When will Trump be impeached?

and who furthermore was sold by the GOP as the only solution to the problems of Washington

BTW, the GOP establishment did not support or want Trump to be president.  They still don't.  You really want me to supply all the links of what the GOP said and what they tried to do to stop Trump from getting the nomination? Although I am not a Republican or Democrat, I did follow both primary campaigns, and watched the debates. 

BTW, how's that secret plan for defeating ISIS working out?

We’ll see if this “tabloid” report turns out to be true.

ISIS leader Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi 'killed in Syrian air strike'

Reports from Syria suggest the leader of ISIS Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi was killed in an air strike on Saturday

BYNATALIE EVANS
•   01:40, 11 JUN 2017
•   UPDATED08:01, 11 JUN 2017

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-leader-killed-strike-syria-10602577

The leader of Islamic State has been killed in an air strike in Syria, according to unverified reports in Syrian state media.

Claims suggest the leader of ISIS Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi was killed in an air strike on Saturday.
                   

President Bill Clinton fired the FBI Director.  Are you saying that President Clinton did not have authority to take this action?

  May 9, 2017, 3:34 p.m.
The last president to fire an FBI director? Bill Clinton

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-last-fbi-director-to-get-fired-before-1494368709-htmlstory.html

In 1993, President Clinton ousted William Sessions as FBI director after Sessions refused to voluntarily step down amid ethical concerns. It was the first and only time to happen in U.S. history……                                   

Sessions’ ethics came into question just before then-President-elect Bill Clinton was inaugurated. Sessions was accused of improperly using an FBI plane to visit his family as well as reportedly installing a security fence around his home on the government’s dime. A Justice Department report found that Sessions had avoided paying taxes on the use of his FBI limousine for his daily commute.

"I have concluded that the director has exhibited a serious deficiency in judgment involving matters contained in the report and that he does not command the respect and confidence needed to lead the bureau and the law enforcement community in addressing the many issues facing law enforcement today," then-Attorney General Janet Reno wrote in a letter to then-President Clinton.

Sessions maintained he had not done anything wrong and refused to leave amid calls for his resignation.

Bill Clinton ultimately fired Sessions on July 19, 1993.

"We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI," Clinton said at a White House press conference after the dismissal. "It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency's history is brought to a close."

Yes, complete authority to fire the Director......

I repeat my challenge: anyone want to state now that Susan Rice will not take the fifth and/or fight her subpoena to testify?

Not a subpoena; just an invitation. To a Republican attempt to draw attention away from Trump and onto Obama. A Benghazi hearings type situation. She was right to decline.

In May 2017, the Republican chairman of Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Lindsey Graham invited Rice to testify before his subcommittee whether the Obama administration had tried to "politicize intelligence".[82] When Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse informed Rice that he did not agree with Graham's invitation, she refused to testify.[83][84]

My final comments for a while. 

I still think that a year from now the big story – although many in the media will probably fight like crazy not to report it - is going to be the Obama surveillance and unmasking program.  Anyone want to "wager" as to whether Susan Rice takes the fifth?  She has been subpoenaed to testify before congress.  Or, will she fight the subpoena?  If you don’t like the first link below because it goes to Fox News, I included a second link – NBC News - with the same story.  BTW, look at how each news agency wrote the headline - interesting...

House Intelligence Committee sends subpoenas to intel agencies
By James Rosen Published May 31, 2017
Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/house-intelligence-committee-sends-subpoenas-to-intel-agencies.html

Three of the nation’s intelligence agencies received subpoenas Wednesday afternoon issued by the House Intelligence Committee, Fox News has confirmed, with each of the three demands for documents explicitly naming three top officials of the Obama administration: Susan Rice, who served as President Obama’s White House national security adviser; former CIA Director John Brennan; and former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power.

