ChrisWeigant.com

Simple, Obvious, And Indefensible

[ Posted Tuesday, September 24th, 2019 – 16:55 UTC ]

Up until today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been the person riding the brakes on the growing calls to impeach President Donald Trump. This is no longer true. Pelosi has now begun the process of Congress attempting to remove a sitting president from office. By waiting this long, though, Pelosi is now absolutely immune from any accusation that she's in any sort of rush to judgment.

Impeachment is a momentous action, since it represents the most severe check and balance on the power of the presidency written into the U.S. Constitution. Impeachment against a sitting president has only happened three times in all of American history: Andrew Johnson's impeachment and acquittal by the Senate, Richard Nixon's articles of impeachment which forced his resignation, and Bill Clinton's impeachment and acquittal by the Senate. Ironically, the two times impeachment was followed by a Senate trial the president remained in office, while the one time it didn't reach a conclusion was because the president resigned before it could. We will now add a fourth instance of an impeachment inquiry, that of Donald Trump.

Pelosi, up until now, has looked at impeachment through a very practical and political lens. Without a clear and obvious smoking gun, the outcome wasn't really in doubt. Democrats had the votes to impeach the president in the House, and Republicans had the votes to keep him in office over in the Senate. Republicans have, up to this point, stuck with their president precisely because there was no clear and obvious smoking gun. Whether that changes in the near future is the biggest open question to follow Pelosi's announcement that the House was opening an impeachment inquiry.

What Pelosi required to take such a step was a scandal that was simple, obvious, and indefensible. It had to be simple -- not some complex issue that took hundreds of pages to explain to the American people, but rather a crime or misdemeanor that the average Jane or Joe could easily understand. It had to be obvious -- no layers of go-betweens or cut-outs, but rather direct involvement by Trump himself. And it had to be indefensible -- something that was so obviously either criminal or corrupt that even Trump's Republican enablers would have a very tough time brushing it off. The Ukraine scandal easily clears all three of these hurdles, which is why Pelosi acted now when she has always shied away from doing so in the past.

President Trump has admitted that he tried to get the leader of a foreign country, Ukraine, to open an investigation into his strongest political rival, Joe Biden. While Trump hasn't yet admitted it (the day is still young...), he simultaneously withheld military aid to the Ukraine that had been previously approved by Congress. After months of pushback from Congress, Trump released the aid and actually increased the amount. That's all pretty easy to understand. Trump wanted a foreign leader to provide dirt on his political opponent, and he apparently used the leverage of foreign aid to convince the Ukrainian leader to produce such dirt (or at least investigate whether it existed or not, which for Trump's political purposes would have been almost as good).

Trump himself was the instigator of this action, in (at the very least) a phone call to the Ukrainian leader. He also dispatched Rudy Giuliani to make the same case to the incoming Ukrainian administration. Giuliani, importantly, is Trump's private lawyer. "Private" is the key word here, because Giuliani holds no public office or position within the government. As such, he is absolutely not authorized to conduct American foreign policy with world leaders. But Rudy's involvement is really just the icing on the cake, since Trump's direct involvement is the real scandal, and it's about as obvious as a punch in the face.

Trump's actions are pretty indefensible on the face of them. This is not the way foreign policy is supposed to be conducted, obviously. Presidents aren't supposed to ask for domestic political help from foreign leaders for any reason whatsoever. Trump, after (in his own mind) beating the rap on the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, felt emboldened to directly ask for more political help from another foreign country, speaking on a phone in the Oval Office this time. While the quid pro quo of the withheld aid has not been directly tied into this -- yet -- it's pretty obvious what happened here. Trump had no other explanation at the time for withholding the money, and his newly-invented one (that he was somehow waiting for Europe to pony up some money) is as laughable and unbelievable as was Trump's Sharpie-edited hurricane map.

The other element that likely spurred Pelosi to act is that this scandal seems a lot faster-paced than any of the others. Trump has tweeted that he's going to release an unedited and unredacted transcript of the phone call tomorrow. The whistleblower's lawyer is in talks with Congress over having him or her personally testify before a committee. Such testimony will make Trump's stonewalling on the whistleblower's report moot, since Congress will find out exactly what is in the report without the necessity of having to obtain a copy of it. They'll get it straight from the whistleblower's mouth, which will negate the need for Congress to read his or her report. This will avoid a gigantic court battle over subpoenaing the report, and it will save an enormous amount of time. This testimony could happen as early as this week, from what's being reported now.

At this point, nobody's really certain of exactly what is going to happen next. Pelosi has been hinting (as of this writing, events may have overtaken me here, I would caution) that she may name a "select committee on impeachment," which would take the process out of the hands of the judicial committee run by Jerrold Nadler. Pelosi could name anyone she wished to such a committee, so it'll be interesting to see who she chooses, if she opts for this route. Pelosi has already collected anything that all her committee chairs have dug up that could be included in articles of impeachment, but all these other investigations will likely continue nevertheless, which could feed all their work into the impeachment committee. Also, a committee on impeachment would have but one purpose, and it is one that the courts have traditionally deferred to when ruling on questions of executive privilege. There is no legal executive privilege when crimes are committed, after all. But this could speed up some of the legal proceedings that have been dragging on in the background, over all the Trump administration's stonewalling.

The impeachment committee will have a stated purpose, but its larger purpose will be to convince the American people that Trump absolutely needs to be removed from office. They will need to be media-savvy to achieve this, since they'll be fighting Trump's media manipulations on a daily basis. Trump is desperately trying to shift the focus onto Joe Biden and his son, but so far he's only had limited success in this attempt. Going forward, the Democrats have to put out their side of the story strongly and unequivocally, which will require a spokesman that knows how to do so on television. Adam Schiff is reportedly under consideration for the impeachment committee chair, because he's already shown an ability to do this, when it comes to Trump's shenanigans.

This is all a gigantic step for Pelosi to take, and her previous reluctance to do so shows she is well aware of this fact. She knew that launching an inquiry too early or over a scandal that didn't meet her three requirements (simple, obvious, and indefensible) would have backfired on Democrats politically. No matter what the House did, the Senate would vote to back Trump and Trump could campaign as a victim of an unfair process. That danger still exists, but to a much lesser degree. If the details that are likely to be released this week are damning, then it's going to get a lot harder for GOP senators to continue aiding and abetting Trump's malfeasance and corruption. That's not to say they're going to immediately be willing to vote to remove him from office, but Trump may have to look hard to find his usual gang of apologists. Mitt Romney has already broken ranks, but so far other Republicans are keeping quiet for now.

We will be heading into uncharted territory from this point on, because it's all going to happen during a presidential election. Scenarios that would ordinarily be considered absurd must be contemplated. What would happen if Trump decides to resign from office, for instance? He could step down, Mike Pence would become president, and Pence would immediately pardon Trump for everything he's done. There's nothing in the Constitution that states that an impeached former president couldn't run for office, so Trump could continue to run for re-election as a private citizen, after Pence declines to run. And that's just one bizarre scenario -- there are plenty of others which normally would be considered absurd, but with Trump will have to at least be raised.

Even if Trump were to be both impeached and removed from office by the Senate, we would still get President Pence, please remember. That's often been overlooked in all the fervor from those who have been pushing for impeachment so far. President Pence wouldn't be anywhere near as chaotic as President Trump, but there are plenty of other reasons to fear Mike Pence being in charge, even for a short period of time.

Trump isn't going to go down without a fight, of course. He and his minions will be all over social media and television trying to make his case. Their initial strategy seems to be to use the name Joe Biden and the word corruption as many times in a sentence as they possibly can. Questions about what Trump did are immediately deflected into wondering what Biden might possibly have done. Distraction and deflection is their goal, but it's doubtful whether this is going to work for very long (if at all).

This is but the start of a very long process, after all. Nancy Pelosi has committed to opening an impeachment inquiry. That doesn't mean they'll ever vote on articles of impeachment, and even if they do it doesn't guarantee Trump's removal from office by a long shot. Those celebrating Pelosi's move now should pace themselves for an extended run, in other words. And Pelosi's initial fears are still valid -- the entire process could, in the end, wind up helping Trump politically. That danger still exists. Nobody at this point knows what's going to be in that transcript, or what that whistleblower is going to say to Congress. Nothing is a foregone conclusion.

But Pelosi was right to wait, because we've now got a scandal that is pretty cut and dried. Trump's apologists will have to try as hard as they can to make the case that the whole thing is very complex and subtle and nuanced, when it's actually pretty simple. They'll have to likewise make the case that there were plenty of others involved, and that Trump's involvement was legal and ethical and aboveboard, even though it's pretty downright obvious that this isn't true. And Trump's apologists will, of course, have to try to defend what is a completely indefensible action: a sitting president trying to gain political benefits by leveraging military aid to a foreign country, in order to pressure them to dig up dirt on his political opponent. That is pretty simple, it is pretty obvious, and it is completely indefensible.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

196 Comments on “Simple, Obvious, And Indefensible”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Reportedly Blotus called Nancy today, literally trying to "make a deal" on this whistleblower situation.

    She told him he needed to release the report, period.

    The Whistle Blower is scheduled to testify Thursday (behind closed doors, I believe).

    Anyway, if your theory is correct (CW) and she's been holding off until Blotus "impeached himself" (as she said some months ago) via some irrefutably corrupt action, hopefully she has all the the needed ducks in a row as well. Dems have been announcing their support for impeachment all day - I think last count was 190 Congressional Dems are now on board.

    Thank goodness it's begun.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    # of Congressional Dems supporting impeachment has reportedly reached 202.

    https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/house-reps-who-would-vote-for-trump-impeachment-our-latest-list/

  3. [3] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    There are SO MANY legitimate reasons for wanting to be rid of Trump. How about the man is stupid, ignorant, incompetent, and an asshole of a human being.

    Unfortunately, those are not impeachable offenses, and regardless of how much Ukrainegate appears to be one that is, I'm betting that he'll still be in office, adding daily to the level of Kick's PTSD syndrome, when the 2020 election rolls around.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nice piece, Chris!

    But, I have a question about this bit,

    Questions about what Trump did are immediately deflected into wondering what Biden might possibly have done. Distraction and deflection is their goal, but it's doubtful whether this is going to work for very long (if at all).

    Will you be taking the view voiced today by Senator Harris when asked about what Biden did? Will you be leaving the possibility of Biden's corruption up to the voters?

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz 4

    I think you're making too much of Harris' remark. "Leave it up to the voters" isn't much of a position for someone running for the same office to make. If he wins, she'll be right there, too.

    Chris' piece is exactly right, and I hope that you'll post another link to that excellent Intercept piece that you linked to yesterday. I have to memorize it.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And while it won’t be over until November of next year, and probably not even then, it looks as if Trump and his party are finally in the kind of trouble they deserve. - Paul Krugman

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Memorize it? I'm still trying to understand it!

    Heh.

    Harris's remark lends Trump space to continue his attack on Biden.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Looks can be deceiving.

    The Dems don't have a good track record with prime time investigations and hearings.

  9. [9] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz -

    I just don't see it. Trump would go after Biden anyway. As far as Dems go, I don't remember any prime time investigations and hearings yet...

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: President Trump has admitted that he tried to get the leader of a foreign country, Ukraine, to open an investigation into his strongest political rival, Joe Biden. While Trump hasn't yet admitted it (the day is still young...), he simultaneously withheld military aid to the Ukraine that had been previously approved by Congress.

    Things are moving fast, CW; Trump admitted this morning that he withheld aid to Ukraine:

    As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid. But my complaint has always been — and I’d withhold again, and I’ll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine. Because they’re not doing it. Just the United States. ~ Donald Trump, the morning of 09/24/2019 upon his arrival at the United Nations before his speech to the General Assembly.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-upon-arriving-u-n-general-assembly-new-york-ny/

    After Trump claimed Monday: "It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is, is corrupt?"

    The day after the money was finally released, Senate Republicans said that it had been withheld while the White House assessed whether the newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was aligned with the US and NATO or with Russia. Ukraine aligned with Russia? The aid money is to bolster Ukraine's military in its current war against Russia. You can't make this shit up... oh, wait!

    Wonder what tomorrow's reason will be?

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Mike Pence would become president, and Pence would immediately pardon Trump for everything he's done.

    I believe you are forgetting one tiny insignificant detail -- and by "insignificant," I mean "ginormous": Mike Pence cannot pardon Benedict Donald or anyone else for crimes they've committed against the State of New York.

