Or, he could be guilty of the most impeachable offense of all: costing the party seats in the midterm elections because his popularity is in the toilet. They can't use that as the reason of course, but it would be.
Based on the phrasing, I think it is one step beyond bullying, specifically coming from the POTUS-elect. That has a very dictatorial tenner about it.
You're talking year 3 here -- and a scenario in which the GOP has already lost House seats (and, indeed, the House). The idea that the GOP will of their own volition impeach Trump for anything is, I think, wishful thinking.
The Republicans have at least 239 seats in the new House, so they could lose 15 and still have have a slight majority. I don't think it will happen, but if it does, I'd say that's the circumstance.
It wouldn't be the GOP impeaching him in that case. It'd be the Dems with a few defections. Not that I'm sure how they'd get that started in the House, given the control the majority party has in that body.
800134631467012096 is not a valid tweet id The man simply can't stop. The other tweets were 10 hours ago. This was less than 10 minutes ago.
With a normal politician, I would believe that he wants to distract from other things when he does things like this. I can't believe Trump has levels.
Yeah, that would require a level of intelligence that there is no evidence that he possesses. I guess we're passed the point that he'll stop acting like a brat. It got him elected President, so why would he stop? Are there 37 brave souls who happen to be Republican electors who will vote for someone else next month (no, there aren't)?
Well, he probably does want (at some reptilian level of comprehension) to distract from the emollients business. But I have my doubts that he really gets that (or anything like that) in a way that would lead him to act strategically for the sake of distraction. I just think whenever bad shit seems to come his way, it's his instinct to throw even more shit out there to muddy things up and change the subject. With Trump, I keep thinking of the Gish Gallop -- but he's actually less rhetorically strategic or sophisticated than that. He's not out to "win" a debate by baffling them with bullshit. He doesn't give damn about the "debate" and he doesn't know the difference between bullshit and lies and truth. That's all sort of beside the point for him. Brat is a good word for him. It does speak to his style.
I can see this one making a comeback: But instead of terra it'll refer to how angry Nasty McF#ckface gets at lib'ruls & the biased, lamestream media. And his face will be the color chart.
I'm not an expert on law, but my understanding is you don't deal unless you're not confident you'll win in court -- so my guess is their case wasn't all that solid to begin with. Either that, or they took advantage of the option to get something out of DJT rather than continue to spend taxpayer resources.
Are you talking about Hillary or Trump? Hard to tell based on that statement. Oh wait, "He". Okay, got it.
Hillary was a pretty typical pol. But I don't recall her settling multi-million dollar lawsuits for a fake university. Also, are Republicans cool with BENGHAZI! now?