Disapproval of Donald Trump is at a new high, ..and half of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll favor impeachment proceedings against the president.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Disapproval of Donald Trump is at a new high, support for the Mueller investigation is broad and half of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll favor Congress initiating impeachment proceedings against the president.
Sixty percent in the national survey disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, numerically the highest of his presidency, albeit by a single point; that includes 53 percent who disapprove strongly, more than half for the first time. Thirty-six percent approve, matching his low.
See PDF for full results, charts and tables.
Mary Altaffer/AP, FILEMichael Cohen leaves Federal court, Aug. 21, 2018, in New York City.
The results come a week after Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was convicted of fraud, and his former longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to eight felonies, including illegal campaign finance actions that he said Trump directed.
Trump’s average approval rating since taking office is the lowest for any president in modern polling since the 1940s. One factor: Contrary to his “drain the swamp” rhetoric, 45 percent say corruption in Washington has increased under Trump, while just 13 percent say it’s declined.
Jonathan Ernst/ReutersFormer Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives for arraignment on a third superseding indictment against him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on charges of witness tampering, at U.S. District Court in Washington, June 15, 2018. more +
Suspicions of the president relating to the Mueller investigation are substantial. Sixty-one percent say that if assertions by Cohen are true, Trump broke the law. Fifty-three percent also think Trump obstructed special counsel Robert Mueller’s work.
The national survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates , finds that half the public supports Congress initiating impeachment proceedings against Trump, 49-46 percent; support rises to 57 percent among women. And support for the investigation running its course is broader: Americans overall back Mueller’s probe by 63-29 percent. Fifty-two percent support it strongly, a high level of strong sentiment.
Andrew Harnik/AP, FILEFormer FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing Russian interference in the 2016 election, departs Capitol Hill following a closed door meeting in Washington, June 21, 2017. more +
Mueller prosecuted Manafort and referred the Cohen case to federal prosecutors in New York. Support for Mueller’s investigation peaks at 85 percent among Democrats, but also takes in 67 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans (32 percent). Forty-one percent of conservatives back Mueller, rising to more than seven in 10 moderates and liberals.
In Trump’s dispute with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for allowing the investigation to proceed, the public sides with Sessions, 62-23 percent. Sixty-four percent also oppose the idea of Trump firing Sessions; just 19 percent support it.
Further, while Trump has railed against the Manafort prosecution, Americans call it justified by an overwhelming 67-17 percent, including nearly half of Republicans. The public opposes Trump pardoning Manafort by essentially the same margin, 66-18 percent, with 53 percent strongly opposed. Even among Republicans, 45 percent oppose a Manafort pardon; 36 percent support it.
The damage to Trump on these ethics concerns overwhelms his better rating for handling the economy, an essentially even split, 45-47 percent. That demonstrates that a good economy only makes it possible for a president to be popular – it’s no guarantee.
Approval, Groups
The president’s approval rating is highly partisan, but with relative challenges for Trump across the board. His job rating matches his low among Republicans (78 percent approve) and Democrats (6 percent) alike. It’s 35 percent among independents.
He’s at new lows among college-educated Americans (albeit just by a point; 29 percent approve), moderates (24 percent) and blacks (3 percent, with a nearly unanimous 93 percent disapproving).
The single biggest shift is among college-educated white women – just 23 percent now approve of Trump, down 17 points from the peak in April 2017, with disapproval up 20 points, from 55 percent then to 75 percent now. Still, even among non-college white men, a core Trump group, his approval is down 15 points, from 70 percent just this spring to 55 percent today.
Other Group Results
Trump’s approval rating is 12 points lower among women than men, and that gender gap is reflected elsewhere. As noted, 57 percent of women favor Congress initiating impeachment proceedings; that drops to 40 percent of men.
Seventy percent of liberals support impeachment proceedings, declining to 51 percent of moderates and 30 percent of conservatives. Impeachment support is highest, a vast 80 percent, among blacks; 37 percent of whites agree.