    Start spreading the news
    I'm leaving today
    I want to be a part of it
    New York, New York

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Goodwin: Pelosi’s impeachment flip-flop changes everything

    For months, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned itchy Democrats against the perils of impeachment. She should have stuck to her guns.

    In surrendering to the radicals and the noisy drumbeat of their media handmaidens, Pelosi established a formal investigative process involving the top legislative committees.

    Yet she did something else, too, something far more monumental: She effectively committed House Dems to impeaching President Trump.

    Because of what she said and did, if the House doesn’t go all the way, it will be a political disaster. Either failing to take a vote on articles of impeachment, or failing to get enough votes among her majority to pass any articles, would be seen as a political exoneration for Trump, likely leading to his re-election.

    If all that weren’t risky enough, consider another scenario. If House Dems do impeach Trump on grounds that much of the public sees as flimsy and concocted, they could win the battle and lose the war. Indeed, no matter what the House does, there is a next-to-zero chance the GOP controlled Senate would convict the president absent clear and convincing “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/24/goodwin-pelosis-impeachment-flip-flop-changes-everything/

    Pelosi just guaranteed the President Trump will be re-elected in a LANDSLIDE come Nov 2020...

    What glorious news to wake up to!! :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, those are not impeachable offenses, and regardless of how much Ukrainegate appears to be one that is, I'm betting that he'll still be in office, adding daily to the level of Kick's PTSD syndrome, when the 2020 election rolls around.

    Yep.. They are all as excited and giddy as they were over the Russia Collusion delusion..

    And we all know how well THAT worked out, eh? :D

    's okay... They higher they get, the harder they fall.. The harder they fall, the more I laugh.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reportedly Blotus called Nancy today, literally trying to "make a deal" on this whistleblower situation.

    She told him he needed to release the report, period.

    Facts to support??

    No.. Of course not.. You never do..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://poll.fm/10416595/results?msg=revoted

    Since ya'all love polls so much.. :D

    Drudge Poll almost 240,000 respondents..

    75% says Congress won't do JACK on their latest shiny.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, President Trump has maneuvered Democrats into another witch hunt that will end as well as the last witch hunt did..

    President Trump is a frakin' GENIUS!!! :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see, now that everyone has gotten their marching orders from Pelosi, now everyone SUPPORTS Impeachment..

    Who could have possibly predicted this!??

    Oh.. Wait.. ;D

    As I have always said.. Ya'all are NOTHING if not predictable.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    Media’s legal defeats trouble First Amendment advocates

    A string of recent court setbacks for news organizations is prompting jitters among First Amendment advocates who fear that it could signal an erosion of the deference press outlets have enjoyed for decades in cases challenging their reporting.

    Some legal experts view the rulings as signs that the courts’ view of the media is beginning to change, with more judges embracing the notion that major news outlets are partisan combatants rather than engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth.

    “It does seem to me there is a seismic shift,” said Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota law professor and former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “Judges are being very skeptical about the news media’s motives. … I think it’s fair to raise the point of whether this is part of a general disquiet with what the media are doing and whether they’re now being seen increasingly as having a partisan agenda.”

    Another seasoned media lawyer said he thought a generational shift was underway, with newer judges more suspect of journalists’ motives.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/23/legal-defeats-media-first-amendment-1508565

    In other words, the courts are no longer giving media/propaganda outlets free reign to lie and obfuscate the FACTS..

    The media is going to be held ACCOUNTABLE and are no longer given the deference they were given in the past.

    Back then, deference was warranted.. These days, the media lies and bullshits and then runs and hide behind their press shields..

    Well, the MSM's shields are weakening and all I can say is that it's about fraking time!!

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi knew all that since January, when she became Speaker, which is why she kept resisting the impeachers. But her surrender proved again that her party can’t quit 2016. Like generals fighting the last war, she and they are now committed to taking their sore-loser grievances to 2020 voters.

    Dems apparently assume the country hates Trump as much as they do. President Hillary Clinton had no comment on the strategy.

    They also are demonstrating they didn’t learn the lessons of the Robert Mueller probe. They assumed for two years the special counsel would get the goods that would drive Trump from office. We know how that worked out, yet here they go again.

    Although Pelosi stopped short of creating a select panel and reportedly has no plans to call for a formal House vote, the Speaker’s claims that Trump “seriously violated the Constitution” and “betrayed the oath of office” in a conversation with Ukraine’s president leave her no wiggle room. If she believes those charges, how can she not advocate for the president’s removal?

    And if she advocates for it, she must deliver it, or she can no longer be the leader.

    So, let's look ahead, shall we..

    This can only end ONE way...

    President Trump is still in office, stronger than he was before..

    Anyone who thinks there is another possibility is delusional..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    We should know a lot more by Wednesday thanks to Trump’s promise to release an unredacted transcript of the phone call. It’s safe to assume he and his lawyers think he did nothing wrong, or they wouldn’t release it.

    Dems might agree, which is why they have moved the goalposts and now also demand the complaint from a so-called whistleblower that initially set Washington’s hair on fire. Reports that the complainer had no direct access to the call raises questions of credibility.

    Look at what ya'all are getting all worked up about??

    The whistle blower is not a witness to the phone call he or she is whistle blowing about...

    So, this is hearsay whistle blowing twice removed..

    It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that it was President Trump who "leaked" a bogus transcript to the whistle blower, knowing that said whistle blower, being a Trump/America hater, would take the bogus transcript up the whistle blower chain and then to Congress..

    In other words, President Trump set this whole thing up to force Democrats to officially go the impeachment route and then totally slam them down with the actual transcript of the call that is completely innocent and supported by several unimpeachable witnesses...

    And then watch the Democrat Party crumble before our very eyes...

    Yep.. It would no surprise me a bit that this entire "scandal" has been engineered by President Trump to do the exact thing it will do..

    Totally destroy and decimate Democrat Party credibility... :D

    And, of course, give me gloating rights well into the next decade.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi may think she went only halfway Tuesday and could eventually back down on impeachment if the Ukraine issue fizzles, but that’s wishful thinking. Anything less than a public flogging of Trump will not satisfy the far left of her own party, including the 150 or so House members who already demanded impeachment before the Ukraine issue appeared.

    Meanwhile, Pelosi’s endorsement also pushes the presidential candidates toward the impeachment path, whether they like it or not. None of them can possibly be against it, nor can they be wishy-washy about it.

    Bet that within days, there will be virtually unanimous support among the White House wannabes. Anything less will be disqualifying among the loud left.

    In short, Pelosi just changed everything. The next election is now about impeachment.

    If you think America is polarized today, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    What is so beautiful about this is that it can only end ONE WAY..

    President Trump still in office..

    And Democrats going this far and not delivering???

    Not only have Democrats GUARANTEED that there will be a HUGE showing of Trump supporters at the ballot box.. Not only will HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of Independents and NPAs show up at the ballot box in support of Trump or in condemnation of Democrats..

    Not only all of that.. But, when Democrats CAN'T deliver on removing Trump from office??

    The entirety of the progressive wing of the Democrat Party will stay home in disgust.. Because Democrats will have failed them once again...

    This only ends ONE way...

    President Trump is still in office and is immensely stronger going into the 2020 election..

    If there is a flaw in the logic, I double dog dare ANYONE to point it out..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi caved in because of the mounting pressure within her party and because the New York Times, the Washington Post and a handful of television gasbags demanded that she act over what the president reportedly said in the July conversation with Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump admits he asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, over whether the then-vice president took any action to protect his son from a corruption probe.

    Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 a month by an energy company that was at one time the focus of a corruption inquiry. Reports have said Biden used his VP position to demand that the inquiry be dropped and the prosector involved fired, or America would withhold aid.

    Again, ALL proven and documented FACTS.. Biden himself BRAGGED about the threat.. And we **ALL** agree that there was a threat from Biden..

    His campaign is toast.. It's that simple..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironically, a full examination of the facts could make Biden the first casualty of the impeachment jihad. He is already a weak front-runner and even if he did nothing legally wrong in dealing with Ukraine, the fact that his son was enriching himself by free-riding on the coattails of his father’s job won’t sit well with progressive voters, many of whom already dislike and distrust Biden.

    Put it this way: Would Hunter Biden have gotten that job if his father were not vice president? Ditto for a sweetheart investment deal Hunter Biden got from the Chinese government. On at least one occasion, he reportedly flew with his father on Air Force Two to China to seal a lucrative agreement there.

    That doesn’t pass the smell test and Biden could get knocked down and even out as events unfold.

    Count that possibility as another sign that, based on what we know, Pelosi is making a high-risk, low-reward bet.

    HIGH RISK LOW REWARD bet...

    Exactly..

    As with everything else Democrats have tried..

    This is going to come back and bite them on the ass...

    YYUUGGGLY...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly people..

    What do you expect will happen?

    Do you HONESTLY think that Democrats have the votes IN THE SENATE to remove President Trump??

    If you do, then ya'all are even MORE deluded than I thought.

    So, what's going to happen is that Democrats will push impeachment to the exclusion of all else.. The People's business is ignored and the People get pissed off at the Democrats...

    President Trump is acquitted in the Senate by a large margin.

    President Trump factually asserts he has been completely and utterly exonerated and vindicated and casts Democrats as extreme sore LUSERS who can't handle they lost the 2016 election..

    President Trump coasts to re-election on the votes of his supporters and hundreds of millions of votes from Independents and NPAs. The Dim candidate is decimated because their base stays home, totally disgusted with their Democrats because President Trump is still in office..

    This is the most likely of scenarios...

    Ya'all hoping for something different are simply deluding themselves..

    Remember, when all is said and done..

    This can ONLY end one way..

    President Trump is still in office and in a MUCH STRONGER position for Nov 2020...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow!! I didn't think one of my predictions would have come to pass so soon!! :D

    WH to release document showing intel community watchdog found whistleblower had 'political bias,' official says

    EXCLUSIVE: A senior Trump administration official told Fox News late Tuesday that the administration will release a document showing the intelligence community inspector general found the whistleblower who leveled an explosive accusation against President Trump concerning his talks with Ukraine had “political bias” in favor of “a rival candidate” of the president.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-whistleblower-complaint-release-congress-white-house

    And the facts are starting to emerge!

    JUST AS I PREDICTED a few comments ago, the so-called "whistle blower" is a Trump/America hater wanting a Dim candidate to win..

    If ya'all don't smell **S*E*T*U*P** in big, bold asterisked letters, ya'all are more deluded than I thought... :D

    President Trump, the 12-D Chess Grand Master!!! :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    The contents of the call, as well as the whistleblower complaint, could throw cold water on Democrats' explosive suggestions that the president improperly threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it investigated Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Republicans had predicted over the weekend that such an impeachment inquiry could backfire on Pelosi, and administration officials have said Trump was concerned only with broader corruption in Ukraine.

    Joe Biden has acknowledged on camera that, when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, while Shokin was investigating the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings — where Hunter Biden was on the board. Shokin himself had separately been accused of corruption.

    Just after midnight Wednesday, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani -- who has long publicly called for Ukraine to investigate Biden's dealings in Ukraine -- posted a series of messages on Twitter suggesting Democrats have a bigger problem on their hands.

    "Democrat party is covering up a pattern of corruption involving high level members of the Obama cabinet," Giuliani wrote. "The multi-million and billion dollar pay-for-play is mind boggling. Biden Family sale of office to Ukraine was not the only one or the most egregious. Slimy Joe is not alone."

    Yep... This is DEFINITELY going to come around and bite the Democrats on the ass.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, attention focused anew Tuesday night on previous apparent efforts by Democrats to pressure Ukraine on its investigations. The Washington Post's Marc Thiessen pointed out that CNN reported in May that Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy pushed Ukraine’s top prosecutor not to close four investigations perceived as critical to then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe -- and seemingly threatened that their support for U.S. aid to Ukraine was at stake.

    The senators wrote: "In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic] institutions despite ongoing military, economic, and political pressure from Moscow. We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump." The senators called for the top prosecutor to “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

    Yep.. All the DOCUMENTED FACTS point to DEMOCRATS threatening and extorting and pressuring Ukraine..

    NOT President Trump..

    Democrats REALLY scroo'ed the pooch by going to Impeachment War over this...

    They are committed and it's all going to blow up in their faces.. :D

    You heard it here first.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    "No one is above the law."
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Except for Crimmigrants who murder and rape American citizens.. :eyeroll:

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Already, Pelosi is starting to back pedal!!! :D

    At the same time, at an event Tuesday, Pelosi intimated that impeachment would remain on the table, regardless of what the transcript showed. Many conservatives charged that she was moving the goalposts and lowering expectations.