The three subpoenas, among a total of seven signed by panel chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), were served on the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency, and all three explicitly referenced “unmasking” – a signal that the House panel is intensifying its investigation into allegations that Obama-era aides improperly demanded the “unmasking” of names of associates of President Trump that had appeared, in coded form, in classified intelligence reports, then leaked the data to news media organizations.

The other four subpoenas were issued at the behest of the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and were said to be duplicative of subpoenas already issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting a parallel probe.
   
 House Subpoenas Flynn, Cohen, and Unmasking Requests by Obama Trio
BY ALEX MOE AND KASIE HUNT
June 1, 2017

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/house-subpoenas-flynn-cohen-unmasking-requests-obama-trio-n766861

The House Intelligence Committee issued seven subpoenas Wednesday as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, four of them related to the Russia probe — and three about any "unmasking" of Trump associates by Obama officials.
According to a congressional source, the three subpoenas related to unmasking were seeking information on any unmasking requests by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power.
       

  For Life Improvement’s quote. Not a subpoena; just an invitation. To a Republican attempt to draw attention away from Trump and onto Obama. A Benghazi hearings type situation. She was right to decline.

In May 2017, the Republican chairman of Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Lindsey Graham invited Rice to testify before his subcommittee whether the Obama administration had tried to "politicize intelligence".[82] When Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse informed Rice that he did not agree with Graham's invitation, she refused to testify.[83][84]             

It’s a subpoena.  You probably didn’t know because much of the media does not want to talk about the Obama surveillance and unmasking program because:
1.   Obama is one of them.
2.  It doesn’t fit in with their narrative which is to destroy Trump and overturn the November election, because they didn’t like the results.

Just like much of the media is trying to ignore the comments Comey made in his testimony about Obama’s Attorney General Lynch and Clinton's emails.  Again, it does not fit in with their narrative.

Those are subpoenas for information and her name was mentioned as were others. It's not a subpoena to force her to testify to congress about what a big bad Benghazi guy Obama was.

A few points: nowhere did I suggest that this "collusion" was a fact, so I won't provide a link to proof of it; it is what is being investigated, though, isn't it?

I can't give you an exact legal definition of presidential abuse of power, because there isn't one, as your post indicates.  Whether criminal or political, the determination has to be made by the appropriate parties; however, the situations I mentioned above where a president directs the FBI to repeatedly investigate his enemies or indeed direct it to drop investigations into his friends are pretty reasonable examples.  To paraphrase Potter Stewart, they'll know it when they see it.

Please read more carefully--I didn't say Trump directed investigations against his enemies, I was giving examples of things that would amount to abuse, since you and Dershowitz seem to be arguing that presidential power is absolute. It's not.

Both Dershowitz and Tribe are well-respected legal minds, but I think you'll find a lot more experts lining up with Tribe on this one. That the president can fire Comey, and did so, doesn't make it kosher, nor does it make Dershowitz correct.

Nixon fired Cox.  Robert Bork thought it was legal, the DC District Court didn't. The Congress and the people thought it was an egregious abuse of power, and were well on the way to impeaching him for it (and a couple other things) when he resigned.  Are you saying you don't see any similarities here?

I am well aware the GOP establishment did not want Trump, but once they got him, they had to support him. They didn't have many cogent arguments, I'll grant you, but one thing that was often said was that given his history he was uniquely positioned to "fix" Washington. Anyway, he was an adult man, an Ivy League man, at that, during Watergate, and surely was aware of Nixon's misdeeds, including the Saturday Night Massacre.  It beggars belief that he did not know there would come problems for firing Comey, especially when he went on to explain on TV that he fired him because he didn't like the Flynn investigation and later commented to Russian diplomats that the "pressure" was now off. 

I am also fully aware of the president's pardon powers--I'm not sure who you think you're debating with.  Yes, the president can pardon whoever he wants, of whatever they've done.  I don't see that as a reason not to investigate possible crimes, and prosecute them when you have a sufficient case.  Guy breaks into my house and steals my stuff: why even report it, the president might pardon him....

Ridiculous, huh?