Some of these gaps narrow on whether or not the charges against Manafort were justified. Two-thirds of men and women alike say they were, as do two-thirds of whites – including 64 percent of white men without college degrees. Even among Republicans, conservatives and those who approve of Trump’s work in office, more see the charges as justified than as unjustified, by 48-28, 49-30 and 47-29 percent, respectively. (The rest express no opinion.)
As noted, 45 percent of Republicans oppose Trump pardoning Manafort, with 36 percent support. It’s similar among conservatives, 46-34 percent. Trump approvers split about evenly on a Manafort pardon, with 39 percent opposed, 37 percent in favor.
Opposition to a pardon goes higher in other groups – 68 percent among men and 64 percent among women, for example (no real difference between them), 64 percent among whites and Hispanics alike, and 82 percent among blacks.
Sixty-one percent, as noted, say that if Cohen’s claim that he acted at Trump’s direction is true, Trump committed a crime. That view is lowest among Republicans, 28 percent. But there’s concern for Trump in other core groups: A substantial minority of conservatives, 41 percent, say he broke the law if Cohen’s telling the truth. So do 44 percent of evangelical white Protestants, 52 percent of whites and 52 percent of non-college white men, all groups whose support Trump needs.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
84 visitors
Our asshole in chief has hit a new low. LOL, what else is new?
None of these numbers are good for Trump. Whatever opportunity he had right after the election to unite the country is gone. Hopefully his point of view will be wiped out in the November election.
But he is still YOUR President.............unless of course you have renounced your citizenship.........juuuuuuuussst sayin.
I respect the office, not the man in it. Trump is not my president.
Yes he is whether you like it or not
then you can not impeach him... LOL
btw
not only did ohr admit the dossier was pure bs and not fit for a court of law.... but now we have this...
that is going to sting a bit... that whole fisa court thing is going to have to be reworked to keep that bs from happening again.
and the good news? trump will still be our president - not yours
Lots of interesting stuff in the poll like the 57% of women who want Trump impeached.
63%-29% support the Muller investigation.
67% say the Manafort investigation was justified.
62%-23% side with Sessions, and only 19% want Trump to fire Sessions.
Same polls that predicted Hillary winning a landslide. Of course like Hillary they concentrated on the leftist coasts and ignored fly over country.
But keep believing in polls- they have served so well in the past.
nope, not the same poll. That was more than 2 years ago. This one just came out and it's really not good for the midterms.
Same people conducting the same moronic polls that they can make say anything they want to. Both sides believe far too much in polls. Oversampling, wording of questions, and falsifying answers. They use all the tricks.
Maybe the Democrats should try an come up with a real candidate to run for president? One that knows how federal elections that work; and won't ignore/disparage fly over country. With how unpopular the "polls" say Trump is it shouldn't be too hard to get a candidate? So where the hell are they? So far all the Democrats have is a whole lot of "I am not running for president".
They must know the Republican payback is coming. Manufactured evidence is now considered "real" evidence. Given the real skeletons all career establishment politicians have in their closest- it shouldn't be too hard to enhance some of them to get an impeachment started. What career politician would want to give up their protected graft at the lower levels to risk being POTUS?
Of course as much as Establishment politicians hate Trump you don't see any of them announcing their candidacy either. Obama might be the last POTUS to get away w/o a special council investigation and threat of impeachment proceedings. He deserved them; but the Establishment protects their own.
I'm somewhat surprised that only 57% of women want Trump impeached.
The other 43% want to see Melania finally blow her cool on National television and beats the shit out of him. Like lose it so much that she reverts to Slovenian and screaming You "Whack" cheating, Whack, fucking lying , Whack Whack Bastard! Whack!
While I certainly am no fan of President Trump, I am frequently amazed and amused that in your continuous blasting of Trump and conservatives in general, you consistently cite only sources that are blatantly known to be leftist leaning in general and then you seem to expect that to be credible. Any poll results are always dependent on who commissions the polls, in this case the progressive left, thus supporting your seeming vitriolic dislike of the right and conservatives in general. Perhaps you might consider citing sources that are more towards center and thus not quite as biased. But I doubt that you will. Have a good day Sir.
