What exactly will he be impeached for?
I mean really...

Please... everyone thinking he will be, or anyone wanting him to be, impeached... please hold your breath and wait. lulz

He's a meanie poo poo head who stole the election from the Chosen Queen.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Over/Under Trump resigns before the re-election campaign?

He would never resign. He'd have to be thrown out. He's way too arrogant to resign. He still believes he is the best president in the history of man! He's completely lost touch with reality. He could walk into a stadium to an overwhelming chorus of boos and in his mind, he'd believe that he is still loved by 99.9% of planet Earth.

Why should he resign? Because a bunch of sore losers lost an election they thought was in the bag?

---

He would never resign. He'd have to be thrown out. He's way too arrogant to resign. He still believes he is the best president in the history of man! He's completely lost touch with reality. He could walk into a stadium to an overwhelming chorus of boos and in his mind, he'd believe that he is still loved by 99.9% of planet Earth.

Where have I heard this before?  Let's see...…...I think it was in '98....

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Over/Under Trump resigns before the re-election campaign?

Under.

Outside of your TDS, why would he resign? He has accomplished so much as POTUS in his first 20 months. The next 6 years will be even better.

Your rationale actual cites the Over, not Under since the the over/under is reflective of the number of days (e.g. before re-election or after re-election)

---

He would never resign. He'd have to be thrown out. He's way too arrogant to resign. He still believes he is the best president in the history of man! He's completely lost touch with reality. He could walk into a stadium to an overwhelming chorus of boos and in his mind, he'd believe that he is still loved by 99.9% of planet Earth.

Where have I heard this before?  Let's see...…...I think it was in '98....

Exactly.  Payback's a [BLEEP] isn't it !!

---

In case you missed it, the Justice Department brought charges against two Congressmen last week, one for insider trading and one for embezzlement. Both happened to be Republicans. Today, Trump tweeted, "Two easy wins now in doubt...Good job, Jeff."

So, yeah, the President just attempted to obstruct justice once again, this time by criticizing the justice department for, you know, doing its job, and insinuating that his Attorney General should lay off because it's hurting their election chances. But no, let's chalk it up to TDS. Every President publicly tells his Attorney General not to indict Republicans because it's hurting the party's chances in the upcoming election.

---

In case you missed it, the Justice Department brought charges against two Congressmen last week, one for insider trading and one for embezzlement. Both happened to be Republicans. Today, Trump tweeted, "Two easy wins now in doubt...Good job, Jeff."

So, yeah, the President just attempted to obstruct justice once again, this time by criticizing the justice department for, you know, doing its job, and insinuating that his Attorney General should lay off because it's hurting their election chances. But no, let's chalk it up to TDS. Every President publicly tells his Attorney General not to indict Republicans because it's hurting the party's chances in the upcoming election.

Until Alan Dershowitz tells me he obstructed justice, I'll assume he hasn't.

---

In case you missed it, the Justice Department brought charges against two Congressmen last week, one for insider trading and one for embezzlement. Both happened to be Republicans. Today, Trump tweeted, "Two easy wins now in doubt...Good job, Jeff."

So, yeah, the President just attempted to obstruct justice once again, this time by criticizing the justice department for, you know, doing its job, and insinuating that his Attorney General should lay off because it's hurting their election chances. But no, let's chalk it up to TDS. Every President publicly tells his Attorney General not to indict Republicans because it's hurting the party's chances in the upcoming election.

That literally is not obstructing Justice. In no way whatsoever is that obstructing justice.

---

In case you missed it, the Justice Department brought charges against two Congressmen last week, one for insider trading and one for embezzlement. Both happened to be Republicans. Today, Trump tweeted, "Two easy wins now in doubt...Good job, Jeff."

So, yeah, the President just attempted to obstruct justice once again, this time by criticizing the justice department for, you know, doing its job, and insinuating that his Attorney General should lay off because it's hurting their election chances. But no, let's chalk it up to TDS. Every President publicly tells his Attorney General not to indict Republicans because it's hurting the party's chances in the upcoming election.

That literally is not obstructing Justice. In no way whatsoever is that obstructing justice.

Has any President ever done anything similar?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Until Alan Dershowitz tells me he obstructed justice, I'll assume he hasn't.

The same attorney that told us all OJ was innocent.

OJ thanks you for your support.

---

That literally is not obstructing Justice. In no way whatsoever is that obstructing justice.

Has any President ever done anything similar?

Publically? No. Privately? I have no doubt they have. 

Either way, it isn’t obstruction.

