ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Collusion, Collusion, Collusion!

[ Posted Friday, September 27th, 2019 – 17:22 UTC ]

This has been an extraordinary week, in a presidency chock-full of extraordinary weeks. Call it extra-extraordinary, we suppose. The country went from hearing vague things about Trump stonewalling a congressional committee to full-on impeachment in a matter of hours, it seemed. Or days, at the longest. We went from zero to impeachment in record time, giving Trump a new superlative to brag about: fastest scandal ever.

Because this situation is so extraordinary, and because Democrats are all currently missing such a gigantic messaging opportunity, today's column will be an extraordinary one as well. We're not going to spend a whole lot of time here in the introduction, because everyone already knows exactly what is going on, so none of it really needs repeating. We've just got a few short side issues to raise, and then we're going to move quickly on. This week's talking points are unique as well, because instead of seven discrete talking points, the entire rant is essentially devoted to one single word. You can probably guess what it is, from this week's column title.

Before we get to that, though, there are a few points worth making that few others have even noticed or commented upon. These points are presented in no particular order, without any attempt at segues between them:

The first is the absence of Barack Obama. He needs to get off the sidelines, plain and simple. Joe Biden didn't go rogue and pressure the Ukrainians on his own initiative, from all accounts, it was not only an official White House policy but it was in fact the same goal that most of Western Europe was had with the Ukrainian government. So Obama needs to state this now, in explicit terms. A simple tweet would be enough, at this point: "Vice President Biden did exactly what I told him to do in the Ukraine, and it had absolutely nothing to do with his son, period." This would be the strongest possible defense for Biden, which is why Obama really needs to jump into the fray, here. It is not showing favoritism in the primary race to defend what his own vice president did, after all.

The most astonishing thing about Trump's position right now is that he's essentially pinning all his hopes on Rudy Giuliani being able to keep his big fat mouth shut. This, quite obviously, is insane. Can anyone picture what Rudy's going to say if he's questioned by a congressional committee for five or six hours? He can't even make it through a ten-minute television interview without digging his own legal grave, so seeing Giuliani randomly explode during hours of sworn congressional testimony is almost certainly going to be amusing to watch. Giuliani has drunk so much Trump Kool-Aid that he is convinced that everything he does is above reproach and totally justified -- so why shouldn't he just admit to it all? That's a heckuva legal strategy you got there, to state the painfully obvious.

A few frightening prospects have occurred to us, and it's nowhere near Hallowe'en yet....

Terrifying Scenario (1): the House impeaches Trump and Mitch McConnell decides that he's just not going to hold a trial in the Senate. The Constitution is vague on this point, and McConnell is certainly capable of such blatantly partisan and self-serving inaction while leading the Senate (see: Garland, Merrick). If McConnell refuses to act, there's not much anybody could do about it.

Terrifying Scenario (2): Donald Trump resigns the presidency before the Senate trial can take place, then Mike Pence pardons him. Trump then has all the time in the world to focus on his 2020 campaign, because there would be nothing stopping him from running. The Senate does indeed have the power to bar someone from ever holding office again, but they could only do this if they voted to remove Trump from office -- so if Trump quits before that can happen, he'd still be eligible.

Terrifying Scenario (3): Trump asks for and receives Mike Pence's resignation. Then Trump refuses to name a successor. This would almost certainly guarantee that he would never be removed from office by the Senate, even if he were to make good on his threat to start shooting people at random on Fifth Avenue while the Senate vote was being held -- because without a sitting vice president, Nancy Pelosi would be next in line for the presidency. What Republican senator is going to vote for that outcome ("Madam President Pelosi..."), no matter what Trump is proven to have done?

And finally, a bit of comic relief, in the form of a Trump tweet:

To show you how dishonest the LameStream Media is, I used the word Liddle', not Liddle, in discribing [sic] Corrupt Congressman Liddle' Adam Schiff. Low ratings @CNN purposely took the hyphen [sic] out and said I spelled the word little wrong. A small but never ending [sic] situation with CNN!

First rule of being a grammar cop: always check the grammar in your own snide putdowns. Like spelling "describing" correctly, for instance, or recognizing the difference between an apostrophe and a hyphen. Oh, and "never-ending" properly does have a hyphen in it. Sheesh!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

OK, we're going to try to make our awards section the shortest it has ever been, because both awards are so patently obvious this week.

The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, hands down, was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She has resisted pulling the trigger on impeachment for a long time now, but she finally got the scandal she's been looking for all along: one that is simple, obvious, and indefensible. It was a bit nerve-wracking when Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry a day before the call readout was released, because Trump at that point could have decided not to do so, or the readout could have been a bust. Thankfully, neither happened.

Support among House Democrats for impeachment soared this week, as roughly 90 of them got off the fence and announced their support. Pelosi now has a solid majority in favor of starting an impeachment inquiry, which she did not have when she announced it. So her timing, in retrospect, seems to have been just about perfect.

Pelosi showed leadership, and her previous reluctance to begin impeachment has inoculated her from the charge that she's somehow "rushing to judgment."

Well done, Speaker Pelosi, well done.

[Congratulate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on her official contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one is also pretty painfully obvious. The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week (assuming he's a Democrat, of course) is none other than Hunter Biden. Joe Biden had one son that had a stellar career both in politics and in the military. But Beau's not around any longer. His other son got kicked out of the military for testing positive for cocaine and then willingly sold his last name for $50,000 a month to a Ukrainian oil oligarch, obviously so the Ukrainian company could leverage it as influence with his dad. Hunter knew nothing about the oil or gas business, and he knew nothing about the Ukraine. So why was he worth $50,000 a month? His last name, plain and simple.

Relatives cashing in is a problem in politics and always has been (see: Billy Carter, for just one example). Selling your name to the highest bidder on the open market of access to the powerful is more than just a little disappointing, but we'll leave it to you to come up with the proper term for it. For us, he's this week's winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Hunter Biden is a private citizen, and we do not provide contact information for such persons. Even if we did, we doubt he'd listen to you unless you paid him tens of thousands of dollars a month.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 544 (9/27/19)

OK, as promised, we've got an extended rant this week rather than our usual talking points. Sometimes things seem painfully obvious to us when everyone else in the punditocracy and the political world seems to be missing seeing what is right in front of their faces. This is just such a time. Please feel free to cut and paste the following (or any portion thereof) and immediately send it to any Democrat who might actually listen. We think it's pretty sound advice, and we care not one whit for getting credit. We would just dearly like to start hearing this meme go viral among Democrats -- that would be thanks enough.

 

Collusion, collusion, collusion!

Democrats are missing an enormous messaging opportunity right now, but fortunately there is still time for them to improve. Donald Trump himself teed this one up, and it's just sitting there waiting for Democrats to knock it straight down the fairway with one mighty swing. He has set himself up for this attack in such blatant fashion that I'm actually downright astonished that nobody else seems to have realized it yet. That needs to change and it needs to change now, because there is one devastating word that needs to be applied to the entire impeachment effort and Ukraine scandal, and that word is: "collusion."

For over a year, Donald Trump used "No collusion!" as a sort of mantra, repeating it so often it became somewhat of a joke. Each and every time he was asked about Russia's interference with our election, he trotted out the "No collusion!" response, in almost parrot-like fashion. By doing so, he defined the term forever in American politics. Collusion didn't happen, Trump insisted, meaning that neither he nor his presidential campaign worked directly with or had any involvement with whatever the Russians were doing. He might have been aware of it, he might have publicly encouraged it ("Only joking!" he would later claim), and members of his campaign might have met with a whole bunch of Russians, but none of that mattered because there simply was no (provable) collusion with them, according to Trump.

Trump repeated "No collusion!" until he was blue in the face, in fact. He trotted the line out on a daily basis. It was his "get out of jail free" card. Didn't matter what those pesky Russkies were up to, there was no collusion, therefore the whole thing was a witch hunt, period.

So why, pray tell, has the word disappeared this week?

In all the massive and extensive coverage of the Ukraine scandal and the impeachment inquiry that I have personally read or viewed or listened to, I've only come across the term once. Once! And it was from a Republican, no less. Salon interviewed Richard Painter, who was the chief White House ethics counsel under George W. Bush, and asked him whether Rudy Giuliani was in violation of the Logan Act, which bans private citizens from conducting diplomacy in the United States. Here is Painter's answer in full:

I believe he is. Giuliani would argue that the president of the United States gave him authority to do this, and he's just doing it on behalf of the president. But in reality, Giuliani is working for the Trump presidential campaign. This is actually collusion. This is documented collusion between the president's campaign and a foreign power to get dirt on his political opponent in the 2020 election. This is the same thing that Donald Trump was accused of doing in the 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump is just doing it all again.

Later, when asked if Trump thinks he is king, Painter called Trump "worse than Nixon":

This is much worse than Richard Nixon because Trump, unlike Nixon, is enlisting the assistance of a foreign government. Trump is using his power as president to seek to coerce the government of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and to make allegations which have no grounding in fact. Trump is doing this against his possible opponent in the 2020 presidential race. This is outrageous. Donald Trump needs to be impeached. Attorney General William Barr is referred to multiple times in that transcript, where Trump indicates that Barr will be making the calls to the Ukrainians. Rudy Giuliani will be making some of the other calls. If Attorney General Barr agreed to either make any of those calls or in fact made any of those calls, he ought to be impeached as well.