As Trump himself has noted, he could shoot someone and still not lose support from his moronic base, but he may have recently done something that actually did lose him a few points; he mocked and ridiculed the southern accent.
we are used to that
Hey Donald, I know hundreds of University of Alabama graduates a helluva lot smarter than you. In fact, I could randomly select the first 500 Crimson Tide students from a phone book who could out debate you on the subject of your choice. # RollTide
-
Joe Scarborough added,
Nobody pays attention to Scarborough. Hell, most Americans don't even know who he is.
[deleted]
Joe is holding the bar too high.
I know hundreds of kindergarten graduates that are smarter than Trump.
i bet you wish that was true. It isn't. Morning Joe has the 2nd highest ratings.
They probably wouldn't call it "Porto Rica" either
I forgot about that.
This is why the poll is bs..
From the methodology of the poll.
I can only assume you don't understand the difference between party identification and ideological identification.
When Barack Obama was elected, twice, more Americans self-identified as "conservatives" than "liberals" is all of those years. Such an identification is not new with the Trump era, and doesn't really have anything to do with the approval poll.
You are also assuming that none or few "conservatives" could be unhappy with Trump. It is true that Republicans strongly back Trump but many "conservatives" have left the Republican Party.
That's your problem, you assume...and you are usually wrong when you do it.
I am fully aware of the difference between the two, and your "poll" showed party affiliation, as I clearly showed you, but did not address the favored ideology of those polled. Pretty much no Republican would identify as liberal, as the same with Democrats and liberals. YOU assume that many democrats have not moved to the "favor" column with Trump. There have probably been many.
I really don't think many conservatives have moved away from the Republican party, but if there are any, I can assure you they did not go to the Democrats. Probably in the "independent but lean right" column.
Your entire argument doesn't make any sense, but I am not in the mood to engage your nonsense right now.
It's OK, John...I understand that you can't reply with anything cognizant. I accept your white flag.
Why should I waste time explaining anything to people who cannot absorb it ?
We are becoming an idiocracy as a nation and NT is not far behind in some cases.
Maybe...but keep in mind you are a major contributor to this site, so..........
Here's why your post makes a FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
"Partisan divisions' are NOT the same as ideology.
Oh and BTW, there are many 'red' states that have a smaller population than a most of our medium cities, so again, false equivalency.
How many democrats do you know identify as conservative, and how many democrats identify as conservative?
My post stands as fact. Deal with it.
Meant one of those to read " republicans identify as liberal."
Actually, I'm from a 'red' state and quite a few Democrats I know identify as 'conservative' on economic issues and 'moderate to liberal' on social issues. What's ironic is that MOST of the Republicans I know identify in the SAME WAY.
MY post stands as fact, deal with it.
you're correct. There are way more conservative Dems than there are Liberal cons.
I'm a Democrat that identifies as conservative fiscally and, liberal socially.
Deal with it.
Weird how only 6% of scientists self identify as conservatives/republicans.
Perhaps that's because cognitive dissonance isn't conducive in science.
This helps explain why Trump's ratings are in the very bottom of the barrel. From Obama's eulogy of McCain:
That should read "Beau Biden" not McCain.
He's just mad that his legacy is being put in the dumpster where it belongs. Most Americans appreciate that.
im guessing your talking about obama?
trump will not have a "legacy to worry about until 2025
leg·a·cy
(lĕg′ə-sē)
I am....
cheers
You got a link to a poll to support that? /s
Trump already has a legacy. Trump has already surpassed Nixon as the most corrupt.
Is that when you expect him to be released from prison?
ya missed him by ( this much)
too bad ohr admitted the dossier was all bs and never meant for a court of law.
people will be going to jail for that... and trump will still be president.
the dossier was not the thing that lead to the investigation.