BTW, how's that secret plan for defeating ISIS working out?

We’ll see if this “tabloid” report turns out to be true.

ISIS leader Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi 'killed in Syrian air strike'

Reports from Syria suggest the leader of ISIS Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi was killed in an air strike on Saturday

BYNATALIE EVANS
•   01:40, 11 JUN 2017
•   UPDATED08:01, 11 JUN 2017

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-leader-killed-strike-syria-10602577

The leader of Islamic State has been killed in an air strike in Syria, according to unverified reports in Syrian state media.

Claims suggest the leader of ISIS Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi was killed in an air strike on Saturday.
                   

So the "secret plan" is to continue air strikes, exactly what the previous administration was doing?

The Syrian government claims to have killed him?

This is not the first time al-Baghadi has been reported dead and many experts are sceptical of the latest claims.

The death would certainly be a propaganda victory for the Assad regime as Syria's civil war continues.

The Russia campaign collusion investigation is still the key - and it's the only thing democrats have to get Trump out - but that investigation will take a while.

 

Yeah it takes time to find enough people willing to lie I guess.

US officials ask Russian guy to confess to DNC hacks in exchange for money and citizenship

Nikulin claimed in the courtroom that he was twice approached by US authorities -in November and February- and said they urged him to testify falsely that he was co-operating in the hacking attack on the Democratic National Committee
He said that the US authorities said they would, in exchange, give him money and a life in the United states
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-officials-allegedly-asked-russian-guy-confess-dnc-hacks-exchange-delicious-us-dollars

Russia Insider is a pro-Kremlin / anti-West website.

Russia Insider is a pro-Kremlin / anti-West website.

Its news without the anti-Russia bias.

Don't project your xenophobia onto others.

What I can't understand is why Trump is still stubbornly insistent on his Muslim travel ban (Wait, we're not being PC anymore, right? Muslim ban it is.) when, if it had gone into effect as he had originally hoped, it would have already expired by now, wouldn't it have? It was only supposed to be active for a few months while he got his Xtreme vetting in order. Meantime, no apparent progress on the enhanced vetting process.  I know he's been busy with one self-created crisis after another during the intervening time, but at this point is this anything more than an opportunity to rail against the judiciary (and his own self-appointed Attorney General)?

Yeah it takes time to find enough people willing to lie I guess.

In Washington DC? Are you high or something? 

Both Dershowitz and Tribe are well-respected legal minds, but I think you'll find a lot more experts lining up with Tribe on this one. That the president can fire Comey, and did so, doesn't make it kosher, nor does it make Dershowitz correct.

A few points, a couple more posts and then it’s back to real work.

I see that you made no attempt to defend Tribe or to refute my premise that Tribe’s “legal” opinions should be considered as coming from a person who has clearly demonstrated that he is engaged in an anti-Trump crusade: a campaign that he has been engaged in since before Trump was even elected president.

Furthermore, I see that you made no attempt to refute my premise that there is no political nexus between Dershowitz and Trump, and that there is no logically explained political reason for Dershowitz to be providing legal cover for Trump.

Therefore, my premise stands unchallenged that a person may logically conclude that Dershowitz’s legal opinion may be considered to be unbiased in comparison to Tribe’s legal opinion.

http://www.waygook.org/index.php/topic,104010.660.html?PHPSESSID=epbu2osluv12ooma2e28rqimg1

And, as usual, I noticed that you provided no links in your post to support any of your statements.  You really should provide links because one benefit of providing links is that you get to read about what really happened.   Please see my next posts. 

Nixon fired Cox.  Robert Bork thought it was legal, the DC District Court didn't. The Congress and the people thought it was an egregious abuse of power, and were well on the way to impeaching him for it (and a couple other things) when he resigned.  Are you saying you don't see any similarities here?