    "We have many other, shall we say, candidates for impeachable offenses in terms of the Constitution, but this one is the most understandable by the public," Pelosi said, referring to the Ukraine phone call allegation. "It's really important to know this: There is no requirement that there be a quid-pro-quo in the conversation."

    Pelosi KNOWS she has nothing and is trying to fade the heat..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

    I almost feel SORRY for Democrats.. They are being led to the slaughter by a Grand Manipulator...

    This is going to be more fun than when Democrats were decimated when Mueller completely and totally exonerated President Trump on the Russia Collusion delusion. :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Blathy

    But hay, speaking of Mueller.

    Where is the unredacted Mueller report?? You said it would be released.. It hasn't..

    Were you WRONG??

    Where is the McGann testimony.. You said he would be forced to testify. He hasn't..

    Were you WRONG!???

    Have you EVER been factually accurate on ANYTHING???

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we're going to have one of the BEST days here in Weigantia we have ever had!!

    Well, I know that *I* am going to have a great day.. :D

    It's not a good time for Democrats, though.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Other prominent Democrats also seemingly said Trump should be impeached no matter what.

    "The president has committed several impeachable offenses," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told reporters after Pelosi's remarks on impeachment. In another indication that Democrats were apparently hedging their bets on the Ukraine matter, Ocasio-Cortez said alleged Emoluments Clause violations by the president could be included in prospective articles of impeachment.

    Republicans said the move would prove to be a major political mistake.

    "It is a colossal error," Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told Fox News just prior to Pelosi's comments. "And, I’m kind of surprised that Speaker Pelosi, as shrewd as she is, would let it get to this point."

    Yep...

    President Trump is playing Democrats like the out of tuned (touch) fiddle they are.. :D

    President Trump says "JUMP!!" and Democrats are asking "HOW HIGH!???" on the way up!!!

    This is going to be SOOO much fun..

    And remember..

    This can ONLY end one way..

    With President Trump still in office and Democrats demoralized to hell.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, called Democrats' efforts predictable and destructive in his own fiery statement.

    "Democrats have been trying to impeach the President since the beginning of this Congress," Jordan said. "Michael Cohen's testimony was a bust. John Dean's testimony was a waste of time. The Mueller report did not live up to the hype.

    "Speaker Pelosi's decision to pursue impeachment now - on the basis of unsubstantiated, indirect, and anonymous allegations - only shows that the Speaker has finally succumbed to unrelenting pressure from the socialist wing of the Democrat Party," Jordan added. "This was never about Russian collusion or Ukrainian prosecutions. It is all about undoing the 2016 election and the will of the American people."

    That about sums things up perfectly..

    Democrats are going to rue the day they didn't just simply accept the will of the people in Nov of 2016..

    "MAJOR RUE'AGE"
    -Dusty, TWISTER

    All of this only ends ONE WAY.. President Trump is still in office..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The ironic thing is is that everything that our critics in the media are leveling at the president from this phone call, and leveling at our administration, everything that Democrats on Capitol Hill are running off and describing -- Vice President Joe Biden bragged about -- which was a quid-pro-quo -- withholding American aid in exchange for a specific action."
    -VP Mike Pence

    Exactly..

    It's WELL DOCUMENTED and even CONFESSED to that the Odumbo administration did EXACTLY what the Democrats are accusing President Trump of..

    EXACTLY..

    Even LIZ admits, via her Intercept link, that VP BIDEN "threatened" the Ukraine government with withholding of funds to coerce an action that would benefit Biden and his son, Hunter..

    "NONE OF THESE FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE, MR PRESIDENT!!!"
    -Klingon Ambassador

    And keep in mind ONE total and completely incontestable FACT..

    This only ends ONE way.. With President Trump still in office...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya just GOTS ta know..

    Sen. John Kennedy dismisses Dem impeachment push, says they just have 'hurt feelings'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-john-kennedy-louisiana-reacts-democrats

    If you have JOHN KENNEDY ridiculing Democrats ya'all just HAVE to know that Democrats are in trouble!! :D

    hehehehe

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    I just don't see it. Trump would go after Biden anyway. As far as Dems go, I don't remember any prime time investigations and hearings yet...

    OHMIGODS!!!!

    Blathy, Blathy, Blathy..

    How could you say something to obviously WRONG and moronic?!?

    We had TWO YEARS of prime time investigations and hearings!!!

    And how did all that end up??

    Democrats, demoralized and decimated with nothing but their dicks in their hands...

    Jeesus! I can understand you wanting to forget about such an obvious and painful Democrat debacle..

    But to actually ARTICULATE such an obvious delusion??

    Wow...

    Just WOW...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Dems don't have a good track record with prime time investigations and hearings.

    THAT is putting it mildly..

    Dumbocrats have been an unmitigated DISASTER when going up against President Trump..

    This current one will simply be another in the long list of Demcorat failures..

    Because, the undeniable FACT is...

    This can ONLY end with President Trump still in office...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    And President Trump's approval rating continues it's meteoric rise!! :D

    How ironic that President Trump's approval rating is higher than Odumbo's at the same point in Odumbo's administration..

    OUCH!!! That's just gotta hurt!! :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Makes Clear He’s Ready for a Fight He Has Long Anticipated
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-makes-clear-he-s-ready-for-a-fight-he-has-long-anticipated/ar-AAHM9jF

    President Trump has long planned for this fight...

    Democrats don't stand a chance.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    He knew it was coming. It almost felt inevitable. No other president in American history has been seriously threatened with impeachment since before his inauguration. So when the announcement came on Tuesday that the House would consider charging him with high crimes and misdemeanors, President Trump made clear he was ready for a fight.

    He lashed out at the opposition Democrats, denouncing them for “crazy” partisanship. He denounced the allegations against him as “more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage.” And he proclaimed that even if the impeachment battle to come will be bad for the country, it will be “a positive for me” by bolstering his chances to win a second term in next year’s election.

    Yep.. Exactly..

    But I dispute the notion that this will be bad for the country..

    Anything that all but guarantees President Trump's re-election cannot help but be GOOD for the country...

    Remember.. This can ONLY end one way..

    With President Trump still in office and Democrats shooting their last pathetic and impotent wad..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    The beginning of the long-anticipated showdown arrived when Mr. Trump was in New York for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, creating a surreal split-screen spectacle as the president sought to play global statesman while fending off his enemies back in Washington. One moment, he talked of war and peace and trade with premiers and potentates. The next, he engaged in a rear-guard struggle to save his presidency.

    Mr. Trump gave a desultory speech and shuffled between meetings with leaders from Britain, India and Iraq while privately consulting with aides about his next move against the House. Shortly before heading into a lunch with the United Nations secretary general, he decided to release a transcript of his July telephone call with the president of Ukraine that is central to the allegations against him. In effect, he was pushing his chips into the middle of the table, gambling that the document would prove ambiguous enough to undercut the Democratic case against him.

    President Trump can obviously handle the impeachment witch hunt and STILL get on with the country's business.

    Democrats have PROVEN beyond any doubt that they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time..

    It's gonna be a Democrat slaughter!!

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mr. Trump now joins only Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton in facing a serious threat of impeachment, the constitutional equivalent of an indictment.

    Mr. Nixon resigned when fellow Republicans abandoned him over Watergate, but Mr. Johnson and Mr. Clinton were each acquitted in a Senate trial, the result that seems most likely at the moment given that conviction requires a two-thirds vote, meaning at least 20 Republican senators would have to break with Mr. Trump.

    Yep.. As I have stated and stated and stated..

    This can only end ONE WAY...

    With President Trump still in office...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton both were privately distraught over facing impeachment even as they waged vigorous public battles to defend themselves. Undaunted, Mr. Trump appeared energized by the confrontation, eager for battle. Confident of his position in the Republican-controlled Senate, he seemed almost to assume that the Democrat-controlled House would probably vote to impeach and that he would take his case to the public in next year’s election.

    Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, an ally of the president’s, said Mr. Trump could afford to feel secure. He predicted the same thing would happen to Ms. Pelosi that happened to him in 1998, when he led a party-line impeachment inquiry of Mr. Clinton and paid the price in midterm elections, costing him the speakership.

    Just as the public recoiled at the Republican impeachment then, Mr. Gingrich said, it will reject a Democratic impeachment now. Instead, he said, it will give Mr. Trump and the Republicans a chance to focus attention on Mr. Biden.

    “This is the fight that traps the Democrats into an increasingly unpopular position — I lived through this in 1998 — while elevating the Biden case, which involves big money,” Mr. Gingrich said. “It is a win-win for Trump.”

    It's simply AMAZING how Democrats seem to ALWAYS give President Trump a WIN WIN scenario... :D

    President Trump is blessed by the gods to have such incompetent and moronic enemies.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    His point on the popularity of impeachment was a critical one. Until now, at least, polls have shown that most Americans do not support impeaching Mr. Trump, just as they never embraced impeaching Mr. Clinton. And although how the latest allegations might ultimately change public opinion remained unclear, a new survey by Reuters and Ipsos released on Tuesday night suggested that support for impeachment had actually fallen since the Ukraine revelations, with just 37 percent in favor, down from 41 percent earlier this month.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Support for impeachment has actually FALLEN since this Ukraine thing blew up...

    Democrats are ***ALREADY*** losing support for impeachment!!!

    Oh my gods, how frakin' HILARIOUS is that!!!

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either way, as stunning as the day’s developments were, the only real surprise was how long it took to get here. Mr. Trump’s critics began discussing impeachment within days of his election because of various ethical issues and Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. By last year’s midterm election, Mr. Trump repeatedly raised impeachment on the campaign trail, warning that Democrats would come after him if they won the House.

    They did win, but the drive to impeachment stalled when the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, produced a report that established no criminal conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia while refusing to take a position on whether the president obstructed justice during the investigation.

    As it turned out, Ukraine, not Russia, proved to be rocket fuel for the semi-dormant effort. Now, more than two and a half years later, the battle is on.

    This report is inaccurate..

    This Ukraine debacle is not anything new.. It's simply a continuation of the Mueller witch hunt.

    Democrats want another shot at skinning the cat..

    And, as before, they are going to FAIL..

    "Failed.. Failed.. IMPRESSIVELY FAILED"
    -NASA Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

    That is how future historians will describe the current Democrat Party..

    Why??

    It's simple.. This can ONLY end one way..

    With President Trump still in office and Democrats holding their limp dicks in their hands....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi just made one of the most colossal blunders in modern American politics

    n Tuesday evening Nancy Pelosi made one of the most colossal blunders in the modern history of American electoral politics. Rejecting the accumulated wisdom of a long and successful career in the House of Representatives, she set aside her own instincts and announced the beginning of formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump on the basis of a third-hand rumor about a phone call with the president of a Eurasian republic.
    https://theweek.com/articles/867377

    This bears repeating because it is at the HEART of Pelosi's bonehead move..

    on the basis of a third-hand rumor about a phone call with the president of a Eurasian republic.

    A THIRD HAND RUMOR...

    Even more damning...

    A THIRD HAND RUMOR FROM A KNOWN TRUMP/AMERICA HATER!!

    I swear, if Democrats can't see SETUP in big bright letters, they have LESS than 2 brain cells to rub together..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi knows this will not be popular. She knows more than that. She knows that it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party, that it will inflame the president's base and inspire even his most lukewarm supporters with a sense of outrage. She knows that in states like Michigan, upon which her party's chances in 2020 will depend, the question of impeachment does not poll well. She knows, further, that Joe Biden will not be able to spend the next 14 or so months refusing to answer questions about the activities of his son, Hunter, in Ukraine, and that increased scrutiny of the vice president's record in office will not redound to his credit. She and her fellow Democratic leaders had better hope that someone like Elizabeth Warren manages to steal the nomination away from him before this defines his candidacy the way that Hillary Clinton's emails and paid speechmaking did during and after the 2016 primaries.

    Why would Pelosi make such an obvious bone head move?? What would possess her to ignore all common sense and make the ONE move that will GUARANTEE a MASSIVE Re-Election win for President Trump..

    The answer, when we return... :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, WHY would Nancy Pelosi, the consummate politician (not a compliment) make the HUGE and COLOSSAL blunder with regards to impeachment??

    WHY???

    Because her hand has been forced. The same members of her caucus who have clamored for Trump's impeachment on the basis of his immigration policy, his non-existent collusion with Russian authorities during the last presidential election, and his ownership of various hotels have once again lighted upon high crimes and misdemeanors.

    While it is probably clear to some other members of the party's leadership that impeachment is a non-starter — not only because it is unpopular but because it will go nowhere in the Senate — the feeling seems to be that they have no other choice. Too many younger Democrats whose own political fortunes do not depend upon the party's national appeal, much less its control of the White House, have been allowed to control the conversation.

    Some of them are cynical, others merely naïve, but the takeaway is the same regardless: The hydra is eating its own heads. Pelosi should have known better than to feed it in the first place.

    Why?? Because the inmates (Freshman class) are now fully in control of the asylum that is the Democrat Party House..

    As ANY of the more lucid and rational Weigantians will agree...

    THIS ONLY ENDS ONE WAY..

    With President Trump still in office

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where is all of this headed? In her press conference Pelosi bandied idle threats, but she knows she cannot enforce them. She also knows, surely, that she did not need to make them in the first place. Trump has made an end run around the Democrats by announcing that he will release a transcript of his phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday morning. If there is nothing in the text that justifies the perfervid speculation of his liberal enemies — and it is impossible to imagine his agreeing to its release if there were — it will not be possible to retreat from the opening of impeachment proceedings without embarrassment.

    This does not mean that Pelosi will not attempt to do so regardless. It still seems to me supremely unlikely that this will ever make it to the level of introducing actual articles of impeachment, much less to an actual up-and-down vote on the question of impeachment. Every stalling tactic imaginable — not least among them the expansion of the inquiry to include avenues explored previously, such as the special counsel's findings, and new ones of whose lunacy we can only dream — will be employed. But this will not be enough to satisfy members of her caucus who will complain that the process is not moving along swiftly enough and would do so even if Trump were finally impeached. The business will never be put to bed until Donald Trump leaves office.

    President Trump has the Democrats RIGHT where he wants them..

    The transcript of the actual call will be so benign and innocent, Democrats are going to look like IDIOTS!! :D

    But they can't stop now.. They are fully committed to this road of destruction they are on...

    President Trump has played the tune and Democrats are dancing to it.. Right into their complete and utter decimation.. :D

    This is going to be MUCH more fun than when Democrats were decimated after the Mueller report!! :D

    Hope ya'all can weather me on FULL GLOAT mode!! :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. I am gonna take a break to give ya'all a chance to pick yerselves up off the floor.. :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    But before I go..

    DSWS... I would be VERY interested to hear your take on this Impeachment move by Democrats...

  52. [52] 
    TheStig wrote:

    stucki-3

    For a man with his head planted firmly in the 18th century you seem oddly ignorant of 18th century legal terms of art as understood by the authors of the US Constitution. Specifically, high crimes and misdemeanors.

    "the evidence of original meaning overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that, at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, the composite term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a well-established, familiar legal term of art that the framers consciously borrowed from longstanding English practice and usage dating back four centuries. That meaning was not so much “vague” as simply broad: a sweeping delegation of power and responsibility to the legislative bodies entrusted with the impeachment power. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” had a broad meaning in English practice and in the American understanding, confiding to the two houses of the national legislature (under the U.S. Constitution, the House and the Senate, exercising their respective roles in the impeachment process) a sweeping range of power to punish what those political bodies determined to be misconduct or abuse of power by executive and judicial officers of a wide variety of types.

    The meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was, so to speak, its own distinct thing. It was not a combination of “crimes” and “misdemeanors” as understood in today’s criminal-law sense. It was instead a unique legal term with its own meaning. The framers of the Constitution understood and used the phrase in that specialized sense, consciously adopting a known English-practice term of art in preference to other proposed formulations of the impeachment standard. And the ratification debates uniformly reflect that same broad understanding."

    https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/08/the-original-meaning-of-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-part-1/

    You accusations of "stupid, ignorant, incompetent, and an asshole of a human" being fall well within the sweeping term of art embedded in the US Constitution.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar[9],

    I'm sure you will recall the Mueller testimony and, just recently, the Lewandowsky(sp?) ah, hearing and public perception of both.

    An Impeachment Inquiry is going to be very tricky business and Dems would do well to tread very, very carefully.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sure you will recall the Mueller testimony and, just recently, the Lewandowsky(sp?) ah, hearing and public perception of both.

    He's blotted those out of his conscious mind..

    Too painful...

    An Impeachment Inquiry is going to be very tricky business and Dems would do well to tread very, very carefully.

    Too late.. As the facts indicate, Democrats really REALLY stepped in it this time..

    There is simply NO WAY this ends any other way than President Trump still in office and the Democrat Party mortally wounded...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Deputies: Camel sits on Florida woman, who bites its testicles to free herself

    Louisiana deputies say the couple provoked the camel and cited them for not having their dog on a leash.
    https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/weird/deputies-camel-sits-on-florida-woman-who-bites-its-testicles-to-free-herself/77-3d6f8cee-f64c-45a2-8574-bd81944a8126?fbclid=IwAR0_t1d3DXbnuc8d2sGdEUrPEbTM8nrRk7ukKcNiJcpfF8lImivBqFnMLDI

    Let's hear it for FLORIDIANS!!!!

    No other people like us!! :D

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    You just don't see it?

    Well, what if all the Dem presidential candidates, when asked about the substance of Trump's attacks on their fellow and front-running candidate, said that they don't know and that it should be left up to the voters to decide.

    Why can't you see how that sort of behavior, at the very least, lends credibility to Trump's fallacious arguments?

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, what if all the Dem presidential candidates, when asked about the substance of Trump's attacks on their fellow and front-running candidate, said that they don't know and that it should be left up to the voters to decide.

    Liz, Liz, Liz..

    You have NOTHING to worry about..

    Russ has already stated that Democrats don't attack Democrats like that..

    Biden is safe.. :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is most of the media circling the wagons to protect Hunter Biden?

    A foreign natural gas company brings a top US politician’s son onto its board, even though he has no relevant expertise, for $50,000 a month. The politician travels to that country and demands the removal of a prosecutor who’s investigating the company. That prosecutor then gets axed, and the investigation shut down.

    Imagine the son was Eric Trump, and the politician Donald Trump. Would the media be dismissing it as nothing worth looking at, a “debunked” issue?

    Yes, Ukraine’s chief prosecutor declared in May that he’d seen no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden. (Of course not: Again, the investigation got closed years ago.) Yet Yuriy Lut­senko also basically told Bloomberg News he didn’t want to see any such evidence: “I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of US presidential elections.”
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/23/why-is-most-of-the-media-circling-the-wagons-to-protect-hunter-biden/

    Yea.. Hunter Biden was hired for a $50,000 a month job and has NO EXPERIENCE in what the job entails.

    And it has NOTHING to do with VP Joe Biden threatening a billion dollars in aid..

    And, in other news rainbow color-ed unicorns fly out of Joe Biden's ass.. :eyeroll:

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Volodymyr Zelensky took over as Ukraine’s new president after that Lutsenko interview — having won on a vow to end Ukraine’s endemic corruption. Was it really so strange that President Trump pushed the reformer to reopen the probe?

    No, Trump hasn’t bathed himself in glory with his ham-handed pressure on Ukraine. Then again, Joe Biden’s boasts about getting that prosecutor axed also look clumsy. Then there’s Lutsenko’s claim that the Obama administration handed him a “do not prosecute” list in mid-2016, even as it was pushing Ukraine for dirt on Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager.

    That evidence eventually helped send Manafort to prison. What might come of a full-on Hunter Biden probe?

    Democrats have really stepped in the kaa-kaa this time..

    President Trump will easily survive this continuation of the witch hunt.

    But Joe Biden won't..

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Particularly since the Ukraine affair isn’t unique: As Peter Schweitzer reported in The Post, Hunter’s private equity fund Rosemont Capital (co-founded with John Kerry stepson Chris Heinz) similarly exploited family connections — in name, at the very least — to grow to $2.4 billion under management. Notably, one breakthrough was an early meeting with China’s largest, most powerful government-funded leaders — the same day Joe Biden met with China’s president.

    A second meeting with the same Beijing bigs came just two weeks after the then-veep opened the US-China Strategic Dialogue with top Chinese officials. And Hunter would close a billion-dollar Rosemont deal with the government-run Bank of China in 2013 while accompanying his dad on a top-level trip to Beijing.

    So, Hunter Biden is deeply in bed with the US enemy, China..

    Sounds like all the accusations Democrats made against President Trump and son..

  61. [61] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Impeachment is a political act, not a judicial trial. The guilty politician is thrown out of office. There is no jail time or fine. Pence has nothing to pardon...until Trump is actually convicted of a crime in a court of law.

    Pence can't pardon Trump into back into office. Yes, Ford pardoned Nixon for presumed crimes, but that was never tested in court. (Everybody was too tired and just wanted to move on and watch Chevy Chase doing Ford impressions on SNL).

    As Kick rightly points out, a Pence pardon won't provide Trump a get of jail card for conviction of state laws. So, Trump has every reason to be nervous...even if he doesn't fully grasp the details... which seems likely. Trump isn't much bothered by rules.

    Shout out to Kick - I value your institutional knowledge of historical CW.com comments :)

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberal pundits routinely charge that Trump has used the presidency to vastly enrich himself, though the “scandals” boil down to people staying at his hotels, which is chump change. It’s easy enough to see why he sees red over the fact that the press holds the Biden family to a far softer standard.

    Which is now why the media is starting to lose in the court cases all across the country..

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pence has nothing to pardon...until Trump is actually convicted of a crime in a court of law.

    Not factually accurate..

    President Ford pardoned Nixon, even though Nixon had never been convicted of any crime..

    You're slippin', Stig.. I expected more intelligence from you...

    Pence can't pardon Trump into back into office. Yes, Ford pardoned Nixon for presumed crimes, but that was never tested in court.

    Ahhh There you are..

    SO, basically the ONE example that PROVES you wrong has never been refuted..

    So, Trump has every reason to be nervous...even if he doesn't fully grasp the details...

    Yea.. Just like Trump had "every reason" to be nervous with ya'all's Russia Collusion Delusion...

    You are a broken record, Stig.. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment shows the Democrats are addicted to chaos

    Does the strangely vague certainty ring any bells?
    Democrats have long criticized Donald Trump’s addiction to Twitter, his limited rolling-news attention span and the narcissism of his reality TV presidency. No doubt there is truth in what they say. But it’s also what psychologists call projection — a defense mechanism people employ in order to deflect attention from their own failings.

    At some, perhaps semi-conscious level, Trump’s bitterest critics know that nobody, not even the president, is more media-addled than they are. Nobody is more likely to plan according to the hourly news cycle. And nobody is as quick to reach the most dramatic conclusions based on very little evidence. The anti-Trump show must go on.

    Again and again, we see Trump-loathing journalists piling on to thin stories in the absolute certainty that, this time, they’ve got him. Then we see Democrats escalate the drama because, well, the media wants it. Trump today moaned on Twitter that the Democrats has stolen the headline thunder from his appearance at the UN. Of course they have; the news cycle demanded a rush to judgment, and they have complied.
    https://spectator.us/impeachment-democrats-addicted-chaos/

    Again.. You have to wonder how Democrats could be so stoopid and not sniff out an obvious setup..

    I guess HHPTDS totally short circuits any sense of common sense Democrats may have possessed..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look at Nancy Pelosi announcing this afternoon that she would be pushing for impeachment proceedings — despite having said in the past she would rather beat Trump at the ballot in 2020 . ‘To­day, I’m an­nounc­ing the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives is mov­ing for­ward with an of­fi­cial im­peach­ment in­quiry,’ she said. ‘The ac­tion taken to date by the pres­i­dent ap­pears to vi­o­late the con­sti­tu­tion.’

    Does that strangely vague certainty, that challenging vapidity ring a bell? Does it not sound like almost every Democratic soundbite about Trump-Russia from 2016 to 2019? It’s the same pile-on; the same rush to judgment; the same elite liberal media feedback loop.

    Did somebody mention the Mueller inquiry? Don’t mention the Mueller inquiry! This is different, various Dems now insist. Totally different. Not the same. For one thing, Trump was president when he may have asked a foreign power to interfere against Biden in 2020; he was only a candidate when he probably didn’t with Clinton in 2016. This is a real high crime. Totally different. This is big; this time.

    On a visceral level, it is simply HILARIOUS to watch Democrats twist themselves up in knots over another "HUGE Scandal" that "will definitely bring down Trump this time!!"

    Once again, I wish ya'all could take a step back and see how completely and utterly ridiculous and predictable you and your Democrats look..

    I mean, hell even CW agrees that the most likely scenario is that the Senate acquits President Trump..

    President Trump will remain if office..