And?
and now they are going to talk to the fisa court judges to see if they got duped?
or if they were in on the hoax?
of course those judges were not in on the hoax.
so we can expect the "signers" comey mccabe and sally yates to face charges along with the fisa court being reworked to prevent future abuse of power.
that should be fun enough for everyone
btw
Any and all resulting indictments, pleas, and convictions from muellers bs investigation will likely be negated and dismissed
— fruit of the poisonous tree —
Who decides whether a hearing is conducted or not?
Here's a fucking hint: The JUDGE.
So if NO hearing was conducted, the JUDGE reviewed the documentation and decided that their was sufficient probable cause THEREIN to justify a warrant.
At ANY time, a FISA Judge can ask questions of the Agency seeking the warrant, in writing OR in person. It is the JUDGE who decides whether the Government has met the requirements under the law.
Oh and BTFW, Nunes was well aware of ALL of the documents and procedures conducted for the Page FISA warrant AND he was in CHARGE of Amending and passing the FISA Reauthorization Act of 2017. Nunes made NO CHANGES to address your fabricated allegations of 'abuse of power'.
That was 8 months ago. I'm sure by now you've had a reply from Nunes' office about your inquiry as to WHY Nunes failed you. Care to share?
No, no NO! It's loony right wing conspiracy theorists who are supposed to do that!
What I've liked best about this entire FISA / Carter Page issue is the premise of RWNJs that the FBI should not have been monitoring Page's communications with known Russian agents......despite the fact that there had been prior efforts by Russia to recruit Page as a spy.
It's like they don't want the FBI to do the job they were hired to do. Why is that I wonder?
They rubber stamped it. All those FISA Court Justices were appointed by the Chief Justice. It is he who needs to call them in and get to the bottom of it.
They read it, saw that the application easily met and far surpassed the probable cause test, then they rubber stamped it.
Lol, ya, that would be the way you would see it
So you disagree with Eight Ball.
No worries. I'm sure Roberts will immediately take your demand into consideration. /s
I'm disagreeing with you!
Nope.
Eight Ball said that the Judges aren't involved in the 'hoax', he's all about prosecuting Comey, McCabe, Yates et al.
YOU say it's all on the Judges because they 'rubber stamped' the FISA warrant and you want Roberts to call them in on the carpet.
You boys disagree.
I didn't opine on any of it. I merely cited FACTS about the process.
That doesn't mean it didn't contain accurate information--which it did--and provided investigators with plenty of clues to track down the culprits--which it has.
People already have and more will be--all of them associated with "president" Scumbag.
not a chance and you can also expect all resulting indictments, pleas, and convictions resulting from muellers bs investigation to be negated and dismissed. "fruit of a poisoned tree"
You sound rather desperate. What is it that you're afraid of? That more people in Trump's inner circle will admit to committing crimes?
Sweet! Bring on Pence! Give them what they think they want! LMFAO!
You should go review what Pence did to Indiana before you laugh. My favorite was his parting act of giving away 7 MILLION in Indiana taxpayer money to Carrier to 'save' ZERO jobs which they are using to fund automation so they need even fewer workers...
If tump goes down pence will go with him.
Well, then I guess you are stuck with both for at least the next 6 years.
Enjoy!!!
Not up on the Constitution I see.
I have taken the oath many times to uphold the Constitution, so your failed jab means nothing.
Trump is going nowhere and neither is Pence. Hence, you are stuck with both at least the next 6 years.
Again...Enjoy!!!
Can you imagine the mess we'd have to clean from all the pants shitting and heads exploding if they both get booted and Pelosi is speaker?
Many take that oath without having a fucking clue what the Constitution SAYS. Trump is a perfect example of that.
Their policies prove that...
At most, 2+ more heartbreaking years.
Which was EXACTLY what I was envisioning...delicious Karma.
Leftist fantasy that will never happen
Then you might want to read it.
President Obama is paying tribute to John McCain, listen up righties!!
No thanks we all knew McCain was a deep state Rino and the leftists love him.
Q strikes again!! Did that ring hurt when they pierced the nose?