The key statement needs no editing -- and it needs to immediately become the main talking point of every Democrat from Nancy Pelosi down to the local dogcatcher: This is documented collusion between the president's campaign and a foreign power to get dirt on his political opponent in the 2020 election.

Donald Trump is colluding with a foreign government to help his chances of being elected. There is simply no other way to put it. He blatantly asks for "a favor" from the leader of another nation, and the two favors he asks for are dirt about Hillary Clinton's email server (which he's been obsessed about, for going on four years now) and dirt about Joe Biden, who at the time was the odds-on favorite to be the man who runs against him next year. Ignore all the other peripheral stuff and attempts at distraction by Trump and his minions, because all of it is absolutely meaningless. Trump was just caught doing exactly what he repeatedly denied doing with Russia in 2016. He is colluding with a foreign government. To get dirt on his political opponent. Period. That's the entire ball of wax, right there, and it needs to be at the heart of any Democrat making the case for impeachment. Ignore the fluff. Brush aside the meaningless hairsplitting and character assassination. Don't go down the Republican talking point rabbit hole at all. Instead, focus on the bedrock unethical behavior: collusion. With a foreign government. To get dirt on an opponent. Collusion, plain and simple. The word collusion needs to be repeated by Democrats just as often and just as annoyingly as Trump using the phrase "No collusion!" ever was. Collusion, collusion, collusion!

Of course, Republicans are already throwing up various smokescreens to avoid having to admit the blatant collusion of the president. Their biggest push is to discredit the whistleblower. To that I have a further response for Democrats to use, for each and every complaint or conspiracy theory: "So what?" Here's how to deploy this strategy:

 

"The whistleblower had only secondhand knowledge of what went on."

"So what? The whistleblower is employed by the intelligence service, and thus it is part of his or her job to collect reports, sift through them, and determine what is likely true and what isn't. That's their job. The whistleblower heard from at least a half-dozen sources with firsthand knowledge what went on, and he or she reported it, as required by law. The whistleblower's report of the call readout is almost identical to the actual readout the White House released, so the only available evidence so far indicates that the whistleblower got the details exactly right."

 

"Secondhand reports are nothing short of hearsay, and are not admissible in court."

"So what? This isn't the end of the investigation, but the beginning. There is plenty of time for Congress to interview those directly involved and find out exactly what they have to say. The whistleblower's report is not a draft for articles of impeachment, it is instead a roadmap for where the investigation should go, and nothing more. Nobody's going to rely on the whistleblower's word when it's easy to question those directly involved under oath. So what if the whistleblower's report isn't admissible in court? All the evidence gathered as a result of this report will be, so the point is a ridiculous one to even try to make."

 

"The whistleblower was politically biased!"

"So what? He or she didn't use the information politically in any way. There are plenty of avenues the whistleblower could have taken if his or her entire motivation was to cause Trump political harm. She or he could have leaked the whole story to the media. He or she could have turned the story over to congressional Democrats, or one of the Democratic presidential candidates. But that's not what happened. The whistleblower did exactly what the law requires, by filing a formal complaint and not leaking the story to anyone. That is not the action of a partisan, but rather the actions of a professional. If there was any desire to merely cause political harm, then we would have first seen this whole story in the New York Times or the Washington Post, and there never would have been a whistleblower complaint."

 

"But the whistleblower was politically biased, so anything in his complaint is tainted by politics!"

"So what? The whistleblower is not the judge or jury. The whistleblower is not the prosecutor. The whistleblower isn't even the cops who investigate the case. The whistleblower is the guy who dropped a dime to the cops, and nothing more. The whistleblower may end up being a minor witness, at best. Think of it this way: if the cops get a tip that a crime has been committed, then they investigate the crime and build an evidentiary case on their own. They don't just take anyone's word for it, they conduct an investigation to learn the facts to build their case. The prosecutor tests this case until it is ready for prosecution. The judge and jury weigh the evidence presented in such a case, and when all that happens it does not matter how the case came to the cops' attention in the first place. Here's a hypothetical example: say a notorious heroin kingpin walks into a police station and accuses the city's mayor of running a competing heroin distribution ring. What are the cops supposed to do? Ignore him because he's a known criminal? Or do they go ahead and launch a massive investigation and collect reams of evidence? If the mayor is indeed guilty of heroin dealing, then who cares how the cops became aware of it? Sure, the informant has his own agenda by making the report -- the elimination of a competitor in the (black) marketplace. So what? Does that mean the mayor should be allowed to continue breaking the law? No, it does not. It simply doesn't matter what the whistleblower's motives were, because the crime is still the crime, independent of how it was brought to the authorities' attention."

 

"The whistleblower should have just kept his or her mouth shut."

"You have got to be kidding me. President Trump is president, not king. He is not above the law, period. When previous whistleblowers have leaked sensitive information, such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, everyone said that they 'should have gone through official channels.' Well, that's exactly what the whistleblower did this time. He or she raised the issue with superiors, and then formally filed a complaint. The inspector general then took over investigating the claim, and found it credible and urgent. This is exactly what is supposed to happen. In America no one is supposed to be above the law, period, and the whistleblower used the appropriate channels to raise his or her concerns."

 

"The whistleblower is disloyal and treasonous."

"Oh, please, spare me the crocodile tears. While Donald Trump may not understand it, when people work for the United States government, they do not swear an oath to the president, but instead to the U.S. Constitution. The president is not the country, no matter how much he may like to equate the two in his own twisted mind. Being disloyal to the president to uphold the Constitution is nothing short of patriotism, and it's offensive to hear the word 'treason' applied to it. 'I was just following orders' is no longer a valid defense, period. The whistleblower might have been disloyal to Donald Trump, to which I say a big fat: 'So what?' He or she was loyal to what matters -- the United States Constitution -- and that's all that matters."

 

This "So what" strategy can be used to knock down pretty much everything in the Republican smoke screen, in fact, and not just the character assassination against the whistleblower:

 

"This should all be covered under executive privilege!"

"So what? There is no executive privilege when a crime is committed."

 

"There was no quid pro quo, therefore everything's OK"

"Actually, there was quid pro out the quo's wazoo. Let's review. Right after the Ukrainian leader states his intention to buy some more missiles: '...we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes,' Donald Trump jumps in with: 'I would like you to do us a favor though....' How much more quid or quo do you need, for Pete's sake? This is the quiddiest quo I've ever seen, in fact. But let's just put all that aside, and assume that an eight-year old cannot tell exactly what Trump is doing here. To do so, you'd have to have the I.Q. of a houseplant, but whatever. Let's assume your thickheaded interpretation of it is the correct one and there was no quid pro quo punching you in the nose in that call readout. My answer would still be: 'So what? So what if there isn't a quid pro quo? Because there was still obviously collusion.' Trump and Giuliani are colluding with a foreign country to get dirt on his political opponent. Who cares whether Trump was using the cutoff of military aid as leverage? Who cares whether he was dangling a White House meeting as a carrot? So what? Because the collusion still obviously exists. The one thing Trump swore up and down he never did with Russia is unquestionably documented in the Ukraine call readout. It's collusion, plain and simple, whether there was a quid or a quo ever even involved."

 

Donald Trump constructed and nourished his "No collusion!" gift, which he sent to the Democrats with a big label on the side that reads: "PETARD, handle carefully." The whistleblower has now lit the fuse on this petard. All that remains is for the Democrats to slip it right under Trump, so that it can go off and hoist him (hopefully) right out of the Oval Office. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's old campaign advice: "It's the collusion, stupid."

Even Chris Christie gets it, apparently. While being interviewed on television right before the call's readout was released, Christie said that it would be bad if the president had said: "Listen, do me a favor, go investigate Joe Biden." Boy, he hit the nail right on the head! "I would like you to do us a favor, though..." might just become the epitaph of the Trump administration.

Democrats should feel free to talk about all aspects of impeachment, but they should always begin in the same place: "The call proves Trump colluded with a foreign country to get dirt on a political opponent." Throw in anything else after making this point, such as all the other things any articles of impeachment might contain: Obstruction of justice. Contempt of Congress. Blatant violations of the Emoluments Clause. Attacks on the freedom of the press. Threatening White House officials with the death penalty. Cruel and unusual punishment of children caught crossing the border. Lying repeatedly while in office. Committing a fashion felony with all those insanely-long ties. Well, OK, that last one might be going a bit far, but you get the general idea.

Trump dug this hole himself. He spent over a year insisting: "There was no collusion," which only served to cement in everyone's mind the core idea that if there had been collusion, then Trump would have been in trouble. No collusion, hence nothing bad happened. Wrongdoing equals collusion, period. Once again: Trump himself dug this hole.

All it will take now to sway public opinion towards removing Donald Trump is to turn the tables on him. Who cares what smoke Republicans are deploying to try to explain away the inexplicable? So what if the whistleblower is a Democrat? None of it matters. None of it. Because none of it has anything to do with what has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

All the Democrats have to do to make this case is to start using one single word, ad nauseam. That's it. It's not rocket science. There was collusion, plain and simple. The rest of it is arguing about how the deck chairs on the Titanic should be arranged, because the collusion with the iceberg already happened. [OK, I just re-read that sentence and have to apologize. Heh.]