Eastreef Reply #673 on: Yesterday at 06:32:46 PM The president not only has complete authority to fire the Director of the FBI, but the president does not have to give any reason on why he fired the Director.

http://www.waygook.org/index.php/topic,104010.660.html?PHPSESSID=epbu2osluv12ooma2e28rqimg1
             

The following is another quote from you (Mr. C).

Please read more carefully…   

The following is from one of my previous posts responding to you.

Eastreef Reply #675 on: Yesterday at 07:00:58 PM »Please, before you bring up Watergate, please read what Nixon was actually being accused of doing during impeachment hearings.
 
http://www.waygook.org/index.php/topic,104010.660.html?PHPSESSID=epbu2osluv12ooma2e28rqimg1
                 

Trump’s firing of Comey is not similar to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox.  Not even close. If you had gone back and read about Watergate you would have learned that Cox was appointed as a special/independent counsel. 

U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson had appointed Cox in May, after promising the House Judiciary Committee that he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the events surrounding the break-in of the Democratic National Committee's offices at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972. The appointment was created as a career reserved position in the Justice department, meaning it came under the authority of the attorney general who could only remove the special prosecutor "for cause", e.g., gross improprieties or malfeasance in office. Richardson had, in his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate, promised not to use his authority to dismiss the Watergate special prosecutor, unless for cause.

Nevertheless, having been brought to the White House by limousine and sworn in as acting attorney general, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox[5] – and the Saturday Night Massacre was complete.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
           

Comey was not a special/independent counsel.  Comey was the Director of the FBI who was appointed by a president and who is an at will employee of the president.  And, a person who the president has completely authority to fire; with or without cause.
 
To put it another way:

Nixon had no authority to fire Cox, and that is why he appointed Bork to be attorney general after two previous people refused Nixon’s order to fire Cox. 

Trump had complete authority to fire Comey, did not have to go through or order anyone else to fire Comey and did not appoint someone for the sole purpose of firing Comey.

Here is my previous post about independent counsels that I gave in response to your previous post.   

Eastreef Reply #673 on: Yesterday at 06:32:46 PM

http://www.waygook.org/index.php/topic,104010.660.html?PHPSESSID=epbu2osluv12ooma2e28rqimg1

Now, it does appear that once an Independent Counsel is appointed to investigate whether a crime has been committed by a member of the executive branch that the president has no or very limited power to direct what the independent counsel may or may not do, but Comey was not an independent counsel.  This is why all presidents do not like independent counsels because the president has no control over them like they do over Executive Branch people that the president appoints.  Mueller has now been appointed as an independent counsel.

Quote
Held. No. The Court of Appeals, which invalidated the Act, is reversed.

There’s no separation of powers problem with regard to the Act because the statute (1) appropriately puts the removal power in the hands of the Executive Branch: an independent counsel may only be removed by the Attorney General for good cause and (2) does not impermissibly interfere with the functions of the Executive Branch.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/the-distribution-of-national-powers/morrison-v-olson-2/2/
https://lawfareblog.com/view-supreme-court-alan-dershowitz-wrong-about-powers-president                   

A question: If Trump were to pardon Flynn any criminal investigation of Flynn stops.  Therefore, if Trump issued a pardon is Trump guilty of obstruction of justice?

It's Benghazi people. The answer is Benghazi.

This Russian election interference has to do with Hillary Clinton and Benghazi and/or her emails. It's just got to. Must be something in "her e-mails" that exonerates Putin and the Russians.

Again! It's not a " Muslim Ban" people; it's just a "muslim ban". Big difference! Just listen to Spicey beyond the bushes.

Oh and f*** Qatar and their terrorist links. It's not like we've got troops there or an important forward base of operations.

The Saudi's will help us. Have you seen their palaces? They've got money. Money for weapons and terrorists but we'll just take their weapons money and overlook their terrorist sponsorship.

Oh and the "White House Tapes". Trump doesn't fare well when tapes get leaked. I just hope he finds the right ones and doesn't release "Miss Universe Dressing Room Uncovered Vol.2".