    That much is certain..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    All we have is an anonymous whistleblower allegation and news reports connecting various dots. The allegation that lingered from last night’s Washington Post ‘scoop’ until this afternoon is that, in a telephone call, Trump offered the Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Ze­len­sky some sort of aid-for-dirt deal; we give you guns, you give us details as to Sloppy Joe Biden’s misdeeds. Yeah, that sounds like Trump — must be true.

    But then today Trump said he is willing to release the full transcript of his conversation with Ze­len­sky, which suggests he isn’t all that worried.

    Still, Nancy presses on. Why? Perhaps the Democrats know something we don’t — and the whistleblower account will offer proof that Trump crossed a line in his desperation to dig Ukrainian dirt on Biden.

    Or maybe Pelosi doesn’t want Joe Biden to be president. She sees that, while this Ukraine story may or may not hurt Trump, the constant reminder of Biden family’s business-orientated diplomacy will only undermine him. Biden, the old fool, will join in the ‘witch-hunt’ not realizing that he is the convenient collateral damage.

    Nancy is a wily operator, but that might be too clever by half. The more likely scenario is that the Democrats have, once again, allowed the apoplexy they feel towards Donald Trump to flood their brains. They have got swept up in their own reality TV show, the one in which they get to save the Republic and make grandiose statements about honor and America’s integrity.

    This is going to blow up in the Democrat's faces... The only question is when..

    Hopefully it's sooner.. Would be an awesome laugh for me.. :D

    But later would be good as well. Drag it out as long as possible.. Throw out little bread crumbs here and there to keep Democrats striving higher and higher..

    And then, SPLAAAT!! Pull the rug out and see Democrats face-plant...

    It's a very pleasing scenario..

    And what's even better is that it's the MOST LIKELY scenario.. By a factor of 10...

    President Trump will remain in office til Jan 2025...

    "I'm lovin' it.."
    -McDonald's Jingle

    :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    The trouble for the Democrats is that Trump-Ukraine seems too familiar a plot. After three years of Trump-Russia, we all feel like we’re watching the same episode again, even if we aren’t. Like all reality TV, it’s fake and it’s crap.

    A long time ago, there was a TV sitcom called WHAT'S HAPPENING..

    Three teenage kids and their hi-jinks.. One episode had the kids pen'ing a TV script about 3 kids who find a bunch of money in a garbage can... They sent in the script and were amazed when the very episode aired the following week..

    Long story short, they didn't get credit for the episode and rushed down to the studio to complain..

    Come to find out, that it wasn't there episode but rather simply a re-hash of a well known trope that TV shows air over and over again.

    The Ukraine trope is interchangeable with the Russia Collusion trope..

    It's simply a rehashed TV episode with identical episodes of the past..

    New Name.. New Title.. New supporting cast.. But the "villain" and the story line remain the same..

    And, as with the previous episode, it can only end ONE WAY..

    With President Trump remaining in office..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

    There is the transcript of President Trump's phone conversation with the Ukraine President..

    **THIS** is Impeachable!!???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

    Democrats are toast!!!

    I bet Pelosi is banging her head on her desk, asking "WHY!!! WHY!!!! WHY did I let the morons talk me into impeachment.. GODS!! What a fool i am!!! :D hehehehe

    I tell ya people.. Democrats have REALLY stepped on their dicks this time... :D

  69. [69] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I also recall George H.W. Bush issuing preemptive pardons pertaining to Iran-Contra, but nobody pushed back, which did set a precedent, which might or might not survive legal poking.

    Benjamin Franklin viewed impeachment as a preferential alternative to assassination. In the 21st Century that kind of talk would probably bring the FBI to your door.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    “(Then-Vice President Joe) Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me.”
    -President Trump

    **THAT** is impeachable!!!!?????

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh my gods, ya'all must be DYING with embarrassment!!

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    THAT'S IT!!!!????

    THAT is all Democrats have!!???

    THAT is the "smoking gun" that will destroy President Trump!??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh my gods, Democrats have REALLY stepped in it this time!!

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Oh Johnny, Johnny, did you back the wrong horse.."
    -Dr Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    I am betting that Nancy Pelosi is beating her head against the wall, to the tune of Cher's IF I COULD TURN BACK TIME

    :D

    I mean, I knew Democrats were sunk...

    But I didn't realize how totally and utterly decimated they are!!

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    *THAT* is all you have!!???

    SERIOUSLY!!!!?????

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

  73. [73] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I just found an online transcript of the Trump/Zelensky "unredacted" transcript.

    Read the fine print at the bottom of the pages (hand copied by TS)

    "A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form"......

    Is there no audio recording of the phone call? I would judge that not credible in this era of "everything electronic is forever."

    Demand the audio archive and get as close to verbatim as possible!

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just found an online transcript of the Trump/Zelensky "unredacted" transcript.

    Yea.. I already found it..

    "A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form"......

    Ahhh.. So STIG agrees with me.. Stig agrees that the contents of the call are completely innocuous and innocent.

    So, NOW his only recourse is to claim, WITHOUT ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER, that it's not an accurate transcript of the call...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I wonder what Stig's story will be if President Trump releases the actual audio and finds out the transcript IS an accurate transcript of the call..

    Poor Stig's 2 brain cells will likely explode!!

  75. [75] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I can tell, the Democratics are headed down that same dead-end road they took that led nowhere about Jr. being willing and happy to accept political "dirt" on Hillary from the Russian lady lawyer.

    Regardless of how many times Kick assured us that accepting verbal help from foreigners violates the rule against receiving any "thing of value", in contravention of the 1st amend., it just wasn't true in the 2016 campaign, and it still ain't true in the 2020 campaign.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, THAT is going to be the "go to" actions of the hysterical Trump/America haters..

    Claim that the transcript is not the contents of the call..

    They will have NO FACTS to support the claim, of course...

    But it's gonna be entertaining to watch the morons fall all over themselves.

    But one fact is clear.

    Stig has (and everyone else will) concede that the conversation is completely innocent and DOESN'T rise to the level of impeachment.

    Hell it's not even in the same GALAXY as impeachment..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can tell, the Democratics are headed down that same dead-end road they took that led nowhere about Jr. being willing and happy to accept political "dirt" on Hillary from the Russian lady lawyer.

    Yea.. It's painfully clear that Democrats are repeating all the same mistakes they made before..

    The Democrats have already lost.. They are just too stoopid to realize it..

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good God, Michale, what are you getting all worked up about.

    Let's take a breather and see how all of this plays out.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, MIchale, Biden didn't go around bragging about stopping the prosecution, as Trump said.

    Biden was "bragging" about getting a corrupt prosecutor who wasn't actually prosecuting replaced with a "solid at the time" replacement who would prosecute corruption.

    If the company and head of the company who Hunter Biden was working for was engaged in corruption, then Biden's actions made it more likely that a corruption prosecution would occur, not less likely.

    If anyone thinks that an investigation of Biden will uncover anything remotely connected with corruption or anything else of an illegal or unethical nature, then I would say good luck to them because they will find nothing.

    But, having said all that, why hasn't the US Department of Justice and FBI undertaken to investigate this. Why does Trump have to ask Ukraine for help in that regard??

  80. [80] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    It's too funny.

    If you listen to the rightwing media and the leftwing media on and off, they're both saying the same thing, only drawing different conclusions.

    There's no doubt Trump wanted some workable dirt on Biden, no one denies that. There's also no doubt that he missed his mark. Facts don't allow for much room here, Biden, at the behest of then president Obama, along with other NATO governments pressured the Ukrainians to lose the corrupt prosecutor, which they did. It's also fact that this same prosecutor was done his investigating of Biden's son and found nothing untoward, and therefore Biden had no reason to call for his head except for the reasons universally held by people not insane.

    At the end of the day, this wont change a damn thing, Trump's base wont be fruitful and multiply, he wasn't going talk them into not voting for Biden more vigorously.

    Likewise, the other 60+% of the electorate don't believe a word Trump says on a good day, let alone another red herring emanating from the former Soviet Union. If anything, Trump has prolly overplayed his hand on this one, as I'm sure most Americans are fed up with Trump and his seemingly endless supply of eastern European malefactors fucking around in US elections.

    *I'm sure the Ukrainian's know how to interpret polling data. I'm fairly sure they see what the rest of us see, Trump heading for a humiliating clobbering in 13 month's time.

    LL&P

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    James, I think you may be confusing prosecutors with which prosecutor did what.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way, MIchale, Biden didn't go around bragging about stopping the prosecution, as Trump said.

    Biden was "bragging" about getting a corrupt prosecutor who wasn't actually prosecuting replaced with a "solid at the time" replacement who would prosecute corruption.

    So, you concede that Biden was bragging.. Just as you agreed that Biden threatened to withhold the funding..

    OK, so we are in complete agreement..

    But, having said all that, why hasn't the US Department of Justice and FBI undertaken to investigate this. Why does Trump have to ask Ukraine for help in that regard??

    On what basis would the US DOJ have cause to investigate a Ukraine company??

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Biden a US citizen?

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not a trick question. I'm not trying to be facetious here. :)

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, as we see, history repeats itself..

    When AG Barr released a summary of the Mueller, Democrat didn't want to accept the findings and demanded that the full report be released..

    When the full report was released, it said the EXACT same thing that the summary said..

    Democrats lost..

    Now, President Trump releases the official transcript of the call.

    It TOTALLY demolishes the Democrat claims so now Democrats demand the actual audio...

    And Democrats will LOSE again..

    Is there ANYONE here (with more than 2 brain cells to rub together) that thinks Democrats did NOT totally frak up with this Ukraine call??

    Anyone at all??

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hm, this does put the trailing democratic candidates in an odd position. they have to either defend the guy standing in the way of their own ambitions, or give credence to the president's unsubstantiated allegations. no matter how vague or non-committal they try to be, there's really no middle ground.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Biden a US citizen?

    Did Hunter Biden break any US laws???

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    hm, this does put the trailing democratic candidates in an odd position. they have to either defend the guy standing in the way of their own ambitions, or give credence to the president's unsubstantiated allegations. no matter how vague or non-committal they try to be, there's really no middle ground.

    That's all??? :D

    or give credence to the president's unsubstantiated allegations.

    You mean, the "unsubstantiated allegation" that Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecutor from looking into his son's shenanigans by threatening to withhold 1 billion dollars in aid..

    That allegation has been substantiated by none other than Joe Biden himself..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    Anyone find any impeachable offenses in there??

    Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??

    :D

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    hm, this does put the trailing democratic candidates in an odd position.

    You just HAVE to know which way they are going to go, eh?? :D

    Getting worried you might have to vote Trump in Nov of 2020?? :D

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sadly, I think there is no hope for you, Michale.

    I long for the days when I would spend any time necessary to read your contributions here and respond to them … :(

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua[86],

    Indeed.

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the president makes a different unsubstantiated allegation every other minute, then contradicts himself the next minute.

    That allegation has been substantiated by none other than Joe Biden himself..

    that claim, just like every other claim the president has made against biden, was proven false even before he uttered it.

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Is Biden a US citizen? Did Hunter Biden break any US laws???

    Does the FBI have jurisdiction?

    Are you copying this down?

  95. [95] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You just HAVE to know which way they are going to go, eh?? :D

    Getting worried you might have to vote Trump in Nov of 2020?? :D

    no more so than before. if anything, this helps biden because it makes voters think trump is more scared of him than any of the other democratic candidates.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    that claim, just like every other claim the president has made against biden, was proven false even before he uttered it.

    And yet, there is YOUTUBE proof that the claim is NOT false but is factually accurate.

    Ya'all don't believe official transcripts and official statements that says something you don't like.

    I don't expect ya'all to believe your own eyes and ears.. :^/

    no more so than before. if anything, this helps biden because it makes voters think trump is more scared of him than any of the other democratic candidates.

    Nice spin..

    "You tap dance more than any officer candidate I have ever seen!!"

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does the FBI have jurisdiction?

    You tell me..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    Find anything impeachable in there??

    Anything at all???

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wonder what Trump will say in his presser today … Heh.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Remember, Michale, President Trump is truly his own worst enemy ...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember, Michale, President Trump is truly his own worst enemy ...

    No more so than the Democrats are their own worst enemies..

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    Anything impeachable in there??

    Of course not..

    So, how are Demcorats going to explain that THIS is what prompted their calls for impeachment???

    Hmmmmm?????

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I also wonder what President Trump trying to hide while he spoon-feeds the press the memo on the call and the idea that the administration is working out the details for the whistleblower to tell his or her story ...