Seriously, though, why has this word not been spoken this week? Why are Democrats missing such a golden and ripe opportunity? It's rare when a talking point is this downright obvious, in fact. Here's hoping that sooner or later the Democrats can figure this out, because it might be the key to turning public opinion in their favor.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

514 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Collusion, Collusion, Collusion!”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Great Column!

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Democrats should feel free to talk about all aspects of impeachment, but they should always begin in the same place: "The call proves Trump colluded with a foreign country to get dirt on a political opponent." Throw in anything else after making this point, such as all the other things any articles of impeachment might contain: Obstruction of justice. Contempt of Congress. Blatant violations of the Emoluments Clause. Attacks on the freedom of the press. Threatening White House officials with the death penalty. Cruel and unusual punishment of children caught crossing the border. Lying repeatedly while in office. Committing a fashion felony with all those insanely-long ties. Well, OK, that last one might be going a bit far, but you get the general idea.

    Trump dug this hole himself. He spent over a year insisting: "There was no collusion," which only served to cement in everyone's mind the core idea that if there had been collusion, then Trump would have been in trouble. No collusion, hence nothing bad happened. Wrongdoing equals collusion, period. Once again: Trump himself dug this hole.

    Yep!

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Up til this moment #MoscowMitch has done everything he could to preserve the GOP's chance for just one more teeny tiny $1.5 trillion tax cut for the oligarchy (before the rubes and Christofacists finally wake up.) So I see there's no reason to think that he won't do one of these Terrifying Scenarios.

    Merrick Garland? Let the voters decide!
    Impeachment? Let the voters decide!

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: Terrifying scenarios - I don't think #MoscowMitch will get away with stonewalling - the landscape is rapidly changing.

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [4]

    Hope that you're right Paula but I don't think we've ever had a #MoscowMitch as Speaker of what used to be a co-equal branch of government, so I'm not confident that we've seen the worst of him yet.

  6. [6] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    Sorry, I'm not sold on branding the present situation under the name "collusion".

    It's not that you don't make a compelling case that this is the essence of what it is, it's that I don't think it will work.

    For the general electorate that doesn't follow national news and, especially, political news with the zeal most of us do, "collusion" is the brand name for what the Mueller report was about and what Trump claims exoneration from.

    That's central to your argument of course, but the danger here is that then the Ukraine scandal gets casually lumped in with it. That this is merely another episode in the same sitcom.

    It invites spectators to assume that the Democrats are just grinding on the same ax. I'd even argue that using "collusion" feels more about trolling Republicans and Pres. Trump than it feels about defending our sovereignty from foreign influence.

    The present situation needs a new brand name for it to carry it's own weight. As you've said today and earlier this week, a case that's best is one that is simple, obvious, and indefensible. But by conflating the brand name of the Ukraine Affair with the Mueller Report, we risk losing the simple and the obvious aspects.

    It needs a new brand name so that it stands on it's own.

    I wish I could offer a name. "Godfather-gate" just doesn't roll off the tongue, but I'm sure it'll emerge from the headline writers. Personally, I think "corruption" has most of the right foundational gist to it, but needs a better hook as a word.

    It's not that your thesis is not correct, I just don't think you're right about it working.

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    [5] MtnCaddy: I agree #MoscowMitch can always go lower, but it becomes a question of his own survival.

    It's always been a matter of when Repubs would decide they have more to lose than gain by supporting Blotus - as soon as Blotus becomes a liability vs. asset they'd dump him. Since I think a lot of them are terrified of Blotus' terrorist gangs they don't want to go public, but that doesn't mean they can't, through omission or commission, help bring him down. I've always thought there was a high probability the day would come when some high-level Repubs would tell Blotus he needs to resign to save himself from public humiliation, etc. As this stuff continues to unfold Blotus may soon find resignation to be by far the most pleasant conclusion to his disastrous criminal presidency.

    Further, as things are unfolding the possibility of many high-level Repubs being exposed in various ways increases. Eventually the relatively untainted Repubs may have to break off from the co-conspirators like Graham, Nunes, Cornyn, Meadows, etc. And possibly #MoscowMitch himself, who increasingly has some explaining to do.

    Mitch may be a scumbag of the highest calibre, but if he isn't directly implicated in Blotus' crimes his, McConnell's, best bet is to cut Blotus loose.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    dirt for dollars?

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    Right after posting [7] I saw this:

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that if the House does vote for impeachment, the Senate “has no choice” but to hold a trial to decide whether to remove Trump from office.

    First #MoscowMitch threatened to simply blow off the House if they impeached. Now he's conceding he can't do that, though obviously Sen Repubs can vote against removal. Still, one step at a time.

    https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-27/white-house-caught-off-guard-scrambles-to-fight-impeachment-storm

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I couldn't agree] more - best MDDOTW ever!

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And the proper term … err phrase for it is making it as tough as you possible could for the Vice President of the United States and how could you treat your father that way!

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [7]

    I just don't see Trump doing a Nixon and resigning. I think he'd rather burn down the whole GOP. And America, for that matter ("You see, children, that's why it's a bad idea to elect a New York douche-bag to be President!")

    Besides, he may to need to serve a second term so the Statute of Limitations runs out for conduct before and during his first term.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, even if there were no Hunter Biden sitting on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father is just the God damned vice president of the United States for crissakes heading up the file on Ukraine, no less, it wouldn't stop Trump from being the sad excuse for a president that he is and always will be.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    always will be - though of - I mean … ahem

  15. [15] 
    Paula wrote:

    [12] MtnCaddy: I don't think he'd want to resign either. But I also don't think he'll want his financials revealed and now that we're in a formal impeachment his delays aren't going to work anymore (I don't think). Which would he prefer? A resignation that he might be able to frame in some kind of positive way, or the airing of all his dirty linen? Etc.

    However, if he won't resign but chooses to take the GOP down with him, that's good too! But he can't have it both ways - to get a second term he needs GOP cooperation. Again, once Repubs decide he's become a liability they'll be focused on saving themselves. And if he starts throwing them under the bus they'll reciprocate.

    He's gotten away with so much because he's been propped up by the GOP. If they abandon him it's over.

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Nuggets from this week's FTP will be incorporated in the next set of angry letters I send to my wavering reps in DC. Many thanks for your help!

  17. [17] 
    Paula wrote:

    [12] Also, just now on Twitter:

    Jared Yates Sexton
    @JYSexton
    Just spoke with a Republican staffer who said there's growing frustration within the party that prominent Republicans are focusing solely on not losing the impeachment battle and refusing to discuss in any way the obvious wrongdoing on Trump's part.

    He said behind the scenes the conversations center around a realization that Trump acted inappropriately and that the party has been dealt a terrible hand.

    The party hasn't been "dealt a terrible hand" - it went after that terrible hand with eyes wide open and zero sense of responsibility, but nevertheless, reality is setting in.

  18. [18] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [15]

    Paula wrote:
    However, if he won't resign but chooses to take the GOP down with him, that's good too! But he can't have it both ways - to get a second term he needs GOP cooperation. Again, once Repubs decide he's become a liability they'll be focused on saving themselves. And if he starts throwing them under the bus they'll reciprocate.

    He's gotten away with so much because he's been propped up by the GOP. If they abandon him it's over.

    I just don't know how the GOP can abandon him. I think that they're "all in" on Trump and fear his 38% of American Kool-Aid drinkers.

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    [18] MtnCaddy:

    I just don't know how the GOP can abandon him. I think that they're "all in" on Trump and fear his 38% of American Kool-Aid drinkers.

    Well I guess we'll find out.

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [6]

    Jack Shafer over at POLITICO ran a "Name that Scandal" contest with the rule being that it couldn't end in "-gate."

    He never declared a winner but my favorite was "Moscow on the Hudson."

  21. [21] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [19]

    Paula I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I came of age at the dawn of Reaganism and 40 years of this foolishness hath made me a tad cynical.

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump on tape and thinking he is "off record" sounds just like a Hollywood Mafia kingpin..

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A link to the "off record" audio:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE7ZL5H8IDw

    relevant audio starts at about 38 seconds into the video.

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Just another day down at the ol' Bada Bing!

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump is planning to buried in a classical mausoleum to be built at Bedminster. I'm sure it will have a fancy name, but wags will certainly dub it "The Trump Pit."

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [25]

    Gawd, TheStig I wish I'd thought of that!

    Say, I don't want to jinx us, but wheres Mikhail i.e. Michale this evening? What a shame he didn't come out to play--NOT.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Vice President Biden did exactly what I told him to do in the Ukraine, and it had absolutely nothing to do with his son, period."

    But that would be a lie.

    Which is probably why Obama won't do it..

    Because Obama KNOWS it's a lie..

    Terrifying Scenario (1): the House impeaches Trump and Mitch McConnell decides that he's just not going to hold a trial in the Senate. The Constitution is vague on this point, and McConnell is certainly capable of such blatantly partisan and self-serving inaction while leading the Senate (see: Garland, Merrick). If McConnell refuses to act, there's not much anybody could do about it.

    Terrifying Scenario (2): Donald Trump resigns the presidency before the Senate trial can take place, then Mike Pence pardons him. Trump then has all the time in the world to focus on his 2020 campaign, because there would be nothing stopping him from running. The Senate does indeed have the power to bar someone from ever holding office again, but they could only do this if they voted to remove Trump from office -- so if Trump quits before that can happen, he'd still be eligible.

