papercup posted...
Zeus posted...
lolwut? For an impeachment, you need an impeachable offense.
Well, he did impede an investigation, and attempted to intimidate a witness.
He legally fired a guy. The claim that you can't fire a guy because it would impede an investigation would provide people with unlimited job security because they wouldn't be able to be fired without breaking the law. As for the alleged intimidation, it was an ambiguously-worded Trump tweet. People don't even take the normal Trump tweets all that seriously.
TheCyborgNinja posted...
People keep comparing this situation to Nixon, which is fair, but neglect to factor in how much stupider the population has probably become. Not ignorant, stupid.
Except in no way is it comparable, especially since there's no substance to the claims in the first place. Keep in mind that Flynn was fired for failing to disclose a meeting with Russians -- which was taped and already cleared -- from the Trump administration, which indicates the OPPOSITE of what partisan hacks are trying to claim.
(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash