SkyDekker

I don't disagree. He frequently attacked the press during his campaign and continued to do so as President. Not sure why he would think hey would not fight back?

I agree with that position by the way. But that still doesn't state a crime has to have been committed. That was your position, a crime had to have been committed. That's why you keep whining on here about what crime Trump has committed. So, find something that states that impeachment can only take place if a crime has been committed. So far the article you have brought in to support your position actually supports mine. Which is, no crime needs to be committed for impeachment to start. The article even provides historical evidence supporting this claim. Mentions of actual impeachment proceedings without crimes committed. Indeed.

ok, later on in the article: Some scholarly commentary at the time of the Nixon impeachment proceedings argued that the actual commission of a crime was necessary to serve as a basis for an impeachment proceeding. However, the historical record of impeachments in England, which furnished the Constitution's Framers with the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," does not support such a limitation; at that time, the word "Misdemeanors" meant simply "misdeeds," rather than "petty crimes," as it now does. After that: In the end, because it is unlikely that a Court would ever exercise judicial review over impeachment and removal proceedings, the definitional responsibility to carry them out with fidelity to the Constitution's text remains that of the House of Representatives and the Senate. But please feel free to quote a part of your article that states clearly that a crime has to have been committed for impeachment to take place. I mean you did use that article to support your position, it should be pretty easy to find.

Yup, he did blame Bush for ISIS. I will give you 1 year out of the 8 you claimed. You have 7 more to go.

Rush I said the President doesn't have to commit a crime for Impeachment proceedings to apply. The articles support that. It even cites a case of impeachment proceedings against a SC judge for purely partisan reasons without any crimes committed. The second paragraph clearly states noncriminal behaviour could lead to impeachments. Everything in there supports my statement.

Please feel free to show me quotes from Obama as president blaming Bush.

I think the irony is obvious enough that I am not going to quote it....

Second paragraph of that article: Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty.

Same thing happened in March 2016. Nothing was done about it and clearly they were invited back. With that history in mind, the police could have been better prepared and put and end to this. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/04/04/turkeys-downward-spiral-and-the-scuffles-at-erdogans-brookings-speech/ Attached is how the Dutch dealt with the Turks when they tried to flex their muscle.

I will likely believe him. What will you do if he does find something? My prediction is you will go after his reputation. Then you will say it is all one big conspiracy and he is part of the "deep state". Then you will say something about Obama and Clinton. In the end you will tell us how you never supported Trump anyways.

Of course now there are accusations that Pence and Trump knew about Flynn and appointed him anyways. That might be a bit of a problem. I also like this one: House Majority Leader in 2016 tells colleagues he thinks Putin pays Trump. When confronted, they do what Republicans do: deny, deny, deny. When WaPo tells them that they will happily release the transcript of the tape they have....I yes, well it did happen, but it was just a joke. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQ5_urvvnTAhUD0mMKHd5UC10QFgg1MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Fnational-security%2Fhouse-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump%2F2017%2F05%2F17%2F515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html&usg=AFQjCNG8pe6KDI7fcnMkpYtW1Mub3vTcAQ&sig2=ndTftXro58V9j29p6U0DTw

Jesus Christ Rush, I can't believe a foreigner has to point this out to you, but the President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Read up on it. Preferably articles and opinions from people who do not occupy that alt-right space with you.

Carlson Tucker two nights ago spent the majority of his show on the Clinton Foundation. He was saying a different tune last night. Of course now Trump has come back with the standard: But Obama, but Clinton.

There is a Dutch documentary on Trump's connections to the Russian mob. There is a new report today that VEB provided money to Trump's partner for a sale related to Trump tower Toronto. There is little doubt in my mind that Russia directly and indirectly financed a lot of Trump's activities after his bankruptcies.

That's right. Nobody has. So why are you asking? When you say it like that it is hard to imagine people don't think you are more credible than the WaPo. I agree that risk was there. Which means you must be extremely upset about this: https://www.propublica.org/article/any-half-decent-hacker-could-break-into-mar-a-lago

And in other news Morgan Lewis & Bockius is looking forward to record earnings in the next few years. . , , , , , , , , It's Ok if you didn't get it, that's the law firm that Trump has on retainer. I think you are very right. Talking openly about it makes claiming executive privilege harder. That is going to limit a potential defence. I have a feeling, and really nothing to substantiate it, that Comey has significantly more damning information and this leak was an effort to bait congress into subpoenaing that information.

Sounds like it was to try to impress the Russians. Or reporting to his handler.

LOL No, you would look more credible if you cared across the board. But you don't.. The drip drip drip of hypocrisy. Asked to supply the same information as has been supplied in the Trump allegation. Have you been able to find it yet?

Also if you could decide if the squirrels are on crack or meth. Squirrels or squires would help too.

I think the most interesting part of this is that Trump himself hasn't tweeted about it yet.

Which also appears to be the path the alt-right websites have taken. Fox News was an exception, they spent a long time last night talking about where the Clinton Foundation is now. Anything to stay away from negative news regarding Trump.

They are toying with him. If it wasn't scary it would be rather funny. Actually it is still rather funny.

The allegations are pretty detailed: When exactly, where exactly. Relatively specific on what was discussed and who was in the room when it was discussed. We know it was not a planned discussion point and was a spur of the moment decision. So yeah, if you have the same info as the "Trump critics" have on Trump, that would be good.

What was the information? What were the attacks? Was it intel gathered by US intelligence agencies or shared by a foreign intelligence agency? Was the sharing discussed with those involved prior to it happening? Do you have anything other than an allegation without any specifics?

And the police do nothing. As a matter of fact, they arrest the Americans for being attacked. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/17/erdogans-bodyguards-in-violent-clash-with-protesters-in-washington-dc