    Terrifying Scenario (3): Trump asks for and receives Mike Pence's resignation. Then Trump refuses to name a successor. This would almost certainly guarantee that he would never be removed from office by the Senate, even if he were to make good on his threat to start shooting people at random on Fifth Avenue while the Senate vote was being held -- because without a sitting vice president, Nancy Pelosi would be next in line for the presidency. What Republican senator is going to vote for that outcome ("Madam President Pelosi..."), no matter what Trump is proven to have done?

    Lemme help ya out here, CW..

    WET DREAM (1)

    WET DREAM (2)

    WET DREAM (3)

    Don't say I never do anything for ya.. :D

    This one is also pretty painfully obvious. The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week (assuming he's a Democrat, of course) is none other than Hunter Biden. Joe Biden had one son that had a stellar career both in politics and in the military. But Beau's not around any longer. His other son got kicked out of the military for testing positive for cocaine and then willingly sold his last name for $50,000 a month to a Ukrainian oil oligarch, obviously so the Ukrainian company could leverage it as influence with his dad. Hunter knew nothing about the oil or gas business, and he knew nothing about the Ukraine. So why was he worth $50,000 a month? His last name, plain and simple.

    Relatives cashing in is a problem in politics and always has been (see: Billy Carter, for just one example). Selling your name to the highest bidder on the open market of access to the powerful is more than just a little disappointing, but we'll leave it to you to come up with the proper term for it. For us, he's this week's winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

    In spades..

    Nice concession that Biden is a scumbag... After the defense of him all week by Weigantians, it's nice to see some REALITY here.. :D

    As far as the title of your commentary??

    Just so we're clear...

    COLLUSION is now ILLEGAL this week??

    Because ya swore up and down after Mueller's exoneration of President Trump that Collusion was NOT illegal.. Of course, that was a total 180 from the TWO YEARS PRIOR to Muller's exoneration of President Trump, where ya'all hysterically swore up and down that Collusion WAS illegal???

    So, to sum up..

    Collusion was illegal..

    Then it wasn't..

    Now it is again??

    Whew.. Keeping up with ya'all's hysterical flip flops is almost a full time job.

    "I'm not sure that's the mission I signed up for."
    -Commander Riker, STAR TREK TNG, Deja-Q

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, ANOTHER prediction I made has come true..

    Now that Weigantians have another hysterical total bullshit scenario going strong, they come out of the woodwork..

    The nice thing about Dumbocrats doing the Speed Impeaching thing is I won't have to wait 2 years to see it all blow up in yer faces.. AGAIN!!! :D

    I figure by the end of the year ya'all will be in the throes of another Mueller Exonerates Part Duex..

    But hay.. Have yer fun with Mueller Part Duex

    Ya'all simply just HAVE to know that this only ends ONE WAY...

    With President Trump still in office.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Deputy Sheriff Sandeep Dhaliwal
    Harris County Sheriff's Office, Texas
    End of Watch: Friday, September 27, 2019

    And remind the few..
    When ill of us they speak...
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [27-28]

    Duh-Oh! I sure as shit jinxed us. Ah well. Mikhail will disappear right about the time Trump disappears. Or whenever his Rooskie masters stop paying him in rubles and meth to crank out 2,000 words at a sitting. Whichever comes first.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Duh-Oh! I sure as shit jinxed us. Ah well. Mikhail will disappear right about the time Trump disappears. Or whenever his Rooskie masters stop paying him in rubles and meth to crank out 2,000 words at a sitting. Whichever comes first.

    Son, you realize that I have been part of Weigantia for over 16 years, right??

    Ignorant snot-nose little shits like you are a dime a dozen around here.. But I keep ya'all in check.

    Say, I don't want to jinx us, but wheres Mikhail i.e. Michale this evening? What a shame he didn't come out to play--NOT.

    For the record, I have been on top of ya'all's Impeachment hysteria from the start..

    Laying on a little bit of FACT for you.

    You KNOW this only ends one way, right??

    This ends with President Trump still in office..

    You know that, right??

    Huh?? You REALLY think that the GOP senate is going to convict President Trump??

    BBBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

    Yer stoopider than I thought. And THAT says something because I know you are pretty stoopid... :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now scurry away and hide..

    It's what you lowlifes do whenever I show up.. :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  33. [33] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [31+]

    Misha I think Paula [15] summed it up right:

    Again, once Repubs decide he's become a liability they'll be focused on saving themselves. And if he starts throwing them under the bus they'll reciprocate.

    He's gotten away with so much because he's been propped up by the GOP. If they abandon him it's over.

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula [1] -

    Thanks for the kind words!

    :-)

    Paula [2] -

    I originally had "Trump eats his steaks well-done with ketchup" as the "ad absurdum" last sentence, but then I remembered I promised long ago never to ding him for this, because that's how I like steak too...

    Heh. So I changed it to his tie...

    MtnCaddy [3] -

    That's EXACTLY what worries me, too. "We're in an election year... blah blah blah... no impeachment trial, sorry."

    Although I have to say, that "Pence resigns" one is the one that's going to keep me awake at night...

    rdnewman [6] -

    OK, you raise a valid point about rebranding. I do get that, but like you haven't come up with a "new and improved" label that fits.

    But I think you underestimate the reaction factor from Trump himself. When faced with the "Collusion!" refrain, you just know his head's going to explode, since he spent so long saying the opposite. Dems can sell this as "this one is different, because the collusion is OBVIOUS" argument...

    I still think it'd set Trump (and his apologists) back on their heels, personally, but I do get where you're coming from.

    Paula [7] -

    IMHO, it'll be the polling that determines this. If 55% of the public wants Trump impeached and gone, well, that's the same percentage that's been against him for a while. But if that goes up to 60, or 65, or 70%, then the GOPers might just decide to cut their losses. We're a LONG way from that happening yet, which is why I wrote this column. But I think it'll be public pressure that causes any shift in Republican attitudes on Capitol Hill, personally. The people will lead, their leaders will follow...

    nypoet22 [8] -

    OK, you have just lived up to your login handle. Bravo!

    Heh.

    :-)

    Paula [9] -

    Yeah, I saw that too, but I'll believe it when it actually happens. Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland -- we didn't believe anyone would be that shameless before it actually happened. Once bitten...

    LizM [10] -

    Short and sweet this week. Glad you liked it!

    LizM/Paula [various] -

    If he does bail, he'll doubtlessly follow the "half-term governor" Sarah Palin's playbook: "I've achieved all I set out to do, therefore there's no reason I need to continue..."

    Laughable, but I bet that's the way he spins it if it happens...

    TheStig [16] -

    That's the spirit! I tweeted directly to Christine Pelosi, something I've never done before but had to since maybe she'll be having lunch with mom some time in the next week or so... met her at a Netroots and we commiserated over the sad state of HuffPost (we both used to be bloggers), where she said she used to read my columns regularly. So who knows? Plant the seed, stand back and see what happens!

    :-)

    MtnCaddy [20] -

    Shouldn't that be "Moscow on the Potomac"???

    Heh.

    OK, just hit the Michale section, but gotta go watch Colbert, sorry...

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy

    Again, once Repubs decide he's become a liability they'll be focused on saving themselves. And if he starts throwing them under the bus they'll reciprocate.

    He's gotten away with so much because he's been propped up by the GOP. If they abandon him it's over.

    Yea, ya'all have been saying the exact same thing since even before Trump was in office..

    Funny how you have ALWAYS been wrong..

    ALWAYS.... :D

    But hay... Since you want to run with the Alpha Dog, let me ask you...

    Point to ONE impeachable fact in the transcript of the Trump/Zelensky phone call.. Just one..

    Can ya do that??

    Nope?? Of course you can't..

    Run along snot-nose.. Yer dismissed.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno, it's funny..

    Ya'all go on and on about how President Trump is doing Putin's bidding.. Of course, totally factless claim, but let's look at it logically and rationally..

    Not only has President Trump been 10x harder on Russia than Odumbo EVER was...

    But consider this. Putin's most FERVENT desire is to divide the US of A..

    And Democrats are pushing the most DIVISIVE act possible.

    So, if ya'all can get past your hysterical emotionalism and look at the FACTS and at REALITY..

    It's perfectly obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that it's DEMOCRATS who are doing Putin's bidding..

    Not President Trump.. :D

    So, Weigantians. How does it feel to be working for Putin and Russia??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    OK, just hit the Michale section, but gotta go watch Colbert, sorry...

    Wow. Even the Grand Poobah has to run when the Alpha Dog shows up.. :D hehehehehehehe J/K

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [34]

    OK, just hit the Michale section, but gotta go watch Colbert, sorry...

    Haha, the Mikhail section. I wonder if you could rig this website up so the various commentators each get a different understated background color? It would help those of us who want to scroll down thru Misha's 2,000 words at a pop trolling. I'd settle for just highlighting Mikhail's section, perhaps in Red.

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, don't care about Colbert's guests, so here we go...

    Michale [27] -

    ignoring the mindless blather (and I certainly hope those were your wet dreams, there), I have no idea what you're talking about on collusion.

    My stance has always been: collusion is not a legal term. It is therefore meaningless in the bigger discussion of what happened with Russia. Conspiracy is the right term, and we can debate that, but collusion was always just a Trump bugaboo...