They love him now, they hated him during the 2008 campaign
Not enough to spread a malicious rumor about his black child now did they?
And funny how that was done by the inclusive right...made the color of the child an issue for other Republicans while knowing the child was adopted but still spewing that she was a product of an illicit affair which also gave the dog whistle that he slept with "one of them".
And nobody "hated" McCain in 2008, they recoiled at his choice for a running mate.
But you were finally able to elect her clone in to the presidency and look at the mess.
"Hate"....such an easy word for righties to use, must be another one of those "Words of the week for the weak" like "Gruber, Marxist, Statist, Communist, Kenyan, ........"
Clueless response.
I NEVER hated McCain. I disagreed with his POLICIES and his love for the MIC but I ALWAYS respected him.
It's the GOP and the right that has abdicated their value system.
At one time they loved McCain in not small part BECAUSE he EARNED their respect in a plethora of ways.
Now they love Trump yet admit that they don't respect him and don't EVER expect him to BE respectable. In fact, as we have seen here, they all too often cheer his dishonorable behavior.
Rightwingers say the weirdest shit but it is good for laughs.
Let's take a look back shall we:
It's John McCain who wears $500 shoes, has six houses, and comes from one of the richest families in his state," Schumer said. "It's Barack Obama who climbed up the hard way, and that's why he wants middle-class tax cuts and better schools for our kids." ....Chuck Schumer
"Speaking in a Denver stadium in front of 80,000 supporters, Mr Obama mixed soaring rhetoric with a gritty assault on his Republican opponent John McCain who, he said, "doesn't get it" and leaves ordinary Americans "on their own".
In a statement signalling that Mr Obama's campaign may attack Mr McCain over his wealth and apparent detachment from working class voters, he said: "I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans - I just think he doesn't know".
That's a sampling.
Now fast forward to the McCain-Trump feud, the one started by McCain calling Trump supporters "crazies" . Trump emotionally strikes back when given bait by a "reporter", who say's " but McCains a war hero" . We know the response. The result: McCain obstructed Trump legislation like democrats never could have and suddenly McCain is a paragon of virtue to the resistance. So, after a week of the non-stop coverage of the McCain funeral (choreographed by McCain himself!), with a central message of how "bi-partisan" McCain was and how he wanted to work together, will we be seeing those adoring democrats reaching across the aisle?
That's the new liberal narrative. It's not fair to Obama.
"Hate"....such an easy word for righties to use
And it was the left that made it so easy for use.
Actually, McCain said:
Which Trump most certainly was and IS doing.
The "reporter' you are talking about is Frank Luntz, a long time wordsmith for the GOP, who started out by asking Trump if calling McCain 'a dumby' was appropriate for a presidential candidate. Trump proceeded to prove that he has NO CLUE what appropriate means...
McCain's vote on Trumpcare had NOTHING to do with Trump.
The GOP is running both Houses of Congress like fiefdoms. Democrats have NO control over the agenda or legislation. When you're not at the table, in fact, not even in the fucking room, it's impossible to reach across the isle. Add to that, no Amendments, no Committee hearings, little to no debate on the floor. That's the reality of a GOP majority and the reason why McCain voted NAY.
That's what I thought....so much for John McCain and bipartisanship.
I'm glad you did some research, yup McCain called em "crazies"......."Clingers" (by Obama), deplorables (by Hillary Clinton) and finally "crazies" (by the man whom the sun rises & sets on)
Obtuse.
Nancy Reagan first called the krazy evangelical far right wing of small r republican fundies, "The Wingnuts"...
"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and
cellular telephone Aug. 26-29, 2018, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of
1,003 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.6 points, including the design effect.
Partisan divisions are 33-25-37 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents."
So, we have a poll of 1,003 adults conducted by phone. (I assume the pollsters placed these calls and it wasn't a poll offered online)
I have questions.
How many Trump supporters when contacted by phone are willing to admit they are Trump supporters or respond at all?
Are we really asking people if they want to impeach a President based on whether they like him/her?
