The only reason why impeachment was discussed before the inauguration was due to Trump’s…
Victoria Lamb Hatch
1

> The only reason why impeachment was discussed before the inauguration was due to Trump’s unwillingness to divest himself of his businesses, which would surely lead to violation of the Emoluments clause and create other conflicts of interest.

I’ll call BS on that. Give me specific instances where that clause is violated, not just general statements about Trump being a businessman, so surely there must be something that violates it somewhere. Prove it. What business interests or what contracts violate it? Do you have the list?

Just because you guys were already making excuses for impeachment long before Trump took office, that doesn’t mean these excuses are just as bogus and “trumped” up as all of the fake news ones right now.

Trump will NOT be impeached because of this clause. You can take that to the bank.

> Most of our intelligence agencies have already confirmed this.

NOT TRUE! Of the 17 that Clinton claimed, only 3 of them were bonafide. But still, tell us what the Russian did. How did the Russian make sure Trump won? Do you even know the details, or is this just another vague reference in your cry of “Wolf!”

As far as I have seen, the Russian didn’t hack voter machines or intimidate voters. They did nothing illegal. What they did, apparently, was insert propaganda into the US media so Democrats wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Isn’t that about the extent of their involvement? But that’s exactly what the liberal media in this country has done to conservatives, so what’s the difference?

Trump will never be impeached for anything to do with the Russian and the election.

> Know what “evidence” you have on [the Seth Rich murder]?

I have as much evidence on the Seth Rich thing as you guys have on the Russians and the bogus claim of the Emoluments clause.

> Of course, you won’t read either of these, because both of these sites routinely debunk the talking points of the far right.

You’re right, I don’t trust “fact checkers” who are propagandists themselves. That’s like trusting the WW-II Germans on why they were killing the Jews. Politifact is HORRIBLE and Snopes is even worse. In fact, Snopes is known for coddling liberals and bashing conservatives and have been proven to lie on several occasions when dealing with politics. On other things, like scams and computer threats, Snopes is GREAT! I love them. But they are known for being extremely biased against conservatives, just like 90% of the mainstream media, being based in high-population areas in “blue” states.

So, do you trust FOX News fact checking? I bet not. I wonder why. Given that you probably do not, I’m curious why you are surprised at my non acceptables of liberal propagandist fact checkers. Curious indeed, eh?

> Like I said — I’m bookmarking your post, and I will respond as more develops.

I feel honored. Thanks!

Have a good weekend, my fine liberal friend! We’re all Americans in this debate and we all just want to have a great country and happy lives.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.