I am well aware the GOP establishment did not want Trump, but once they got him, they had to support him. They didn't have many cogent arguments, I'll grant you, but one thing that was often said was that given his history he was uniquely positioned to "fix" Washington.

The following is from one of my previous posts that I gave in response to you.

Eastreef Reply #679 on: Yesterday at 07:18:40 PM »

http://www.waygook.org/index.php/topic,104010.660.html?PHPSESSID=epbu2osluv12ooma2e28rqimg1

BTW, the GOP establishment did not support or want Trump to be president.  They still don't.  You really want me to supply all the links of what the GOP said and what they tried to do to stop Trump from getting the nomination? Although I am not a Republican or Democrat, I did follow both primary campaigns, and watched the debates.
           

The following is another quote from you (Mr. C).

Please read more carefully…                 

If you had read where I said I could provide links, and then conducted your own research to support your statement about the GOP and Trump, you would have learned that much of the GOP establishment did not support Trump during the election. 

The names below include former GOP presidents, the last two GOP nominees to be president, GOP Governors, GOP Senators…..  Can’t get more GOP establishment than that…  How many former GOP presidents and nominees can you list that supported Trump? I know – Bob Dole.

Romney and McCain to Make Case for GOP, But Not Its Nominee

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/romney-mccain-make-case-gop-not-its-nominee-n677346

However, Romney and McCain aren't the only other former GOP presidential standard bearers to steer of Trump, with the exception of 1996 nominee Bob Dole, every other living nominee for president (i.e. former Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush) have declined to support the party's choice for 2016.
         

Eastreef comment: It is accepted political doctrine that a GOP presidential candidate cannot win the presidency without winning Ohio.  I wonder how Trump won Ohio?

Kasich on Trump: 'I just can't do it'

By Nick Gass
06/16/2016 06:42 AM EDT
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/john-kasich-no-trump-endorsement-yet-224409

Kasich is the fourth Republican governor to declare that he will likely not support his party’s presidential nominee, along with Larry Hogan in Maryland, Rick Snyder in Michigan and Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

John Kasich stands by pledge not to vote for Trump

Susan Miller , USA TODAY Published Published 8:19 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2016 | Updated 9:07 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2016
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/31/kasich-vows-not-to-vote-for-trump/93092170/

Republican John Kasich is a man of his word.

The Ohio governor, who has pledged not to vote for GOP nominee Donald Trump, voted by absentee ballot Monday and wrote in Sen. John McCain, Kasich spokesman Chris Schrimpf confirmed to The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Eastreef Comment: BTW, you can read comments these people’s made about Trump at the links.

Which Republicans Oppose Donald Trump? A Cheat Sheet
NOV 6, 2016

HTTPS://WWW.THEATLANTIC.COM/POLITICS/ARCHIVE/2016/11/WHERE-REPUBLICANS-STAND-ON-DONALD-TRUMP-A-CHEAT-SHEET/481449/

Here is the list of Republicans who are not supporting Trump
David M Jackson , USA TODAY Published 11:46 a.m. ET Oct. 8, 2016 | Updated 6:20 p.m. ET Oct. 9, 2016

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/08/donald-trump-debate-mike-crapo-mike-lee-barbara-comstock/91784714/

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley
West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
Maine Sen. Susan Collins
Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake
Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer
Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert
Colin Powell
Jeb Bush

