You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.
No no, the desperation is 100% on your end, I assure you.
You say that as if you could support it, yet so far you have been wholly unable to.
I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this.(that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors")
Strong correlation with consciousness during the previous 6 years, I suppose.
That is a strange way to say "because I believe it to be such".
So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".
Your continued desperation to attach ownership of the GOP to me is. . .quaint.
You pretending that the Tea Party is anything more than an only-slightly-more radical and slightly-less-informed - and somewhat-differently-funded - branch of the GOP is ... amusing.
The only numbers that are going to matter are the results of the November elections.
So if enough people vote against their own interests in the 2014 elections, we can then spend millions (if not billions) of dollars on an impeachment that has no chance of removing the POTUS? That should about do it for a good long time for the conservative movement, right there.
What I did was still more than you have done to attempt to fill in your cavernous gaps of knowledge.
Oh, OW! Oh, that hurts! Oh, the suffering! Imma go cry now.
It appears you are trying to make a case that you read some small part of my comment. Would you like a biscuit or a bone in reward?