I have questions too..
WHY do you think that Trump supporters are unwilling to admit their affiliation?
Since you went online and reviewed the methodology, you could have easily reviewed how that question was worded and the results. You could have answered your own question...so why come here and ask us to?
FEAR....Fear of reprisal from the violent left
Since you went online and reviewed the methodology, you could have easily reviewed how that question was worded and the results. You could have answered your own question...so why come here and ask us to?
I want to see if you have a conscience.
Remember, your'e celebrating McCain and his values.
Yeah, that's often the result of telephone surveys.
It is funny though that so few Trump supporters want to admit it today. It's almost like they're ashamed of voting for a sociopathic con artist who's really just a bigoted moron with a fragile ego.
As always the rightwing is afraid of something that a rare leftist may do rarely but but the rightwingnuts do regularly, i.e. send death threats to outspoken liberals--especially journalists who are perceived to be "liberal" when they report facts:
Wow is that a load of bullshit! How EXACTLY would one carry out a violent reprisal on someone who is answering a phone survey poll? Please STOP insulting my intelligence.
So you start a thread with:
And now pretend that the question was to 'see if you [I] have a conscience'?
The disingenuousness in that comment is galactic.
As long as you acknowledge that you are celebrating Trump, his lack of values and his 'emotional' reactions to each and every slight.
So your'e confident that your'e personal information would be protected. Good for you.
As long as you acknowledge that you are celebrating Trump
Are you sure that "celebrating" is the word you want to use? Or are you just trying to find a way to compare Trump's character to McCains. You like to define the argument don't you? This isn't about Trump's character, it's about progressive hypocrisy.
It sure seems that way
Gee Vic, you frequent this site. Are you sure your personal information is protected? Bless your heart.
Yes.
Actually, I was comparing YOUR position and MINE.
It sure beats slinging hyperbolic bullshit and deflection as practiced by all too many here.
So you decry 'defining the argument' and then falsely try to 'redefine the argument'. Bad Form.
What 'seems' okay Vic?
Not one bit. I can defend myself against the scum on the left.
then falsely try to 'redefine the argument'
Not at all. Just review the discussion and where it began - with post # 8.1.3 (three hours ago), with me saying that they love him now, but they hated him in 2008. Hypocrisy!
Have a nice day
So you think I can't defend myself from the 'scum' on the right?
I know it's hard for y'all to grasp the concept of respecting someone while disagreeing with their position but it's actually pretty easy for many of us.
So you insist that 'the left' are hypocrites because in your opinion, they now 'love' McCain but they hated him in 2008. Where do you come by the information to come to your conclusion?
There was plenty to like
Since Vic hasn't answered, perhaps you will.
WHAT are you saying is okay Kathleen?
Yet Trump has called for opponents to be beat up if they voice their opinion since the start of his campaign. Trump set the 'stage' for violence. He continues to do so, especially against the press.
BTW, is it your opinion that EVERYONE that disagrees with Trump 'hates' him?
Had coffee at your local truck stop lately?
Just stirring the pot! You don't remember the 'truck stop' exchange?
I didn't ask you about your first statement.
Bullshit.
Again, I didn't ask you anything 'on that comment'. You don't own me shit on anything nor I you.
I asked you a simple fucking question about the CONTENT of your SECOND comment. If you don't want to answer it, don't. I could not care less.
But DO NOT pretend that asking a relevant question somehow overburdens you if you want to be part of a DISCUSSION in which ALL members can participate.
If the ONLY way you can participate in a discussion here is for everyone to be 'satisfied' with everything you say, perhaps an adult discussion forum isn't the place for you.
So I presume that you will 'allow' me to reply to your comment since you obviously weren't 'done'.
Here's the SHOCKER:
I am completely satisfied with what you just posted, though it doesn't actually answer my question.
Hell hath frozen over...
I only wish that you would have posted THAT comment instead of the other...
I have some tartar sauce that needs to be used up before it gets old...
I'm not the one who started that 'discussion' here fish.