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also wonder what President Trump trying to hide while he spoon-feeds the press the memo on the call and the idea that the administration is working out the details for the whistleblower to tell his or her story ...

    I wonder what ya'all are trying to hide when ya'all can't answer a simple question..

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    What about that is "impeachable"..

    But hay.. At least I got you to admit by default that the call was completely innocuous and innocent.. :D

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Warren says that the transcript of the call is a "smoking gun"..

    BBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And yet NO ONE can point to ANY PART of the call that is not completely innocent and innocuous... :D

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think it is high time for Chris to write about this if he cares at all about what is being written in the comments sections under his good name.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Wow. Impeachment over this? What a nothing (non-quid pro quo) burger," Graham tweeted shortly after summary was made public.

    Democrats have truly gone off the deep end if they think that this innocent and innocuous call amounts to an impeachable offense.. :D

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it is high time for Chris to write about this if he cares at all about what is being written in the comments sections under his good name.

    Didn't CW just do that today???

    Granted he didn't have the actual official transcript of the call..

    If he had, I am betting his commentary would have been COMPLETELY different.. :D

    Let me know when you have something that is actually impeachable in that transcript..

    :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't CW just do that today???

    Oops I meant yesterday...

    CW's yesterday is my today...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, everyone here (sans CRS) thinks that impeachment based on this innocuous and innocent phone call is warranted....

    Got the marching orders from Pelosi and ya'all are all aboard.. :D

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    Brandi Buchman
    @BBuchman_CNS

    BREAKING: The Senate has voted 54-41 to terminate President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border and to stop the diversion of military funds to pay for a wall along the border.
    Story to come for @CourthouseNews

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa also brushed off Wednesday's news.

    "I’ve read the transcript in its entirety," he said in a statement. "It shows that there was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian President admitted problems with corruption in the country and agreed that the issue at hand warranted looking into further."

    Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a close ally of Trump's, told MSNBC's Hallie Jackson that he and some other GOP lawmakers were invited to the White House in the morning to review the call summary, and that they spoke to Trump on the phone about what it contained.

    "The bottom line here is that in this transcript there is no quid pro quo, there is no improper leverage and the overall tone of this transcript is that it is mutual laudatory," he said.

    The ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio, maintained the summary "shows no wrongdoing," and that "the real scandal" involves Biden and his son.

    Democrats totally and inexorably scrooed da pooch here.. :D

    It's gonna be a thrill when Pelosi cancels the impeachment push because there are no facts to support it.

    It's gonna be HILARIOUS to watch Pelosi put the genie back in the bottle. :D

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Brandi Buchman
    @BBuchman_CNS

    BREAKING: The Senate has voted 54-41 to terminate President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border and to stop the diversion of military funds to pay for a wall along the border.
    Story to come for @CourthouseNews

    Meaningless.. President Trump merely vetoes the measure..

    You Democrats lose again.. :D

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right, Liz..

    You want FACTS???

    Since I know you hate to go to links, I'll post the FACTS here..

    1. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma in April 2014, according to RSB bank records. Hunter Biden had little background in energy. Over a 16-month period, Burisma paid $3.1 million to a bank account associated with Hunter’s business.

    2. Joe Biden led the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine when he served as vice president. Biden helped shape Ukraine’s energy and anti-corruption policies, issues that directly impact Burisma.

    3. Burisma sought to capitalize Hunter Biden’s name and relationships. According to The New York Times, Hunter Biden helped assemble the company’s legal team, which consisted of American attorneys and consulting firms, including a former Obama Justice Department official.

    4. Burisma is led by an oligarch named Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky served as ecology minister under pro-Russia former Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich, leading to allegations that he used his office to benefit Burisma.

    5. Burisma was under legal scrutiny. Shortly before Hunter Biden was appointed to Burisma’s board, British authorities froze $23 million of Zlochevsky’s assets as part of a corruption investigation. Ukraine opened its own probe later that year.

    6. Financial records from Morgan Stanley show numerous lines of money going into the account of “Robert H. Biden.” The funds originated from oligarchs and anonymous LLCs in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

    7. In 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Ten days later, Hunter Biden’s firm scored a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China.

    Change all the "Biden"s to "Trump"s and you'll see exactly the problem Biden faces.. :D

    Nothing but the facts, ma'am...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like everyone got scared away again.. :(

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    1 through 4 sounds fair enough.

    I take issue with 5 because you imply that Burisma was under legal scrutiny by the Ukrainian prosecutor general and this is not the case. In fact, the prosecutor general - the one Biden forced out of office - was ignoring corruption investigations, including any investigation of Burisma.

    Biden wanted this corruption-shy prosecutor replaced with someone who would actually investigate and prosecute corruption. Trump lies about this at every opportunity.

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, so do you, I might add.

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And yet, there is YOUTUBE proof that the claim is NOT false but is factually accurate.

    not that youtube is necessarily always wrong, but it's not vetted or accountable, so it's a forum where absolutely anyone can claim absolutely anything and call it proof. there's also youtube proof of ufo's, bigfoot and a second shooter in the jfk assassination.

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I'm pretty sure there was another shooter in the JFK assassination ...

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    I take issue with 5 because you imply that Burisma was under legal scrutiny by the Ukrainian prosecutor general and this is not the case.

    Whatever implication you may think is there, the FACT is factually accurate..

    In fact, the prosecutor general - the one Biden forced out of office - was ignoring corruption investigations, including any investigation of Burisma.

    Facts to support??

    Biden wanted this corruption-shy prosecutor replaced with someone who would actually investigate and prosecute corruption.

    Resorts to mind-reading..

    Trump lies about this at every opportunity.

    I really don't think you want to go down the road of lies, considering many of Biden's recent statements, eh? :D

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    not that youtube is necessarily always wrong, but it's not vetted or accountable, so it's a forum where absolutely anyone can claim absolutely anything and call it proof. there's also youtube proof of ufo's, bigfoot and a second shooter in the jfk assassination.

    And if we were talking about grainy, out of focus or jerky "Found Footage" type videos, then you would have a rational point.

    But we're not, so you don't..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

    I know you don't WANT to believe the facts..

    But hay.. Facts are facts irregardless of whether you choose to believe them or not..

    You prefer to believe Biden's bullshit over your own eyes and ears..

    It's kewl. I won't begrudge you your delusions.. :D

    But I will point them out. :D

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden nosedives in early-state polls

    Recent surveys show the former veep’s leads have vanished in Iowa and New Hampshire, while his South Carolina firewall shows signs of cracking.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/biden-iowa-new-hampshire-polls2020-1510351

    Looks like Ukraine is already exacting it's pound of flesh from Biden.. :D

    Hay Joshua, do you want to have a VOTE FOR TRUMP FaceBook Party where we can stream live our votes for President Trump??

    :D

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like "electability" has taken a back seat to "Party Purity"...

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!!!

    Oh wait.. :D

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still waiting for someone here to point out what is impeachable about the following:

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    Since no one can point to any impeachment "smoking gun", the *ONLY* logical conclusion is that ya'all concede that there IS nothing impeachable about the call...

    I accept ya'all's concession. :D

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    But we're not, so you don't..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

    I know you don't WANT to believe the facts..

    But hay.. Facts are facts irregardless of whether you choose to believe them or not..

    You prefer to believe Biden's bullshit over your own eyes and ears..

    It's kewl. I won't begrudge you your delusions.. :D

    But I will point them out. :D

    Don't tell me, let me guess..

    That's NOT Joe Biden speaking.. :D

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ukraine call whistleblower showed 'political bias,' favored Trump's 'rival' candidate: memo

    The intelligence community inspector general found that the whistleblower who leveled explosive allegations against President Trump concerning his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky showed indications of “political bias” and was “in favor of a rival political candidate,” a new document shows.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-whistleblower-had-political-bias-and-was-in-favor-of-trumps-rival-candidate-doj

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!!???

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  126. [126] 
    Paula wrote:

    So this is really interesting: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/25/5-reasons-warren-best-chance-beat-trump-column/2419281001/?fbclid=IwAR3Jj2ujG6ABbyQJIKCb5lJF5GKauiHxN17mTw8OoXHqGG9uAQO80Am4CQM

    He sets up his reasons for why EW can win with stats that I hadn't previously heard formulated this way:

    To understand why, take a close look at what really happened in 2016.

    The Trump victory didn’t result mainly from a mass exodus of blue-collar Democratic voters to the Republican candidate.

    It’s true that 9.8% of voters changed their votes from 2012 to 2016. But only 3.6% of voters moved from President Barack Obama to Trump. More than half of these were offset by the 1.9% who switched from Mitch Romney to Hillary Clinton — leaving a net loss of only 1.7%.

    The lion’s share of vote-changers were the 4.3% of the voters who moved from Obama in 2012 to a third-party candidate or to not voting for any presidential candidate in 2016.

    Of course, much of the net loss of vote-changers was concentrated in critical electoral states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    The loss of white working-class voters to Trump was definitely a component of Clinton’s defeat. But a greater component was that so many former Obama voters elected not to vote at all or vote for a third-party candidate.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Minnesota police release body camera video of deadly shooting of man carrying knife, charging at officer
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/minnesota-police-ronald-davis-shooting-body-camera-video

    Once again, Democrats want to attack and vilify an LEO simply because he defended himself from a deadly attack by a black person..

    One has to wonder if Democrats could EVER condemn a criminal without checking first on the color of the criminal's skin..

    :eyeroll:

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wait a tic...

    Benjamin Netanyahu given first crack at forming Israeli government
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/benjamin-netanyahu-given-first-crack-at-forming-israeli-government

    Didn't someone around here say something about Netanyahu LOST the election??? :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Democrats lost to President Trump in court...

    AGAIN!!! :D

    Judge blocks Trump tax return subpoenas for 1 day

    phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    President Trump’s lawyers went head-to-head with Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in court Wednesday morning as the two parties continued their back-and-forth over whether Trump, as a sitting president, can have his tax returns subpoenaed.

    U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero heard arguments from both sides in the wake of a lawsuit filed by the president’s attorneys on Sept. 19 to block a subpoena issued at the end of August seeking eight years of tax returns for Trump and the Trump Organization.

    Marrero ultimately granted to block the subpoena for one more day.
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/judge-blocks-trump-tax-return-subpoenas-for-one-day

    How can Democrats stand up to all the LOSSES!!???

    heheheheheheehehehehehehehe :D

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin McCarthy: If you want to know what Pelosi will do tomorrow, read AOC's tweets tonight
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-pelosi-democrats-impeachment-aoc

    Heh

    "It's funny because it's true"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how the temp in here dropped 20 degrees once the Biden video where he brags about threatening Ukraine is released.. :D

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having read DOJ’s Trump-Ukraine release, here’s the real story: This is another internal attempt to take out a president, on the basis of another non-smoking-gun.
    -Kimberly Strassel

    Funny how NO ONE can point to the transcript of the call and point out ANY smoking gun...

    THIS is what Democrats are going to impeach President Trump with??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  133. [133] 
    Paula wrote:

    On twitter:

    Tom Malinowski
    @Malinowski
    I was an Assistant Secretary of State when this happened. All of us working on Ukraine wanted this prosecutor gone, because he was NOT prosecuting corruption. So did the Europeans. So did the IMF. This didn't come from Joe Biden - he just delivered our message.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump himself was the instigator of this action, in (at the very least) a phone call to the Ukrainian leader. He also dispatched Rudy Giuliani to make the same case to the incoming Ukrainian administration. Giuliani, importantly, is Trump's private lawyer. "Private" is the key word here, because Giuliani holds no public office or position within the government. As such, he is absolutely not authorized to conduct American foreign policy with world leaders.

    MOOSE POOP!!! MOOSE POOP!!! MOOSE POOP I TELL YOU!!! MOOSE POOP!!!

    The President can SEND anyone he chooses to represent him to foreign leaders..

    How many times has a President sent a sports star or hollywood star overseas to represent him and his interests?? How many times has a President choose Dozens, if not hundreds..

    Laurence Fishburne.
    Halima Aden.
    Selena Gomez.
    Dayle Haddon.
    Angie Harmon.
    Téa Leoni.
    Lucy Liu.
    Alyssa Milano.

    All have been chosen as UNICEF "Ambassadors"

    Emma Watson, Nicole Kidman, David Beckham and Angelina Jolie have all been chosen as UN Ambassadors...

    President Trump can appoint his second cousin Filbert to go over and talk to ANY foreign leader he wishes...

    Yer letting your HHPTDS cloud your reasoning, CW...

    But, I'll help ya out..