Karl Rove: UNDECIDED
The former George W. Bush strategist and current Wall Street Journal columnist and PAC boss has called Trump  “a complete idiot” who is “graceless and divisive.” (Trump, in turn, has asked, “Is he not the dumbest human being on earth?”) But The New York Times reports the two men met in May. (June 3, 2016)
Larry Pressler: NAY
A moderate and former three-term senator from South Dakota, Pressler has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. (June 14, 2016)
Norm Coleman: NAY
The former Minnesota senator wrote in a March 3 column that he will not support the Republican nominee. “I won't vote for Donald Trump because of who he isn't. He isn't a Republican.
Sally Bradshaw: NAY
Bradshaw, a longtime operative and aid to Jeb Bush, was an author of the GOP’s post-2012 “autopsy” report. Now she says she’s not even a member of the party. “Ultimately, I could not abide the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump and his complete lack of principles and conservative philosophy. I didn’t make this decision lightly,” she told CNN. She said if Florida looks close, she will vote for Hillary Clinton in order to defeat Trump. (August 1, 2016)
Marc Racicot: NAY
Racicot, a confidant of former President George W. Bush who chaired the RNC from 2001 to 2003, tells Bloomberg, “I cannot and will not support Donald Trump for president.” (August 3, 2016)
Vin Weber: NAY
A former Minnesota congressman who helped Newt Gingrich bring the Republican Party to power and is now a lobbyist, Weber has ruled out Trump. “I won't vote for Trump,” he told CNBC. “I can't imagine I'd remain a Republican if he becomes president.” (August 3, 2016)
Gordon Humphrey: NAY
The former U.S. senator from New Hampshire says he cannot vote for Trump, calling him “a sociopath, without a conscience or feelings of guilt, shame or remorse.” Humphrey told NBC he may reluctantly vote for Hillary Clinton, but only if it’s a close contest. (August 4, 2016)
Chris Shays: NAY
A longtime moderate Republican U.S. representative from Connecticut who lost his seat in 2008, Shays has endorsed Hillary Clinton. “I think many Republicans know Donald Trump could cause great damage to our country and the world at large, and still plan to vote for him. But not me,” Shays wrote for CNN. He said he backs Clinton not reluctantly but with “strong conviction.” (August 10, 2016)
Mike Murphy: NAY
Murphy, a veteran Republican who ran Jeb Bush’s failed campaign for president, has been an outspoken Trump critic. Following the first presidential debate, Murphy said only Clinton was “ready” to serve:
John Warner: NAY
Warner, the longtime Virginia senator and former secretary of the Navy, is endorsing Clinton. Warner, a World War II veteran who is still considered popular in Virginia, was always willing to buck his own party, sometimes voting against Republican leaders and endorsing Democrat Mark Warner (no relation) as his successor, but his backing should give Clinton a boost in Virginia. (September 28, 2016)
William Milliken: NAY
Milliken, a Republican who was Michigan’s longest-serving governor, holding office from 1969 to 1983, has crossed party lines to endorse Hillary Clinton over Trump. “Because I feel so strongly about our nation's future, I will be joining the growing list of former and present government officials in casting my vote for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016,” he said. As the Detroit Free Press notes, this isn’t Milliken’s first time endorsing a Democrat, but it could help sway votes in a swing state. (August 8, 2016)
Mickey Edwards: NAY
Edwards, who represented Oklahoma in the U.S. House, chaired the American Conservative Union, and helped found the Heritage Foundation, has been critical of Trump for some time. In August, he signed a letter asking the Republican Party to divert money from the presidential race to down-ballot races to save GOP control of Congress, and he helped circulate a letter from retired members of Congress deeming Trump unacceptable. (October 6, 2016)
Christine Todd Whitman: NAY
The former governor of New Jersey and administrator of the EPA under George W. Bush is backing Hillary Clinton. “A Hillary presidency promises more of the Obama failed policies, but she would at least walk into the oval office ready to govern,” she wrote in a column. “She would be a steady hand on the nuclear code and she demonstrated a willingness to work across the aisle when she was in the senate.” (October 7, 2016)
Michael Steele: NAY
The former RNC chair and lieutenant governor of Maryland told an audience at a dinner honoring Mother Jones (seriously), “I was damn near puking during the debates,” adding that Trump had “captured that racist underbelly, that frustration, that angry underbelly of American life and gave voice to that.” He says he will not vote for Trump or Clinton. (October 21, 2016)
Mel Martinez: NAY
The former RNC chair and Florida senator says he won’t vote for Trump. “I would not vote for Trump, clearly,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “If there is
any, any, any other choice, a living, breathing person with a pulse, I would be there.” (February 29, 2016)
Ken Mehlman: NAY
The former RNC chair wrote on Facebook that he was #NeverTrump. (May 12, 2016)






         

BTW, how's that secret plan for defeating ISIS working out?

