Fox News Host: Trump Hasn't Had 'Hint Of Scandal' In Office

[kage69]

I vaguely recognize this guy, don't believe I've paid him much mind since I saw him go absolutely frothy over Jon Stewart having the temerity to both change his name as well as criticize Israel and it's relationship to the US. Baghdad Bob level fail here.

Doesn't seem like his arguments have improved with time. But this is what happens When Things Fall Apart. People start to lose their grip and spew stranger things than normal. As of the other day impeachment is pretty much inevitable.

Outrage aside, I'd say the majority of republicans get it too. 53 (R) Senator offices contacted, only 7 ruled out impeachment

 

[fskimospy]

I vaguely recognize this guy, don't believe I've paid him much mind since I saw him go absolutely frothy over Jon Stewart having the temerity to both change his name as well as criticize Israel and it's relationship to the US. Baghdad Bob level fail here.

Doesn't seem like his arguments have improved with time. But this is what happens When Things Fall Apart. People start to lose their grip and spew stranger things than normal. As of the other day impeachment is pretty much inevitable.

Outrage aside, I'd say the majority of republicans get it too. 53 (R) Senator offices contacted, only 7 ruled out impeachment

While I get what you mean it's also kind of insane that more than 10% of elected Republican officials are saying they wouldn't vote to convict regardless of the evidence.

 

[brycejones]

While I get what you mean it's also kind of insane that more than 10% of elected Republican officials are saying they wouldn't vote to convict regardless of the evidence.

Its nuts but I'm also surprised the number isn't higher. I have a feeling the same question to GOP house members would be more in the 40% range.

 

[JD50]

Jesus I can't believe I used to like Mark Levin, what an imbecile.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Its nuts but I'm also surprised the number isn't higher. I have a feeling the same question to GOP house members would be more in the 40% range.

Remember that this is just the ones willing to say it to a reporter. Most are probably in that camp, but won't say it to a reporter because there is no advantage for them to. Much better to appear that they will consider the evidence, even if they have no intention to do so. It allows them to make the argument that the evidence did not reach the level of impeachment. Which many will believe no matter how much smoke is coming off the gun.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember that this is just the ones willing to say it to a reporter. Most are probably in that camp, but won't say it to a reporter because there is no advantage for them to. Much better to appear that they will consider the evidence, even if they have no intention to do so. It allows them to make the argument that the evidence did not reach the level of impeachment. Which many will believe no matter how much smoke is coming off the gun.

Yes, I suspect by the end most will end up Susan Collins-ing it (probably including Collins herself). They will deeply furrow their brows and claim to be troubled by the evidence against Trump, followed by voting in lockstep with the rest of their colleagues.

 

[HomerJS]

Remember that this is just the ones willing to say it to a reporter. Most are probably in that camp, but won't say it to a reporter because there is no advantage for them to. Much better to appear that they will consider the evidence, even if they have no intention to do so. It allows them to make the argument that the evidence did not reach the level of impeachment. Which many will believe no matter how much smoke is coming off the gun.

But these same people are unable to answer the question, "Is it acceptable for a President to extort a foreign country for dirt on their opponent". If they acquit Trump the answer would have to be "yes"

 

[fskimospy]

But these same people are unable to answer the question, "Is it acceptable for a President to extort a foreign country for dirt on their opponent". If they acquit Trump the answer would have to be "yes"

Which plenty will answer yes to.

I wonder if their apparent lack of concern of the weaponization of the federal government against the president’s political enemies is based on the fact that they think future Democrats will be too principled to do the same thing.

This is yet another reason to disabuse them of this notion and do things like pack the Supreme Court.

 

[tweaker2]

I don't envy any of the Repubs hiding out in the Senate. Rock and a hard place isn't somewhere to hang your MAGA hat and act like Trump is being railroaded by a kangaroo court while relishing the thought of having Trump being replaced with Pence.

 

[Viper1j]

Ever wonder why the Republican base and about a dozen here are so brainwashed? They actually believe this shit.

Fox News Host: Trump Hasn't Had 'Hint Of Scandal' In Office

"Not a hint."

www.yahoo.com

Try to hold back the laughter

Yes yes I know. "Don't believe your eyes, don't believe your ears, don't believe anything you read. I will tell you everything you need to know, my children." – – Jim Jones/Donald Trump

Personally, I think Jim Jones did it better.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I wonder if their apparent lack of concern of the weaponization of the federal government against the president’s political enemies is based on the fact that they think future Democrats will be too principled to do the same thing.

It is partially that, and partially that they know that Democratic voters are more principled and will be unhappy with Democrats doing that, while Republican voters don't care. So, if Democrats do start to use the same tactics the Republican's tactics to stop it will be much more successful.