    Having said that, it fits in perfectly now. Trump was the one to vaguely define what the "red line" for wrongdoing was, so why shouldn't Dems exploit that? See entire section on "hoist on own petard," above...

    [28] -

    Stripping away all the mindless blather, I do agree that "speed impeachment" is a pretty good term for this. So we agree on that, at least...

    MtnCaddy [30] -

    I've always thought he was paid in Quatloos, personally...

    Heh.

    Michale [35] -

    Funny how you have ALWAYS been wrong..

    Except, you know, for that whole 2018 midterm elections thing...

    Heh.

    [36] -

    Hoo boy. Seek professional help, that's all that I can say...

    Heh.

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Haha, the Mikhail section.

    I am the Alpha Dog here.. OF COURSE I get my own section.. DUH...

    I wonder if you could rig this website up so the various commentators each get a different understated background color? It would help those of us who want to scroll down thru Misha's 2,000 words at a pop trolling. I'd settle for just highlighting Mikhail's section, perhaps in Red.

    Funny how you can't even answer a simple question.. :D

    As you Dumbocrats established in Charlottesville, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT..

    And a new corollary, created just for Weigantia..

    SILENCE = CONCESSION

    I accept your concession, lil bit :D

  41. [41] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [38] -

    Now there's an interesting idea!

    For now, comments just alternate colors, but I'm always open to suggestion...

    :-)

    -CW

  42. [42] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    All kidding aside, here's a serious question for you: by Trump's own definition during the Russia investigation, do you believe he has "colluded" with Ukraine? Why or why not?

    And a followup: did you ever give Barack Obama one one-hundredth of the benefit of the doubt you just gave Trump?

    Honest answers would be appreciated.

    -CW

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, don't care about Colbert's guests, so here we go...

    Whatever ya have to tell yerself.. :D

    heh

    My stance has always been: collusion is not a legal term.

    No.. Ya'all's position during the Mueller investigation was that Collusion was illegal.

    Then when Mueller totally and completely exonerated President Trump, ya'all stated the opinion that collusion was NOT illegal..

    NOW yer claiming collusion is, once again, illegal..

    Could you clarify for the record??

    IS COLLUSION LEGAL OR ILLEGAL...

    Stripping away all the mindless blather,

    Translation: I can't address the facts, so we'll just ignore them.. :D

    heh

    I do agree that "speed impeachment" is a pretty good term for this. So we agree on that, at least...

    Thank you.. Your acknowledgement means a lot to me.. :D

    Except, you know, for that whole 2018 midterm elections thing...

    Heh.

    You mean, that whole 2018 midterm thing where Democrats only got control of the House by Dem candidates who ran as GOP Lite??

    THAT "2018 midterm thing?" :D

    heh

    Hoo boy. Seek professional help, that's all that I can say...

    Heh.

    I'll have ta wait in line behind all of ya..

    Those suffering from HHPTDS take precedence.. :D

    heh

    But since I have you here....

    Do you HONESTLY believe that this will end ANY OTHER WAY than President Trump remains in office??

    Be honest now and don't worry about what others think of you when you agree with me.. :D

    heh

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    All kidding aside, here's a serious question for you: by Trump's own definition during the Russia investigation, do you believe he has "colluded" with Ukraine? Why or why not?

    And a followup: did you ever give Barack Obama one one-hundredth of the benefit of the doubt you just gave Trump?

    Honest answers would be appreciated.

    Tell ya what.. I'll be happy to address those in depth if you answer HONESTLY the afore question I just put to you.. Honestly without ANY wishful thinking or "well it depends" equivocation..

    Do you believe this will end ANY OTHER WAY than President Trump remaining in office..

    A simple YES or NO is all I am looking for..

    I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.. :D

    heh

  45. [45] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [44] -

    For the short term (pre-2020 election)?

    85-15% to Trump staying in office. Impeachment fails, one way or another. Trump lives to grift another day.

    For the long term (how it affects 2020 election)?

    65-35% to Dem beating Trump.

    But then, I've never much been one for these "probability" numbers, personally. But you asked, so there you go...

    -CW

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    But then, I've never much been one for these "probability" numbers, personally. But you asked, so there you go...

    Well it wasn't a YES/NO answer..

    On the other hand, 85% Trump remains in office is a virtual certainty so I'll take it.. :D

    65-35% to Dem beating Trump.

    Considering that Biden is toast, this leaves only Warren as the Dem nominee..

    And you think Independents & NPAs will flock towards WARREN!??? :D

    Now we're back to the realm of wishful thinking. :D

    But hay... You answered more or less.. SO I thank you..

    Now, onto your questions..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    All kidding aside, here's a serious question for you: by Trump's own definition during the Russia investigation, do you believe he has "colluded" with Ukraine? Why or why not?

    Stipulating the "collusion" is not illegal (as per yer POST Mueller Exonerates Trump claims) OF COURSE President Trump colluded with Ukraine..

    Ukraine would not have gotten any aid if there was no collusion...

    Here's a shocker for ya, CW.. Allies ALWAYS collude... Hell, WWII was won PRECISELY BECAUSE the Allied Powers "colluded"...

    So, absolutely President Trump colluded with our ALLY, Ukraine..

    So, there is my honest answer...

    I'll even answer the question you DIDN'T ask..

    Was there any quid pro quo in the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. No there was not.. Ukraine didn't even KNOW at the time of the phone call that the Pentagon had held up the previously agreed on arms shipment.. President Trump simply asked about an American who, by your OWN MDDOTW award, is corrupt and broke the law.. President Zelensky was free to say, "Sorry Mr President, but I cannot get involved." Zelensky himself said that there was no pressure whatsoever from President Trump.. So, you simply have no quid pro quo..

    As far as asking Zelensky to check into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden?? SO???? This may come as a shock to you, but as President, Trump can ask ANYONE to check out ANY American.. And he DOESN'T have to clear the request with ANYONE.. This is factually accurate..

    I'll take your Obama question now...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    And a followup: did you ever give Barack Obama one one-hundredth of the benefit of the doubt you just gave Trump?

    HELL NO I didn't.. Obama was DESTROYING this country.. Military and LEO moral was in the TOILET as a **DIRECT** result of Odumbo's actions..

    Obama made the US the laughing stock of the world by his Apology Tour.. Terrorists LOVED Obama because Obama was a capitulator.. An appeaser..

    Obama all but destroyed our country's economy and then LAUGHINGLY said "Sorry people, it ain't gonna get any better.."

    But, guess what?? Under President Trump, the economy got TONS better..

    And ya'all claim that was because of Obama!!?? The moron who said what President Trump has done, Odumbo said "IT CAN'T HAPPEN!!!" and ya'all want to give him CREDIT for that??

    Minority unemployment is at it's LOWEST it's been... EVER... EVER... E..V..E..R.. EVER....

    Will you give President Trump credit for that?? Of course not..

    You people don't realize how GOOD things are under President Trump.. Ya'all can't.. It's HHPTDS and PARTY UBER ALLES..

    That's all that's in play here..

    So, no.. HELL NO.....

    I would NEVER give Odumbo a THOUSANDTH of the benefit of the doubt I would give President Trump..

    You wanted my honest answer... It's the only answer I know how to give..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where did MtnCaddy run off to??

    The Alpha Dog shows up and MC runs away...

    Awww well.. I guess he was tired of being a chew toy for the Alpha Dog.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well it wasn't a YES/NO answer..

    On the other hand, 85% Trump remains in office is a virtual certainty so I'll take it.. :D

    In other words, if you were FORCED to make a YES or NO response, your response would be "No.. There is no other result for Democrats actions but President Trump remains in office."

    I'll take it..

    65-35% to Dem beating Trump.

    So, you are ignoring the Clinton precedent.. Care to elaborate as to why??

    Keeping in mind that all the "euphoria" you are reading about ONLY comes from Democrat sources... Oh sure.. You might find a Trump/America hater in a GOP'er here or there.. Just as I can find a DEMOCRAT here and there who is not on board with impeachment..

    But by and large, it's ONLY Democrats who are happy
    about impeachment.. You should broaden your horizons and read some other sources, so you get a BALANCED (IE based in reality) view..

    I'm just sayin'... One friend to another.. :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrr

    Well it wasn't a YES/NO answer..

    On the other hand, 85% Trump remains in office is a virtual certainty so I'll take it.. :D

    In other words, if you were FORCED to make a YES or NO response, your response would be "No.. There is no other result for Democrats actions but President Trump remains in office."

    I'll take it.. :D

    65-35% to Dem beating Trump.

    So, you are ignoring the Clinton precedent.. Care to elaborate as to why??

    Keeping in mind that all the "euphoria" you are reading about ONLY comes from Democrat sources... Oh sure.. You might find a Trump/America hater in a GOP'er here or there.. Just as I can find a DEMOCRAT here and there who is not on board with impeachment..

    But by and large, it's ONLY Democrats who are happy
    about impeachment.. You should broaden your horizons and read some other sources, so you get a BALANCED (IE based in reality) view..

    I'm just sayin'... One friend to another.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Witness a DEMOCRAT Country...

    City bans calling someone an ‘illegal alien’ out of hate

    It’s now against the law in New York City to threaten someone with a call to immigration authorities or refer to them as an “illegal alien” when motivated by hate.

    The restrictions — violations of which are punishable by fines of up to $250,000 per offense — are outlined in a 29-page directive released by City Hall’s Commission on Human Rights.

    “‘Alien’ — used in many laws to refer to a ‘noncitizen’ person — is a term that may carry negative connotations and dehumanize immigrants, marking them as ‘other,'” reads one passage of the memo. “The use of certain language, including ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals,’ with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination.”
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/city-bans-calling-someone-an-illegal-alien-out-of-hate/

    This is what awaits Americans if Democrats get in power..

    Speech will be regulated so that only "nice" words are used...

    The First Amendment will no longer exist..

    Why **ANYONE** would vote Democrat is beyond me...

    Democrat = Un-American

    Now you know why I say "Trump/America haters".. Because the FACTS clearly show that those who hate President Trump hate America...

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Son, you realize that I have been part of Weigantia for over 16 years, right?? ~ Comrade Mike

    Longer than even Chris Weigant!

    Hey, Russ, if we could see patterns in Mike's delusions, this would sound exactly like what we were discussing around a week ago when Moscow Mitch had "caved" and released the $250 million and "Rudy the New Fixer" was going nuts on live television... so we naturally knew something big was coming.

    So the board troll was unhinged that day and claiming that you couldn't possibly know what he's discussed on this forum because he's been around longer than you. *must do a quick search* *be right back*

    Oh, I couldn't find it! <---- Just kidding! ;)

    And how the FRAK do you know what experiences I have told..

    You have been here MAYBE all of 3 years.. 4 at the most... I have been here more than TEN YEARS longer than you have, you idiot!!

    How the hell would YOU know what I have and haven't told.. ~ Captain Whorely

    Oh, and Russ, apparently "Captain Whorely" has been on this board longer than the author and is completely unaware that every word is archived as witnessed by the links that have been here the whole effing time. Go figure! :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/19/moscow-mitch-caves/#comment-144316

    So once again, Comrade Dumbfuckery Mike plays his regular "I've been here longer than you" card! Tune in next week, when Moron Mike claims to have been here for two decades... and still wouldn't know how to recognize a fact if it flew straight up his ass in order to live on his face. :) *laughs*

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, Democrats want to regulate "hate" speech..

    Now I am betting, with only a few exceptions, everyone here is totally and completely on board with that...

    Which explains *EXACTLY* why Democrats should be kept AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE from the levers of power..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    With all affection and deference to Liz....

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

    Since Biden's campaign is in free-fall, we can start discussing Warren as the Dim nominee..

    As an aside to JL.. I promise not to gloat about your impeding vote to re-elect President Trump..

    Much.. :D

    Anyways, the same question still remains.

    How can ANYONE in their right mind, with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, think that Independents and NPAs will vote for a Socialist who wants to give Free Full healthcare to illegal immigrant criminals (Crimmigrants), wants to create open borders, wants to give free money to ONLY black Americans and who wants abortion available up thru birth and the first 6 months of the baby's life??

    OK, that LAST one is a *slight* exaggeration... But not by much..

    So, can ANYONE who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together (yea, I know that disqualifies the majority of Weigantians) explain to me how Independents and NPAs are gonna vote for a LUSER like Warren???

    What's that?? "IMPEACHMENT!! IMPEACHMENT!!!" you say??

    Well, considering that Independents & NPAs are against Impeachment 3-1, Impeachment explains why Dims will LOSE BIG TIME in 2020... :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno.. I miss Neil..

    He was hysterical and pedantic, but at least he had an occasional FACT and was, not often to be sure, at least LOGICAL and RATIONAL.. Sometimes...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maher blasts Hunter Biden's Ukraine ties: If Don Jr. did it, Rachel Maddow would be all over it

    "Real Time" host Bill Maher slammed Hunter Biden's business ties to Ukraine, suggesting MSNBC's Rachel Maddow would be talking about it if it were one of President Trump's children.

    Maher began by questioning whether former Vice President Joe Biden would benefit from the impeachment inquiry into Trump since he is "elevated" above the other 2020 candidates.

    "The more I read about this- no, I don't think he was doing something terrible in Ukraine, but it's just- why can't politicians tell their f-----' kids, 'Get a job, get a godd--n job!''" Maher told the panel. "This kid was paid $600,000 because his name is Biden by a gas company in Ukraine, this super-corrupt country that just had a revolution to get rid of corruption. I just looks bad.'

    The HBO star commended "genius" Republicans for "muddying the waters," predicting that their argument to defend Trump will be "You did this in Ukraine, well Joe Biden did this."
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-blasts-hunter-bidens-ukraine-ties-if-don-jr-did-it-rachel-maddow-would-be-all-over-it

    Yep..

    First rule when you go after someone for corruption...

    MAKE SURE YOUR OWN HANDS ARE CLEAN FIRST...

    Democrats hands are FAR from clean... :D

    And that is why they will lose..

    Virtually the ONLY way this ends is with President Trump remaining in office...

    This is the OFFICIAL Weigantian Position on the matter...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    "{Pelosi} does the worse thing a woman in power can do, which is she just changes her mind because the men around her said, 'change your mind. We need an impeachment.' She did that without seeing the transcript…"
    -Kellyanne Conway

    Oh SNAP!!!!!

    Pelosi just be bitch-slapped big time!!! :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ari Fleischer: Dem drive to impeach Trump over Ukraine call is hysterical, hyperbolic and hypocritical
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ari-fleischer-dem-drive-to-impeach-trump-over-ukraine-call-is-hysterical-hyperbolic-and-hypocritical

    Yep.. Yep.. And yep...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was beautiful. Except for the part where Trump talked about former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter. That was inappropriate.

    But what’s even more inappropriate is the hysterical, hyperbolic, hypocritical, fabricated (I’m talking to you, Katy Tur) impeachment-seeking reaction to the call.

    In football terms, President Trump deserved a five-yard penalty flag. What he did was the equivalent of a false start.

    I have to disagree.. There was nothing "inappropriate" about the action.. It was simply one ally asking another ally about actions that 2nd ally would know about..

    I mean, it's not as if President Trump roped in intelligence agencies into infiltrating and spying on the Biden campaign, as Obama did with Trump's 2016 campaign..

    Once again, Democrats are blatant hypocritical...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s critics don’t want to face the fact that Joe Biden – currently a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination – threatened to withhold $1 billion in American loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president fired a prosecutor Biden didn’t like.

    How many times has the video of Biden’s threat been played on CNN or MSNBC?

    The former vice president has a Hunter Biden-sized conflict of interest in this matter and his threat of withholding U.S. loan guarantees makes things worse. But Trump’s critics and much of the media don’t care.

    To them, it’s OK when Biden does it. It’s not OK if Trump does.

    The double standards by Democrats is as nauseating as it is obvious...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    In addition, three Democratic U.S. senators used their positions of power to pressure Ukrainian officials to do their bidding regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Trump.

    Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont wrote a letter pressuring Ukrainian officials to work with Mueller to investigate Trump.

    So here again we have a double standard. Democrats want us to believe it’s OK when Democratic senators call on Ukrainians to investigate their rival, but it’s not OK if Trump does.

    Yep.. Democrats think it's perfectly OK to pressure an ally for dirt on President Trump... And these Dumbocrats blatantly STATED a quid pro quo... Something missing from Democrat accusations against President Trump..

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    When it comes to working with foreign nations to influence an election, former President Barack Obama’s request to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev takes the cake.

    Obama, not wanting his national security positions to become a reelection issue, was caught on camera in 2012 asking Medvedev to tell then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that Obama needed “space” on missile defense negotiations until after U.S. presidential election was over.

    In other words, Obama was saying: if you, Vladimir, don’t raise this matter during the election, I’ll have more “flexibility” after the election to reach an accommodation.

    Too bad Obama said it on camera. If a whistleblower heard him say it, the case against Obama might have been packaged better.

    Funny how you Trump/America haters don't have a problem with ODUMBO'S capitulation/collusion with Putin...

    Of course ya'all don't.. Simply by supporting impeachment, ya'all are doing Putin's bidding..

    How's it feel for ya'all to be Putin's bitch?

    "I dunno.. Why don't you ask Trump"
    -Lame Trump/America Hater's response..

    I am asking Putin's bitch.. NOT the President who has slapped down Putin 10x more than Odumbo ever did..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You people can't win..

    "I have god on my side!!"
    -Leland Gant, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even by Washington’s typical standards, the Democratic-media hypocrisy toward Trump is over the top. So too is impeachment.

    Many Democrats and their echo chamber in the media have wanted to impeach the Trump even before he took office.

    At first, several liberal groups sought to change the outcome of the 2016 election in the Electoral College, but the margin of Trump’s victory was too big for them to succeed. More than 60 elected Democrats boycotted his Inauguration.

    As offensive and norm-breaking as Trump can be, it is more norm-breaking and offensive to refuse to accept an election result and instead seek to turn all forms of political disagreement into a constitutional crisis in which the Congress tries repeatedly to remove the president from office, negating the results of an election.

    That is what Trump/America haters are all about..

    Nullifying a free, fair, legal, democratic and Constitutional election...

    Trump/America haters are the bad guys here..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment is not a game. It’s the Constitution’s safety valve and it should only be applied in the gravest of threats to our nation and system of government.