    "Well.. uh... er.. THAT'S different!!" :D

    Yer welcome.. :D

    But Rudy's involvement is really just the icing on the cake, since Trump's direct involvement is the real scandal, and it's about as obvious as a punch in the face.

    Funny.. It's Zelensky who brings up Guiliani, not President Trump...

    Once again We have the Democrat HYSTERIA..

    And then we have the FACTS...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooo carp!!!

    Trump himself was the instigator of this action, in (at the very least) a phone call to the Ukrainian leader. He also dispatched Rudy Giuliani to make the same case to the incoming Ukrainian administration. Giuliani, importantly, is Trump's private lawyer. "Private" is the key word here, because Giuliani holds no public office or position within the government. As such, he is absolutely not authorized to conduct American foreign policy with world leaders.

    MOOSE POOP!!! MOOSE POOP!!! MOOSE POOP I TELL YOU!!! MOOSE POOP!!!

    The President can SEND anyone he chooses to represent him to foreign leaders..

    How many times has a President sent a sports star or hollywood star overseas to represent him and his interests?? How many times has a President choose Dozens, if not hundreds..

    Laurence Fishburne. Halima Aden. Selena Gomez. Dayle Haddon. Angie Harmon. Téa Leoni. Lucy Liu. Alyssa Milano.

    All have been chosen as UNICEF "Ambassadors"

    Emma Watson, Nicole Kidman, David Beckham and Angelina Jolie have all been chosen as UN Ambassadors...

    President Trump can appoint his second cousin Filbert to go over and talk to ANY foreign leader he wishes...

    Yer letting your HHPTDS cloud your reasoning, CW...

    But, I'll help ya out..

    "Well.. uh... er.. THAT'S different!!" :D

    Yer welcome.. :D

    But Rudy's involvement is really just the icing on the cake, since Trump's direct involvement is the real scandal, and it's about as obvious as a punch in the face.

    Funny.. It's Zelensky who brings up Guiliani, not President Trump...

    Once again We have the Democrat HYSTERIA..

    And then we have the FACTS...

    OK Much better...

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh my gods, this just keeps getting better and better!!!!

    “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
    -President Trump

    President Trump was actually talking about getting Ukraine to help with the DOJ investigation of the ***2016 ELECTION***!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ohmygods have Democrats totally scrooed the pooch!!! :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Department of Justice confirmed today that Ukraine’s role in 2016 election meddling is being investigated and that some Ukrainians are already cooperating with the probe. “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement. “While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”

    Oh Democrats are SOOOOOO screwed now!!! :D

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was an Assistant Secretary of State when this happened. All of us working on Ukraine wanted this prosecutor gone, because he was NOT prosecuting corruption. So did the Europeans. So did the IMF. This didn't come from Joe Biden - he just delivered our message.

    So the message DID come from Joe Biden..

    The threats, the extortion.. ALL came from Joe Biden..

    Once again, the FACTS are confirmed by Democrats.. :D

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Paula doesn't get is that it doesn't MATTER who wanted the Ukraine GP gone..

    It doesn't matter if it was a good thing or a bad thing that the GP was fired..

    It doesn't even matter that the GP was set to interview and investigate Hunter Biden..

    The ONLY FACT that matters is undisputed..

    VP Biden threatened to withhold a BILLION dollars in aid to Ukraine if Ukraine didn't do what the Obama Administration wanted Ukraine to do..

    Biden said, "Fire the guy or you won't get the billion dollars"

    This is the ONLY relevant fact..

    And it is a fact that is completely and unequivocally undisputed..

    So, whine and cry and stamp ya'all's feet all you want...

    It won't change the ONE undisputed and relevant fact..

    NOW...

    If ya'all want to claim that it's no big deal that Obama/Biden extorted and threatened Ukraine to do Obama/Biden's bidding.... OK that's fine.

    In THAT case ya'all have NO MORAL LEG OR ETHICAL LEG TO STAND ON when attacking President Trump for asking UKRAINE for dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden..

    If yer perfectly OK with Obama/BIDEN threatening and extorting Ukraine, then you CAN'T have a problem with President Trump enlisting their aid in taking out Biden..

    No matter which way ya'all wanna spin it..

    Democrats are SCROOED... :D

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    117

    not that youtube is necessarily always wrong, but it's not vetted or accountable, so it's a forum where absolutely anyone can claim absolutely anything and call it proof. there's also youtube proof of ufo's, bigfoot and a second shooter in the jfk assassination.

    The second shooter was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and don't you people know Bigfoot is real!? Duh!

    https://www.ispot.tv/ad/oWA4/credit-sesame-bigfoot

    I saw him recently on a television commercial serving coffee. I would wager he serves pie too! ;)

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Attorney For Anti-Trump ‘Whistleblower’ Worked For Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/attorney-for-anti-trump-whistleblower-worked-for-hillary-clinton-chuck-schumer/

    Who could have possibly predicted this!!

    Oh wait.. :D

    What I tell ya'all....

    Once the FACTS came out, it would be DEMOCRATS who are being bitch-slapped to hell and back!! :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno.. I was kinda hoping that President Trump would draw this out more...

    Twist the knife a little.. Make Democrats suffer for a while..

    But no.. President Trump is just putting them down to the ground, no muss no fuss..

    Bummer.. A little more suffering on their part would have been MUCH more entertaining..

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    RIVLIN GIVES NETANYAHU MANDATE TO FORM GOVERNMENT
    President Reuven Rivlin formally gave Netanyahu four weeks to form the government after a meeting at the President's Residence.

    https://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Rivlin-meeting-with-Netanyahu-Gantz-602868

    Not too shabby for someone who "lost" the election, eh?? :D

    OK, I apologize.. What with all the decimation of the Democrats over this hysterical Ukraine NothingBurger, I should be a little more compassionate and not rub it in..

    I'll strive to be more understanding of the pain and suffering ya'all are going thru...

  144. [144] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Man, I just knew that Mike would have his shorts in a bun over this. The whistleblower hasn't testified, so we can save the hysterics til then...

  145. [145] 
    Paula wrote:

    Apparently the entire whistle blower complaint is being given to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees today.

    Good.

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man, I just knew that Mike would have his shorts in a bun over this. The whistleblower hasn't testified, so we can save the hysterics til then...

    Yea.. And the Mueller report wasn't turned over to Congress yet... And I still pointed out how bad ya'all lost..

    I was factually accurate then and I'll be factually correct again..

    I mean, seriously Balthy.. THINK for a second.

    We already have the transcript of the call...

    What can the whistle blower tell us that we don't already know??

    Absooollutely NOTHING!! Say it again!!

    :D

    You have already lost.. Yer just too consumed by HHPTDS to realize it..

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ukraine president, in meeting with Trump, says ‘nobody pushed me’ to probe Biden
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-president-backs-trump-says-no-pressure-on-biden-probe

    We already know that there was no pressure from President Trump to President Zelensky.. We know this because the transcript of the call is public record..

    President Zelensky merely confirms that he backs President Trump..

    Just like the NOAA confirmed it backed President Trump..

    Ya'all lost... AGAIN...

    :D

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently the entire whistle blower complaint is being given to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees today.

    Which is redundant because the transcript of the call has already been released.

    And the whistle blower got the info third hand..

    AND the whistle blower is a Trump America hater...

    So, it's hard to get excited about this, Paula.

    You lost.. AGAIN...

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh wait!!

    I know!!!

    The Whistle Blower is Christine Blasey-Ford!!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ooops.. Apologies.. I am supposed to be showing compassion to ya'all.. :D

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yep. There's much more to this, and Bill Barr is up to his neck in it.

  151. [151] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Let me point out one major point that our local expert at lying about a career in law enforcement seems to not get... we still do not know what the whistleblower’s complaint covered, so that transcript may or may not be relevant...we just do not know. The complaint supposedly was focused on a promise made to a foreign leader, so unless this transcript includes a promise being made, it’s not the smoking gun.

    Honestly, it is only because of the DOJ’s insistence that the Whistleblower complaint is privileged info that we know it must be about Trump or someone acting on Trump’s behalf. As a side note to this, Rudy now claims he was asked to go to the Ukraine as a representative of the State Dept. — which apparently was news to everyone at the State Dept.

    We already knew Trump planned on pressuring the Ukraine into creating dirt on Biden, his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told the whole world he was going there for that purpose months ago — only to claim the next day that he had canceled the trip because someone in the Ukrainian government had broken the cardinal rule of “Never be critical of Trump”. Rudy tried too hard to make it sound like he’d never go to the Ukraine after they were rude to Trump, pretty much telegraphing to the world that he’d wait a few days and then sneak a flight to the Ukraine.

    And James was correct in [80] with the timeline of events regarding Hunter Biden’s company being investigated.

  152. [152] 
    Paula wrote:

    Complaint has been hand-delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

  153. [153] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz, Liz, Liz..

    You have NOTHING to worry about..

    Russ has already stated that Democrats don't attack Democrats like that..

    And just like every time you summarize what I have said, you got it wrong! My comment was that Democrats do not resort to personal attacks and name calling when they disagree on a subject, unlike Trump.

    Even if a candidate chooses not to defend Biden, that still does not negate what I claimed — they did not resort to using a personal attack or name calling.

    Capt. Whorely lies again!!! Big shock.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me point out one major point that our local expert at lying about a career in law enforcement seems to not get..

    Still no facts to support that claim, moron. :D

    . we still do not know what the whistleblower’s complaint covered, so that transcript may or may not be relevant..

    So, you think that the whistle blower is talking about another Ukraine call that happened in July??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    My gods, how STOOPID do you have to be to try such a totally bullshit spin...

    The complaint supposedly was focused on a promise made to a foreign leader, so unless this transcript includes a promise being made, it’s not the smoking gun.

    Of course it's not a smoking gun, you dolt!! That's what I have been saying all day!!!

    Yer pinning yer hopes that there is a different Ukraine phone call??

    BBBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Seriously, Cockholster..

    Do you REALLY believe that?? Honestly??

    That makes it even MORE pathetic!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, as usual, the cockholster has absolutely NO FACTS to back up ANYTHING he says...

    Gods, I was expecting a CHALLENGE..

    All I got was the lame cockholster, Russ...

    I shouldn't be too hard on Russ.. He's upset that his boyfriend ran out of batteries...

    :D

  156. [156] 
    Paula wrote:

    Blotus apparently stumbling through a presser now.

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even if a candidate chooses not to defend Biden, that still does not negate what I claimed — they did not resort to using a personal attack or name calling.

    They are saying that Biden is lying..

    THAT is a personal attack, you MORON...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Once again, I prove how utterly FULL OF SHIT you are.. :D

  158. [158] 
    Paula wrote:

    Various Republicans have disgraced themselves today offering up a number of weak/dishonest defenses of Blotus.

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    151

    Honestly, it is only because of the DOJ’s insistence that the Whistleblower complaint is privileged info that we know it must be about Trump or someone acting on Trump’s behalf. As a side note to this, Rudy now claims he was asked to go to the Ukraine as a representative of the State Dept. — which apparently was news to everyone at the State Dept.

    Yes, sir. It looks to me like the ADNI did not willingly accept the instructions of the DOJ, and Barr is in this up to his eyeballs. Rudy basically informed them all -- via a Fux News appearance -- that if he's going down, they're going with him. This one is going to be nasty.

    We already knew Trump planned on pressuring the Ukraine into creating dirt on Biden, his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told the whole world he was going there for that purpose months ago — only to claim the next day that he had canceled the trip because someone in the Ukrainian government had broken the cardinal rule of “Never be critical of Trump”.

    Yep.

    Rudy tried too hard to make it sound like he’d never go to the Ukraine after they were rude to Trump, pretty much telegraphing to the world that he’d wait a few days and then sneak a flight to the Ukraine.

    Meanwhile, who would most benefit if he were to convince Trump to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine for over 6 months?

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Various Republicans have disgraced themselves today offering up a number of weak/dishonest defenses of Blotus.

    As opposed to the entirety of the Democrat Party who have disgraced themselves over and over again by trying to nullify a free, fair, legal and CONSTITUTIONAL election...

    But, Democrats will get what's coming to them..

    Just like they did with the Mueller report..

    Karma's a bitch and she is gunning for Democrats..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  161. [161] 
    Paula wrote:

    Reportedly Blotus just said Pence also had conversations with Ukraine.

    Keep spillin' Blotus!!

  162. [162] 
    Paula wrote:

    He said: "I think you should ask for VP Pence's conversations because he had a couple conversations."