 I think what he said was stupid, but I also thought he was implying that the charges so late during the election is what Trump had a problem with—not the actual prosecution of both congressmen.

---

Has any President ever done anything similar?

Publically? No. Privately? I have no doubt they have. 

Either way, it isn’t obstruction.

 I think what he said was stupid, but I also thought he was implying that the charges so late during the election is what Trump had a problem with—not the actual prosecution of both congressmen.

For once Trump needed Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch on the payroll.

---

In case you missed it, the Justice Department brought charges against two Congressmen last week, one for insider trading and one for embezzlement. Both happened to be Republicans. Today, Trump tweeted, "Two easy wins now in doubt...Good job, Jeff."

So, yeah, the President just attempted to obstruct justice once again, this time by criticizing the justice department for, you know, doing its job, and insinuating that his Attorney General should lay off because it's hurting their election chances. But no, let's chalk it up to TDS. Every President publicly tells his Attorney General not to indict Republicans because it's hurting the party's chances in the upcoming election.

That literally is not obstructing Justice. In no way whatsoever is that obstructing justice.

He told his AG that the indictments (both of which are very strongly evident to be true) are politically inconvenient and publicly chastised him for letting the Justice Department bring them. Make what you will of that.

---

That literally is not obstructing Justice. In no way whatsoever is that obstructing justice.

He told his AG that the indictments (both of which are very strongly evident to be true) are politically inconvenient and publicly chastised him for letting the Justice Department bring them. Make what you will of that.

TJ, Your TDS is flaring up again. Put some hydrocortizone creme on that, stat!

---

He told his AG that the indictments (both of which are very strongly evident to be true) are politically inconvenient and publicly chastised him for letting the Justice Department bring them. Make what you will of that.

TJ, Your TDS is flaring up again. Put some hydrocortizone creme on that, stat!

Take off your spray tan colored glasses. It scares me that 30% of our country still hangs on every word from this nitwit wannabe mob boss.

---

That literally is not obstructing Justice. In no way whatsoever is that obstructing justice.

He told his AG that the indictments (both of which are very strongly evident to be true) are politically inconvenient and publicly chastised him for letting the Justice Department bring them. Make what you will of that.

Since both are still indicted there was no obstruction.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

TJ, Your TDS is flaring up again. Put some hydrocortizone creme on that, stat!

Take off your spray tan colored glasses. It scares me that 30% of our country still hangs on every word from this nitwit wannabe mob boss.

Country is doing well under his tutelage.

---

He told his AG that the indictments (both of which are very strongly evident to be true) are politically inconvenient and publicly chastised him for letting the Justice Department bring them. Make what you will of that.

Since both are still indicted there was no obstruction.

And what if other indictments aren't delivered? That's the funny thing about obstruction. I don't have to tell someone not to arrest you. I just have to tell them after they arrested the last guy that I'd really rather they not do that again until after the election.

---

He told his AG that the indictments (both of which are very strongly evident to be true) are politically inconvenient and publicly chastised him for letting the Justice Department bring them. Make what you will of that.

Since both are still indicted there was no obstruction.

That's not what Obstruction of Justice means.  Anything you do with deceitful intent, other than simply keeping silent, that makes a prosecutor's job harder could be obstruction, whether the prosecutor managed to work around you or not.  The target of an investigation is expected to defend himself and gets wide latitude to both to keep silent and to offer false alibis.  Non-targets do not get to offer false alibis.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Since both are still indicted there was no obstruction.

That's not what Obstruction of Justice means.  Anything you do with deceitful intent, other than simply keeping silent, that makes a prosecutor's job harder could be obstruction, whether the prosecutor managed to work around you or not.  The target of an investigation is expected to defend himself and gets wide latitude to both to keep silent and to offer false alibis.  Non-targets do not get to offer false alibis.

And Trump never offered any alibi, false or otherwise. There was no deceit. He only criticized the timing of the indictments.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

That's not what Obstruction of Justice means.  Anything you do with deceitful intent, other than simply keeping silent, that makes a prosecutor's job harder could be obstruction, whether the prosecutor managed to work around you or not.  The target of an investigation is expected to defend himself and gets wide latitude to both to keep silent and to offer false alibis.  Non-targets do not get to offer false alibis.

And Trump never offered any alibi, false or otherwise. There was no deceit. He only criticized the timing of the indictments.

Sure.  He's not allowed to stop otherwise lawful investigations on any case by case basis, though.  So if these weren't just idle words, thats a big problem.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.