I can see how that would be a valid question, people don't like to admit their major mistakes.
But then again, how many people under 40 still have land lines? And since older people tend to be conservative as has been pointed out by the right numerous times also according to the demographics of Fox News watchers, using a land line as well as cell for the survey would greatly increase the chances of the respondents to be mature age adults.
It said BOTH cell phones and landlines, Mr lawman
Did you miss that part? Or did you again think you had a "gotcha"?
Love the "Mr. Lawman" part like it's some derogatory label. So much better to be an honest lawman than ....well, I already showed that proof about your history but you deleted the article rather than face real facts.
In the tradition of Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok
So desperate....you really are exposing yourself now.
Got any evidence that either of them lied (and please feel free to use "president" Scumbag as a source)? Fact is, those two got canned for their honesty and as a result being a threat to said Scumbag.
I have hard evidence on McCabe:
"The new report from the Justice Department inspector general concludes that Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director, lied to then-FBI Director James Comey, to other FBI agents, and to officials of the Office of the Inspector General. Some of those lies came when McCabe was under oath.
What did he lie about? Unauthorized disclosures about the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The information was leaked to a reporter for the Wall Street Journal."
WTF is it with y'all lately? This will be the third day in a row that I have had to FIX copyright violations.
Luckily I found the OPINION piece on Newsweek because the other source is 'questionable' and also verboten on this site.
BTW, if you have 'hard evidence' post it. An opinion piece hardly qualifies.
The word report is a hyper link. And everything is in quotes.
What the fuck is wrong with y'all?
A hyperlink that takes you to the IG REPORT, NOT the article you quoted.
Which DOES NOT fulfill the requirements of this sites CoC OR the copyrights laws.
Not a fucking thing.
Pretty straight forward questions....
Yes, I do. If there are no "high crimes" or "misdemeanors", then it can only be a matter of emotion to answer YES
The question was "Based on what you know" Not "Based on what you choose to ignore" And Obstruction of justice, is a crime.
Funny how that is a problem where Trump won't sit down for an interview if Obstruction of justice is on the table.
It is but Trump has not been charged with that, has he?
So again, and this is the second and final time, when there are no "high crimes" or "misdemeanors", one can only be answering that question based on personal feelings.
Then why does Trump refuse to answer any questions about that? Is he afraid of his emotions too?
He is being advised not to sit down to what will be a perjury trap. Mueller has nothing on Trump, but he has invested a lot of time and treasure in bringing the President down. There is only one way now - getting the President to make a contradictory statement on anything. And we know how easily Donald Trump can do that on his own, leaving aside all the thousands of statements in Bob Mueller's possession. It only takes one contradiction. So, sorry to dash your hopes, but Trump dosen't answer questions. The ball is in Mueller's court. We can go all the way to the SCOTUS if Bobby decides to issue a subpoena.
That's because Trump's attorneys know that he's a pathological liar. Trump would lie about his own eye color.
It's only a trap if someone plans to step in it--i.e., needs and plans to lie.
And that's not a "high crime" or "misdemeanor", but as we know, it is serious to lie to federal agents. I'm sure you wouldn't want the President impeached because he lied about his eye color, would you?
Maybe he should demand that the interview be conducted the same way Peter Strzok and the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton - with no formal oath, no notes taken and a personal lawyer sitting right there and of course, no grand jury.
Trump is an 'unindicted' co-conspirator in the Cohen case, or did you forget about that already?
The question is about their OPINION, based on what the know, NOT how they FEEL about what they know.
Forget?
Ok, let's see the link on that one
What matters is what Congress considers sufficient to impeach, and we already know that the GOP-controlled Congress doesn't consider an admission to obstruction of justice or even rigging an election with the help of a hostile foreign power to be serious issues.
.
Whatever gets Trump ejected from office works for me, but it is very revealing that Trump's supporters admit that he lies about everything including his eye color yet they still support him.