  163. [163] 
    Paula wrote:

    This presser is probably Blotus trying to distract attention from the Intelligence Committees reviewing the Whistle blower complaint.

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    158

    Yes, ma'am. The White House in their infinite wisdom accidentally emailed their talking points to the Democrats and then tried to recall them. Idiots.

    https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/status/1176900159227269122

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look at ya'all scramble and try to take solace in the minutiae...

    It's hilarious to watch ya'all scramble about for SOME semblance of competency..

    But the fact is, the transcript has been released and, as ya'all have conceded, it's completely and utterly benign...

    Russ argues that it's not the REAL Ukraine phone call that the whistle blower referred to..

    Stig flails around, saying it's not real at all.

    Of course, the Moron Twins have absolutely NO FACTS to back up their bullshit..

    And so it goes and so it goes..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  166. [166] 
    Paula wrote:

    And meanwhile, first comment on the actual Whistle-blower report:

    Mike Quigley, House Intel Dem, says the whistleblower complaint “reinforces our concerns,” saying the complaint was very well done.

  167. [167] 
    Paula wrote:

    Dan Froomkin
    @froomkin
    On CNN, Rep. Mike Quigley calls the whistleblower’s complaint, which he had just read, the “political equivalent” of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    By the bi..

    A very happy birthday to you.. :D

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    On CNN, Rep. Mike Quigley calls the whistleblower’s complaint, which he had just read, the “political equivalent” of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

    And yet, we KNOW from the actual transcript of the call, yunno... FACTS, that it's nothing of the sort.. :D

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults.
    -Russ

    Booker and Harris have been attacking Biden's credibility and integrity since the VERY FIRST DEBATE...

    You were WRONG, Russ..

    You just can't admit it..

  171. [171] 
    dsws wrote:

    I don't see how anything has changed. If the Party was behind the Dear Leader before, why would they flip-flop now? In the alternate reality where their base lives, the Dear Leader was just doing his duty by going after the bad guy. He can work with our allies on that kind of thing.

  172. [172] 
    Paula wrote:

    Just in: Nancy Pelosi just went into the SCIF to read the Whistleblower complaint.

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    President turns tables on Biden amid impeachment push; claims Dems threatened Ukraine

    A defiant President Trump said during a press conference in New York Wednesday that he wants "full transparency" not only over the "so-called whistleblower" allegations leveled against him, but also "from Joe Biden and his son Hunter on the millions of dollars that have been quickly and easily taken out of Ukraine and China."

    Trump additionally demanded "transparency from Democrats who went to Ukraine and attempted to force the new president ... to do things that they wanted under the form of political threat. They threatened him if he didn't do things -- now that's what they're accusing me of, but I didn't do it."

    The aggressive move signaled that the White House would seek to turn the tables against Democrats who have initiated an impeachment inquiry, following the whistleblower's complaint that Trump had improperly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden. Zelensky, speaking across from Trump just an hour earlier, told reporters he did not feel "pushed" at all in his conversations with the president.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-holds-presser-amid-explosive-transcript-release-dems-impeachment-push

    And NOW the facts are coming out..

    And DEMOCRATS are the ones under the hammer!!! :D

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this would happen.

    Oh.. yea.. That's right. :D

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Earlier in the day, the White House released a transcript of Trump's July call with Zelensky, showing Trump sought a review of Biden family dealings in the country. But the transcript also did not demonstrate that Trump leveraged military aid to Ukraine to obtain a "promise" on a Biden investigation, as a widely cited report in The Washington Post had claimed.

    At the press conference, Trump specifically called attention to a little-discussed CNN report from May, which described how Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy pushed Ukraine’s top prosecutor not to close four investigations perceived as critical to then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe -- and, by Democrats' current logic, seemingly implied that their support for U.S. aid to Ukraine was at stake.

    "The Democrats have done what they're accusing me of doing," Trump said.

    It's the Democrats who have been doing EXACTLY what they accuse President Trump of doing..

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    I don't see how anything has changed. If the Party was behind the Dear Leader before, why would they flip-flop now? In the alternate reality where their base lives, the Dear Leader was just doing his duty by going after the bad guy. He can work with our allies on that kind of thing.

    That's what's so hilarious about all this.

    If President Trump wants to know about an American citizen he has the absolute RIGHT to call up ANY foreign leader and ask for help in finding out ANY info on ANY American..

    So no matter HOW Democrats try to spin this, it's ALL going to go very very bad for Democrats..

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democratic senators wrote in a letter to Ukraine's leader at the time: "In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic] institutions despite ongoing military, economic, and political pressure from Moscow. We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump."

    The senators called for the top prosecutor to “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

    The Post's Marc Thiessen initially flagged the letter on Tuesday, calling it evidence of a "double standard" among Democrats.

    Ukrainian President Zelensky on phone call with President Trump: Nobody pushed meVideo
    "Senator Chris Murphy literally threatened the president of Ukraine that if he doesn't do things right, they won't have Democrat support in Congress," Trump added.

    That was a reference to the Connecticut Democrat's comments at a bipartisan meeting in Kiev earlier this month, when Murphy called U.S. aid the “most important asset” of Ukraine -- then issued a warning.

    "I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics," Murphy said, according to The Hill. "I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them."

    It's DEMOCRATS who threatened Ukraine.. NOT President Trump...

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    But in colorful language, Trump told reporters that the evidence clearly showed Democrats were disingenuously attacking him for political gain.

    "We have the greatest economy we've ever had," The president said. "When you see little [House Intelligence Committee Chair] Adam Schiff go out and lie and lie and stand at the mic, smart guy by the way. ... Then he goes into a room with [House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry] Nadler, and they must laugh their asses off."

    "They must laugh their asses off."

    — President Trump, referring to Democrats Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff
    Taking the fight to the Democrats over impeachment could pay dividends for Republicans ahead of next year's elections. The National Republican Congressional Committee indicated Wednesday that its fundraising was up 608 percent after Democrats' impeachment push.

    And the Trump reelection campaign and GOP announced they had raised a combined $5 million in just 24 hours.

    Heh.. Biden's poll numbers are tanking and President Trump is raising 5 million dollars!!! :D

    Could today get ANY better!!! :D

  178. [178] 
    Paula wrote:

    218 Congressional Dems now on board for impeachment.

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    218 Congressional Dems now on board for impeachment.

    So??? You have 218 Democrats that hate President Trump and America.. So what???

    Come talk to me when you have 30 Senate Republicans on board for impeachment..

    Until that time, you ain't got jack and everyone here knows it.... :D

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would 'not comply'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dems-push-for-assault-weapons-ban

    And another Patriotic American tells Congressional Democrats to go frak themselves.. :D

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.

    Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats' impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country -- amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws -- Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.

    KAMALA HARRIS SAYS SHE SUPPORTS A MANDATORY BUYBACK ON 'ASSAULT WEAPONS'

    "Please don't legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals. It has happened. You've already done it," Muller said, referring to the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks, the devices that use a semi-automatic weapon's recoil to make it rapidly fire like an automatic. "I was a bump stock owner, and I had to make a decision: do I become a felon, or do I comply?"

    Should the government pass an assault-weapons ban, Muller declared, "I will not comply."

    What are you going to do, Democrats??

    What are you going to do when Americans ignore your gun confiscation orders??

    Use force??

    THEY have the guns... DUH...

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Muller and others at the hearing focused on the practicality of a ban, pointing out what they claimed were mainly "cosmetic" differences between weapons such as the AR-15 and standard semi-automatic hunting rifles. This issue was also raised by Heritage Foundation senior legal policy analyst Amy Swearer when Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., went down the line of witnesses asking if they believed hunting rifles should be banned if they are semi-automatic.

    Swearer said no, stating that there was no difference in the mechanics or function of an "assault weapon" or a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley, who recalled the recent mass shooting in her city, did not give a definitive answer to Sensenbrenner's question, nor did Dr. Alejandro Rios Tovar, a trauma surgeon who treated victims of the attack in El Paso, Texas. Charlottesville, Va., Chief of Police RaShall Brackney indicated she was in favor of a ban on "any weapon that could be used to hunt individuals."

    Brackney MUST be a Democrat..

    No cop in their right mind would advocate such a ban..

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually hilarious..

    Democrats were THIS ==><== close to getting some good mental health legislation worked..

    But then they go and frak it all up with their hysterical impeachment push over a completely benign and innocent phone call..

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    So...

    Ya'all have had ALL DAY to digest this..

    Later, Trump veers into the Biden issue.

    "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down, which is really unfair,” Trump says on the call, according to the transcript.

    Trump then says, "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, what Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.”

    “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said on the call, according to the transcript.

    Zelenskiy replies that he’s appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.”

    That is the only mention about Biden in the transcript of the call. The call transcript is five pages.

    Anybody ready to point out where the IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is???

    Anyone??? Anyone?? Beuhler???

    No???

    Not surprising..

    Ya'all and yer Democrats have been had.. :D

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, let's hop tomorrow is as entertaining as today was..

    It'll be exciting to see what new BONEHEAD move Democrats come up with tomorrow!! :D

    See ya'all in the morning.. :D

  186. [186] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump has shown lots of support for the Ukraine...being invaded by Russia. The largest amounts of money that he took from the military budget to pay for his wall came from construction projects aimed at preventing Russian aggression in the Ukraine and other countries that border Russia. This, following his change to the GOP Platform to say they no longer support selling weapons to the Ukraine in the event that Russia invades — an oddly specific entry into a document listing the parties’ beliefs and values.

    And he has signaled that he will likely double the amount already taken because —shockingly — Trump’s construction costs of the border wall are going to cost billions of dollars more than he first claimed! Remind me again how Trump said he would force Mexico to pay for all of this?

  187. [187] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    there’s no evidence that Biden “stopped the prosecution” of the Ukranian gas company. In fact, there’s evidence that the company wasn’t under investigation at the time.

    But let's not let facts get in the way of Trump's minions. They'll hurt themselves.

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[118],

    You're late.

    Oh, and same to you!

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear,

    Even if a candidate chooses not to defend Biden, that still does not negate what I claimed — they did not resort to using a personal attack or name calling.

    If a candidate chooses not to defend against nonsense attacks on him by Trump, then two things are true: they don't know the facts of the matter and so they are afraid to go against Trump on the details, number one;

    and, number two, they have no business being a candidate for president alongside Senator Biden who bests them any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

  190. [190] 
    Paula wrote:

    Zelensky advisor says agreeing to discuss Biden conspiracy theories was pre-condition for setting up the call - https://abcn.ws/2lMDXBS via @ABC

  191. [191] 
    Paula wrote:
  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of Biden's rivals, Senator Booker just made a very strong statement on CNN in support of Senator Biden and I have gained new respect for him.

    Senator Harris could take a lesson, or two.

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I will say one thing, though, or two … Biden had better sit down and fast with a few reputable journalists and speak in detail and at length about Trump's attacks.

    And, he needs to explain how his son ended up and stayed on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was not only VP but point man on the Ukraine file.

  194. [194] 
    Paula wrote:

    This time it’s different.

    The misconduct cannot be dismissed as unproven; it screams off the plain text of the White House’s own memorandum detailing the president’s phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart. It cannot be disparaged as the result of a “Witch Hunt” or blamed on angry Democrats working for a special counsel or attempting a coup from the depths of the “Deep State”; the revelation did not flow from any investigation at all, but from the complaints of shocked subordinates, complaints which generated pressure that ultimately caused the president himself to fess up and release the document. It cannot be blamed on “The Squad” or on Nancy Pelosi or on Adam Schiff. None of these people made the president say the words that appear in that document. None of them made him take the actions into which the memo offers dramatic visibility. Nor does the president deny that he said those words. He just thinks it’s fine for a president to do so.

    And that, really, is the crux of the problem and the crux of the decision before Congress. To do nothing is to agree that this conduct is acceptable.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-impeaching-trump-zelensky-conversation

  195. [195] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    If a candidate chooses not to defend against nonsense attacks on him by Trump, then two things are true: they don't know the facts of the matter and so they are afraid to go against Trump on the details, number one;

    and, number two, they have no business being a candidate for president alongside Senator Biden who bests them any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

    Yeah....um, no. It could simply mean that they aren’t going to take their press time to discuss the competition. They are spending all of their time focusing on their own campaigns. If they are wise, they’ll try to do a repeat of Bernie’s response to the question about Hillary’s emails from 2016 — during the debate, they shoot it down from being any part of the conversation! Makes them look like the champ and takes the focus away from Biden.

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I disagree and you are commenting on an old thread.

Comments for this article are closed.