumer held assets valued between $15,001 and $50,000 in Morgan Stanley and $1,001 to $15,000 in Citibank. Though Schumer’s assets in the banks constituted savings not stock, the two companies were granted billions of dollars under TARP. The federal program doled out $10 billion to Morgan Stanley and another $25 billion to Citibank.

While finalizing the details of TARP in Sept. 2008, Schumer attended a breakfast fundraiser in Manhattan to meet with about 20 banking executives. Though Schumer warned a bank bailout would be difficult to pass through Congress, he left an impression on executives that Democrats would stand by Wall Street.

Schumer a week later received more than $135,000 in donations from executives whose firms were represented at the breakfast.

Additionally, as the Free Beacon reported last week, Schumer also owned securities that likely benefitted from policies he advocated while serving in an official capacity.

While pursuing a federal takeover of mortgage insurers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008, Schumer held thousands of dollars in bonds with the companies. The minority leader had purchased the bonds in 2002, arguing a year later against heightened regulations against the firms.

Just a few months after the Treasury Department announced it would place the enterprises into conservatorship in 2008, Schumer redeemed between $15,000 and $50,000 in Fannie Mae bonds. The next year, he redeemed between $31,000 and $115,000 in Freddie Mac bonds.

Schumer spokesman Matt House told the Free Beacon in an email that the senator’s holdings in the banks, constituting certificates of deposit and savings backed by the FDIC, were incomparable to charges that Price engaged in insider trading.
What's up, Chuck?

:lol:

Where's the outrage?

Or should I say, faux outrage?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top