Love it Hateusernames!

Im putting that on a bumper sticker

It's true!
Morning comes too early!

By the way, referring to lawful penalties and fines as "slush fund" is just a bit on the fake-news, propaganda end of things. Shame on the Republicans who played that game.

I think you are right..he didn't even know
where The Falklands were.

Harmony I quote below from the Constitution Society web site http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

It's a good question you are asking and it refers to things like treason, bribery, abuse of office. there is much additional information on the origins intent and interpretation of High Crimes on this web site FYI

From constitution.org

"The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons."

The only time I've witnessed what I would consider to be a correct and accurate use of the threat of impeachment, was back during the Watergate mess. In that case, the problematic concerns about the President were so fundamental to the function of the country, that no other business COULD proceed, without addressing them.

The impeachment of Clinton was definitely a petty partisan effort to overturn a vote that the opposition resented, and so far, I have not seen enough evidence to support anything other than the same kind of partisan effort against Trump.

In the case of Clinton, the possible "crime," was as close to nonsense as I've seen (lying about cheating on a spouse is NOT a "high crime or misdemeanor"). In the case of the accusations against Trump, those are much more serious, but again, none of the evidence presented so far, supports anything more than possible prosecution of several of his appointees and relatives, for corruption.

However, the "threat" of impeachment against Trump, is NOT AT ALL impeding either the President, or Congress. A couple of subcommittees are spending a relatively small amount of time reviewing evidence collected by other people. Other than that, it's all fluff in the mass media. The members of Congress who could be acting on the other issues of the day, are not involved, and so can accomplish whatever they like, provided they can get enough Republicans to agree.

The divisions within the GOP, especially between the party and the President on POLICY and on Presidential actions, is where the action to see to the interests of the United States is being flummoxed. The whole deal with impeachment hasn't affected anything.

What a coincidence!
I think he is channeling Margaret Thatcher in this pic.

A penis.

People tend to attract like minded people

agreed

Many people seem to have blanket assumptions about all politicians being 'crooked'. I hear it and read it all the time and believe it was the major excuse I heard from those voting Trump.

I think it is a foolish assumption but so be it. My question is why it is so acceptable to assume all politicians are crooked, but so unacceptable to believe cops in some areas are bullies/crooks.

So strange that between two authority figures who are given control over the lives of others, our culture and media have the narrative that all POLITICIANS are likely crooked, but most cops likely are not.