Excuse me, but Trump needs to answer questions if I say he needs to answer questions. He works for me, I don't work for him. I, along with millions of other US citizens (and that includes you), are entitled to know the real facts of the matter. He could have ended this mess ages ago by cooperating with the investigation...at least that's what an innocent man would have done. Instead, he has spent an insane amount of time lying, dodging, weaving, deflecting and placing blame on everyone else. Those are not, nor will they ever be, acceptable presidential qualities. It is unfortunate for us all that Trump views them as presidential qualities. If he truly cared about this nation and its citizenry, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It sounds like you are confusing the United States of America with...Russia? North Korea? Do you think it is merely a coincidence that he obviously worships the leaders of those countries? That said, I have every right to know what he has done to my country, and I have every right to know what he is going to do to my country. Although it is apparent that you think so, following a 'leader' blindly is never a good idea.
And he HAS cooperated already.
You are going to need to prove that one, sugar bush. For crying out loud, it's like you are not the least bit aware that he has thrown up every barrier possible to prevent the truth from being known. Had he cooperated, this crap would have been over already.
Damn, that sounds like Hillary on her book tour. Are you sure you're not confused?
You do know that Hillary lost the election, right? I don't think the mean and hideous little old lady can hurt you any more.
Well I'm thinking the snowflakes and anti-Trumpers haven't accepted that yet.
But hey we can impeach him and make Hillarious Hillary president, right?
last I heard, they can simply annul everything trumps has done - easy peasy
I don't think that the 2975 dead in Puerto Rico can be 'annulled'. Not funny.
Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case.
FALSE
He could be if prosecutors accept what is in the indictment but as of now he is not, despite all the effort to make such a charge:
Why did you start a new thread to reply to my post Vic? You wouldn't be trying to avoid my tracking would you?
BTFW, YOUR link states:
So YOUR link PROVES that my comment was TRUE.
To any thinking person, it's pretty fucking obvious that 'prosecutors accept what is in' the indictment since they SIGNED off on the indictment. BTW, so did Cohen's lawyer, Guy Petrillo, who is a former Federal prosecutor in the SDNY. As 'officers of the court' by signing the plea agreement, both the prosecutor AND Cohen's lawyer vouch for the veracity of the facts therein.
If you're going to claim that one of my comments is FALSE the LEAST you can do is to do so to my face.
Secondly, if you're going to try to refute my comments, that weak shit isn't going to cut it.
NO, it proves exactly what I said - that he has not yet been charged that way, again - you did say that he already IS an unindicted co-conspirator.
To any thinking person, it's pretty fucking obvious that 'prosecutors accept what is in' the indictment since they SIGNED off on the indictment.
I'm afraid at least one distinguished law professor disagrees. What you said is FALSE.
If you're going to claim that one of my comments is FALSE the LEAST you can do is to do so to my face.
Oh, I'd love to. [deleted]
Secondly, if you're going to try to refute my comments, that weak shit isn't going to cut it.
Like the hard clear truth?
[Removed]
For the second time, here is what Turley said:
In English, Turley's term, 'just became' means IS. There is NO way you can spin it to mean otherwise and your attempt to do so lacks credulity.
If you feel Turley is so 'distinguished' WHY the fuck are you desperately trying to misrepresent his statement? You KNOW we can all READ it, right?
Here it is in full, ONE MORE TIME:
Just became = IS.
Again, bullshit.
No need, I have no issue with dealing with you right here, face to face. [Removed]
You posted a link to 'the hard clear truth' from a 'distinguished law professor' but you refuse to accept what his CLEAR statement says AND that it bolsters my comment.
I often wonder why y'all dig your heels in and so desperately try to get other members to accept your misrepresentations as the gospel. I'm still surprised every time one of y'all fervently defends a claim that has been PROVEN to be patently false. I suppose I mistakenly expect at some point at least one of you will have an epiphany, though I don't hold my breath...
[Removed]
The Impeachment Clause of the Constitution:
From the Cohen charging documents, which cite Trump as a co-conspirator, here are the last 2 charges:
That sure sounds like a felony[high crime] to me...