    Asking a foreign nation to get involved in an American campaign matter is wrong. It was wrong when Trump did it. It was wrong when Obama did it. It was wrong when Biden did it. It was wrong when Hillary Clinton, through the Steele dossier, did it.

    But Republicans of all stripes need to recognize the threat to national unity and cohesion does not come from Trump’s request to Zelensky – it comes from the refusal of Democrats to let the American people decide who our president should be.

    And Ari Fleischer brings it home!!

    That is the existential question here..

    DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT??

    Democrats and Trump/America haters (I know.. redundant) say "NYET!!!"

    President Trump and all the Trump voters AND all the Independents & NPAs will make this lesson painfully clear to the Dumbocrat Party in Nov of 2020...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, the Alpha Dog clears the room!!! :D

    But I'll give ya'all some time to catch up. I really much get some work done.. :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. Break time is over. :D

    COULTER: Get Ready To See Trump’s Face On Mount Rushmore
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/25/coulter-trump-mount-rushmore/

    :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    The transcript of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky is yet another illustration of the rule: Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

    But on the basis of one drama queen’s overreaction to a rumor she’d heard about what was said on a phone call she didn’t hear (I’m assuming the whistleblower is Christine Blasey Ford), the Democrats have launched impeachment proceedings against the president.

    I guess they figured it’s easier than flying to South Dakota with picks and chisels and carving Trump into Mount Rushmore. But it will have the same effect.

    Yep..

    As I have said, Democrats have just GUARANTEED that President Trump will be re-elected in a landslide..

    Clinton's crimes were MUCH worse and MUCH MORE well-documented... And he and his Democrats shellacked the GOP...

    As with the Russia Collusion delusion, Democrats don't even have a crime here! Not a SINGLE impeachable offense has been documented..

    Democrats will lose on impeachment and they will lose in 2020...

    It's really THAT simple...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    The transcript I’d like to see is the one of Nancy Pelosi reading the Trump transcript:

    F@@@@@@CK! Whose f***ing idea was it to demand this goddamn transcript?
    F@CK!
    F@@CK!
    F@@@CK!

    The absolute worst version for Trump — i.e. the one being repeated non-stop on MSNBC — is that he did exactly what Obama and Biden were doing to Ukraine: intimidating an ally into giving us something in exchange for the foreign aid we were giving them.

    Biden himself bragged about getting Ukraine’s prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold a big fat check from them.

    The Democrats’ argument is: No, no, no! When WE were pressuring Ukraine, we were doing it for good! Don’t you understand? We’re good; they’re bad.

    Dumbocrats.. Hoisted by their own Picard.. :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other reason the media are going to have to bury this transcript is that Trump brought up a few items that the media have been hoping the public would never find out about.

    Trump said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that 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.”

    Well, that’s something the media haven’t mentioned before. Ninety-nine percent of Americans will be hearing about the funny business with Biden’s son, Hunter, for the first time with the release of this transcript.

    Why did Vice President Biden order the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company paying his son millions of dollars? Are Democrats claiming that this company was clean as a whistle and it was an absolute OUTRAGE that it was being investigated?

    Ukraine was looking into the company that conveniently placed Hunter Biden on its board long before Trump came on the scene. Something must have made the Ukrainian prosecutor want to investigate Biden’s company — and it sure wasn’t to curry favor with the Obama/Biden administration.

    Yep... Biden & son are going to be the only casualty of the Democrat impeachment..

    It's really a shame because Joe Biden deserves better..

    But Joe will only have his fellow Democrats to blame..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I’ll give the Democrats this: They’ve gotten so good at trying to remove Trump from office that, instead of three years, their insane accusations blow up in their faces within a week.

    Yea.. :D Great idea for Dumbocrats to go with Speed Impeaching..

    Don't let the American people find out how lame their case is.. Just blast it thru and hope no one notices..

    's OK.. I approve... Now I'll only have to wait a few months to laugh uproariously at how moronic and idiotic Trump/America haters are.. Instead of having to wait almost two years, as with the Russia Collusion delusion.. :D

    So, it's win for me, a win for President Trump and a win for this great country.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    You brought up a good point in your commentary and it bears repeating..

    To whit.. WHERE IS OBAMA??

    Obama is skulking in the shadows totally pissed off at Biden and Democrats.. His legacy (such as is remaining) is now threatened to be totally thrown on the trash heap for his attacks and threats and pressure on Ukraine..

    You HONESTLY think that Obama is gonna flop HIS dick out there to be hammered on over and over??

    Democrats have PROVEN they are out to destroy Odumbo's legacy.. This is simply another manifestation of that..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama is going to HELP Democrats destroy him???

    You won't hear Obama volunteering ANYTHING on this issue..

    And NOW you know why..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as color coding comments??

    I am all for that.. Ya'all's comments will be various shades of blue..

    All my comments will be purple...

    That way everyone knows at a glance who are the Party slaves and who are the NPAs :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, iddn't this interesting..

    Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

    Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

    Basically, the Trump/America hater who filed the "whistle blower" complain had filed ANOTHER bullshit complaint based on ignorance and hearsay...

    But THAT complaint violated the rules...

    So the intelligence agencies who are out to take down President Trump changed the rules so that hearsay and ignorance in filing a complaint is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE..

    Then the scumbag Trump/America hater filed a DIFFERENT complaint and it was accepted..

    Once again.. This impeachment is bullshit and will not stand.. The patriotic Americans who actually LOVE this country and support their President won't allow it to stand..

    It's THAT simple...

    Democrats proceed at their own peril..

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: It was a bit nerve-wracking when Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry a day before the call readout was released, because Trump at that point could have decided not to do so, or the readout could have been a bust. Thankfully, neither happened.

    It appears to me that the attorney of the Whistleblower had the right good sense to get out in front of the entire issue when he learned that the White House was informed regarding the verbal complaint made to the proper person in his chain of command before the filing of the written complaint. In other words, Madame Speaker was likely fully informed. :)

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    "So what? This isn't the end of the investigation, but the beginning. There is plenty of time for Congress to interview those directly involved and find out exactly what they have to say.

    Fine.. So how about everyone just shut up and lets wait and see what the people who ACTUALLY witnessed these alleged things..

    Hmmmmmm??

    Wait for facts!!!??? What a CRAZY idea..

    I know why ya'all don't want to wait..

    Because you KNOW those people don't exist.. They were made up by the CIA Trump/America hater to facilitate this bullshit case..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    So what if there isn't a quid pro quo? Because there was still obviously collusion.' Trump and Giuliani are colluding with a foreign country to get dirt on his political opponent.

    So what?? As you established AFTER the Mueller exoneration of President Trump, COLLUSION IS NOT A CRIME...

    NOW you want to go BACK to the claim pre-Mueller Exoneration Of President Trump and claim that collusion is a CRIME..

    DO you see how utterly frak'ed and self serving that position is??

    First, collusion is a crime.. Then, when President Trump is COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY exonerated of that "crime", THEN you claim it's not a crime..

    But now that ya have some bullshit you can pin on President Trump.. NOW.. all of the sudden, collusion is a crime again..

    And, I am betting, when THIS blows up in ya'all's faces (as you have said there is an 85% chance it will) then.... MAGICALLY... collusion will no longer be a crime..

    Could you please explain these diametrically opposed positions of ya'all's??

    Because from where a logical and rational person sits, it appears you are wanting to re-write reality to fit whatever delusion is front and center at any given moment....

    And the SPOCK in me has to ask where the logic is in such delusional actions??

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yoooo Hoooooooo MtnCaddy..

    Where are you????

    But hay... Since you want to run with the Alpha Dog, let me ask you...

    Point to ONE impeachable fact in the transcript of the Trump/Zelensky phone call.. Just one..

    Can ya do that??

    Nope?? Of course you can't..

    Run along snot-nose.. Yer dismissed.. :D

    I guess the snot-nose really did run along.. :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

    PWNED!!! :D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Donald Trump is colluding with a foreign government to help his chances of being elected.

    Which is exactly what Hillary did in 2016.. With the SAME country..

    And Odumbo colluded with the Brits AND the Russians to prevent Trump from being elected President.

    Funny how you don't have a SINGLE iota of a problem when DEMOCRATS "collude"... You only have a problem with collusion when it's President Trump..

    Funny how that is, eh??

    I am still waiting for you to tell me that collusion is or is not a crime..

    If you think it's a crime, please post the law and explain why you DIDN'T think it was a crime post-Mueller Exonerates President Trump timeframe..

    If you DON'T think it's a crime, please explain why yer all up in arms right now, SAYING it's a crime??

    At your pleasure, I'll be here all day.. :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

    Look the HUGE drop in Iowa that has hit the Biden campaign..

    NO ONE in their right mind can say that the Ukraine fiasco is NOT having an effect on Biden's campaign.

    Biden's campaign is history and it's all thanks to Democrats..

    They hate Trump and America more than they liked Biden...

    Sorry, Liz.. But I call 'em as I see 'em...

  81. [81] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW mentioned Trump Kool-Aid. How much does it cost per packet? I'm betting 10 bucks! Is there a logo on the packet with Trump as a sweaty pitcher? Is there only one flavor? Orange? What a collecter's item!

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: That needs to change and it needs to change now, because there is one devastating word that needs to be applied to the entire impeachment effort and Ukraine scandal, and that word is: "collusion."