We’ll see if this “tabloid” report turns out to be true.

ISIS leader Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi 'killed in Syrian air strike'

Reports from Syria suggest the leader of ISIS Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi was killed in an air strike on Saturday

BYNATALIE EVANS
•   01:40, 11 JUN 2017
•   UPDATED08:01, 11 JUN 2017

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-leader-killed-strike-syria-10602577

The leader of Islamic State has been killed in an air strike in Syria, according to unverified reports in Syrian state media.

Claims suggest the leader of ISIS Abu Bkr al-Baghdadi was killed in an air strike on Saturday.
                   

So the "secret plan" is to continue air strikes, exactly what the previous administration was doing?

I still want more confirmation before accepting this as true.

But, this different report actually says he was killed by artillery, as forces backed by U.S. firepower begin their final assault on Raqqa - the de facto capital of ISIS in Syria.   I know that under Obama forces backed by the U.S. took Raqqa years ago, so this report is probably not accurate.

Isis chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi 'killed' in Raqqa
Julian Kossoff,International Business Times 15 hours ago

https://www.yahoo.com/news/isis-chief-abu-bakr-al-133239614.html

The leader of Isis has been reportedly killed as Kurdish-led anti-Isis forces, backed by US firepower, begin the final assault on Raqqa, in Syria.

According to reports from Syrian state TV, the world's most wanted terrorist, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is said to have been killed on Saturday when he was caught in a heavy artillery barrage on Raqqa, the de facto capital of Isis, though the reports are yet to be verified.

This isn't the first time that the extremist leader, who has a $25m bounty on his head, has been reported dead, so the news has been met with scepticism. The terrorist organisation's media arm Amaq has not yet confirmed the reports.
             

You are an extremely tedious debater.

I know every single thing you wrote about, from Archibald Cox to two or three dozen prominent Republicans who refused to support Trump.  You haven't corrected one thing I've written, for all that.

And I'm not providing links, so tough.  You don't think the quality of my posting on an informal internet message board meets your standards, don't bother to read.

I am well aware about Cox as special counsel and his special status (and was well aware of it before you posted, and indeed was well aware of it twenty and thirty years ago), and do you really for one effing moment think I was unaware that Comey was FBI director and NOT a special counsel?  I just don't think it matters, when it comes to the firing of either one being an abuse of power.  And I'm far from alone in that opinion, and no amount of your links to stuff I already know is going to change that.

An opinion shared, as it happens, by Lawrence Tribe, but not by Alan Dershowitz.

A lot of the GOP brass didn't like Trump, and didn't support him, but the establishment did, at least in sufficient numbers that he got the nomination, for cryin' out loud.  You posted a bunch of lists of GOPers who didn't support Trump.  Why did you bother to do that?  Do you imagine I and most other sentient beings can have missed it?  You know, when it was happening?  All over the news media?  For months and months? Just last year? Sheesh!

The GOP that supported Trump didn't have a lot of good talking points about him, because many of them were too busy holding their noses to speak for any length of time.  But one of their few talking points, as I was saying, was that Trump has a long history as an outsider to Washington who is nonetheless familiar with its workings as a big time businessman, and that gives him a unique position to come in and "fix" things. 

That's what I said.  And I stand behind it, and literally no amount of lists of Republicans who did not support him negates the fact that those who did support him pretty much said that.

And it was in the context of excusing Tump's wrongdoings (if they are that), that these same people are suddenly arguing that he didn't know any better, he's new to Washington, he doesn't understand it. I don't see how your tedious lists have anything whatever to do with my point.

Please read more carefully.