    I believe the word you are looking for is: Cover-Up

    All The President's Men are involved in one hell of a cover-up of President Dumbfuckery's abuse of power/office in furtherance of his own personal agenda and the ridiculous right-wingnut conspiracy fantasies being advanced by Russia as well as homegrown dipshits like Breitbart/Bannon, Stone, and the QAnon nutjobs on 4Chan.

    Donald Trump: A guy who believes that accumulation of wealth is the true sign of a man's worth, who easily takes both sides of any issue for political expediency while his true loyalty lies with himself, a confident con no matter which side he's taking, and the biggest threat to our country coming not from without, but from within, a guy who fancies himself a true patriot but who'd turn coat on America and her people in order to satisfy his insatiable greed and lust for power and title... a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

    "Benedict Donald": pronounced "Been A Dick," with a silent "T" like Stephen Colbert.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/13/ftp391/#comment-75291

    In other words: Benedict Donald is being played by Putin in order to further Russia's interests at the expense of America's interests.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    In keeping with CW's MDDOTW award... :D

    Wherever Joe Biden went, son Hunter cashed in
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/wherever-joe-biden-went-son-hunter-cashed-in/

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a now notorious July 25 conversation, President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “look into” Ukraine’s role in efforts to interfere in the 2016 election as well as the dealings of Joe ­Biden and his son Hunter with the notoriously corrupt country.

    Whether or not Trump’s ham-fisted conversation with Zelensky rises to an impeachable offense, the American people have legitimate reasons to be curious about both issues — and especially the Biden family’s blatant conflicts of interest abroad as Joe Biden seeks the presidency.

    As I said.. Biden will be the first (and likely ONLY) casualty to Dumbocrats and their ham-handed BS impeachment..

    Of this, there is no doubt. We're already seeing the effects of it..

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden has been leading the Democratic field. The central case for his candidacy rests on the supposedly exemplary work he did as a senior member of Team Obama. Well, in 2016, acting as the Obama administration’s point man in Ukraine, the vice president — unlike Trump — openly threatened to withhold $1 billion in American loan guarantees if the embattled nation didn’t fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.

    As Biden later bragged, “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.’ ”

    Most of the media assure us that, though by the Democrats’ new standards this kind of ­intimidation constitutes a flagrant abuse of power, Biden’s reasons for threatening Ukraine were chaste.

    But simply repeating this talking point doesn’t make it true. Granted, Shokin was a shady character. Yet at some point he had been investigating Burisma, the largest gas company in Ukraine, which also happened to be paying Hunter Biden a $50,000 monthly salary as a board member.

    By coincidence, Hunter had landed this cushy gig in a foreign country only a few months after the Obama ­administration began dispatching his father, Joe, to the very same foreign country on a regular basis.

    If Democrats didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all..

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Actually, there was quid pro out the quo's wazoo. Let's review. Right after the Ukrainian leader states his intention to buy some more missiles: '...we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes,' Donald Trump jumps in with: 'I would like you to do us a favor though....' How much more quid or quo do you need, for Pete's sake? This is the quiddiest quo I've ever seen, in fact.

    Actually, that is NOT factually accurate..

    The "quiddiest quo" you have ever seen was when VP Biden told the Ukrainians that, unless they fire the prosecutor who was investigating VP Bidens son, they would NOT get the 1 Billion in aid..

    THAT is the "quiddiest quo" you have ever seen..

    Funny thing, though.. You don't CARE about that quid pro quo, do you??

    Why is that?

    Oh yea.. Because of the -D after their name.. :eyeroll:

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was, of course, absolutely nothing in Hunter’s résumé to indicate that he would be a valuable addition to foreign energy interest. He didn’t speak the language, and he had no particular expertise in the energy industry. Oh, he did have one thing, though: his last name.

    I suppose, that isn’t entirely fair. Hunter once ran a hedge fund with his dad’s brother, James Biden, and associated with a notorious Ponzi schemer. James would go on to snag a job as executive vice president of a construction company in 2010, despite having virtually no experience in the field. And only a few months into his tenure, the company would win one of its biggest contracts in its history, a $1.5 billion deal to build affordable homes in Iraq.

    By pure happenstance, Joe was also the Obama administration’s point man in Iraq at the time. Funny how these things work out.

    Isn't it amazing how rich Bidens got while Biden was VP...

    It's uncanny..

    Of course, no one here cares about that, eh??

    "Gee!! I wonder why that is!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    You see why no patriotic American is going to accept this bullshit impeachment by Dumbocrats??

    Because it is based on NOTHING but hysterical hypocrisy and bullshit...

  88. [88] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    I admire Nancy Pelosi tremendously; she has proven again and again to be a brilliant leader and strategist. However, the MIDOTW should go to the 'group of 7' - Gil Cisneros, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Elaine Luria, Mikie Sherrill, Elissa Slotkin and Abigail Spanberger - who forcefully called for impeachment. With their decision to speak out, Pelosi understood that the political calculus had changed.
    'By 9 that night, on a conference call, Sherrill said, the group of seven had decided they needed to step off the sidelines. Until then, they had remained conspicuously noncommittal on impeachment, a position House Speaker Nancy Pelosi effectively had endorsed with her own refusal to fully embrace formal hearings. Now, they put what they had to say in clear, blunt language in a joint op-ed: They felt they had to “preserve the checks and balances envisioned by the Founders and restore the trust of the American people in our government.”'
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/27/trump-impeachment-national-security-house-democrats-moderate-mikie-sherrill-228430

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberal reporters, who are framing Trump’s conversation with Zelensky as the most perilous threat in the ­republic’s history, have shown little curiosity about Biden’s dealings with the Ukrainian government. Many media personalities, in fact, have rallied to ­Biden’s defense, calling any intimation of wrongdoing a smear.

    NBC’s Chuck Todd dismissed any Biden talk as a mere distraction. CNN called questions into the former vice president’s actions “baseless.” Other liberals now argue that the Biden firing of Shokin actually worked against the interests of Hunter.

    We have no way of knowing if this is true, either. According to The New York Times, Hunter’s work for Burisma had “prompted concerns” among Obama administration State Department officials, because it undermined diplomacy in Ukraine. Was Biden really the only person available to pressure Ukrainian officials while his son was raking in the cash? Does anyone really believe Biden’s claims that he never once spoke to his 49-year-old son about business in the two years they spent working in the same country?

    Now, perhaps Hunter didn’t break any Ukrainian laws. That doesn’t mean a proper investigation couldn’t turn up unethical or dishonest behavior. What we already know is that the Biden family business reeks of cronyism.

    Let's see ya'all push investigating Biden as much as you push investigating Trump..

    Yea.. When monkees fly outta my butt.. :eyeroll:

    This is why no REAL American cares about Democrat bullshit.. Because it's born of NOTHING but Party slavery..

    Not a SINGLE fact to be found..

    Not a one..

  90. [90] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Here's the opinion piece from the 'group of 7'.
    'The president of the United States may have used his position to pressure a foreign country into investigating a political opponent, and he sought to use U.S. taxpayer dollars as leverage to do it. He allegedly sought to use the very security assistance dollars appropriated by Congress to create stability in the world, to help root out corruption and to protect our national security interests, for his own personal gain. These allegations are stunning, both in the national security threat they pose and the potential corruption they represent.'
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/24/seven-freshman-democrats-these-allegations-are-threat-all-we-have-sworn-protect/

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    When these allegations were recently brought up to Biden by Fox News, an indignant former vice president pointed his finger at the reporter and demanded he “ask the right questions!” After being insulated in the Obama administration for so many years, it isn’t surprising that Biden feels betrayed by any scrutiny. But despite the gaslighting of his allies, Biden’s role in the Ukrainian affair is a completely legitimate line of inquiry.

    Hear that??

    If you don't ask questions that BIDEN wants you to ask, then you can't ask the question..

    Wonder how apeshit hysterical ya'all would be if Trump acted like that, eh? :eyeroll:

  92. [92] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, it's a shame that you can't charge by the letter for these comments. You'd get rich on the blather of at least one troll.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the opinion piece from the 'group of 7'.

    Group of 7... what?? America hating morons??

    Oh wait.. It's the opinion of WaPoop, a Leftist rag KNOWN for printing bullshit and having to print retractions..

    :eyeroll:

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chris, it's a shame that you can't charge by the letter for these comments. You'd get rich on the blather of at least one troll.

    It's a shame that you can't contribute anything here but childish name-calling and bullshit ignorant claims...

    "The fact that you resort to name-calling indicates that you are defensive and, therefore, find my opinion valid."
    -Spock, STAR TREK 90210

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chris, it's a shame that you can't charge by the letter for these comments. You'd get rich on the blather of at least one troll.

    And, just for the record, who do you think has funded Weigantia the most in the last 13+ years, eh???

    That would be me.. So, why don't you blow me...

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    17

    The party hasn't been "dealt a terrible hand" - it went after that terrible hand with eyes wide open and zero sense of responsibility, but nevertheless, reality is setting in.

    Exactly this! :)

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Hillary Gearing Up For Late-Stage Do-Over Against "Corrupt Human Tornado" Trump?
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hillary-gearing-late-stage-do-over-against-corrupt-human-tornado-trump

    Oh now wouldn't THIS be the ultimate irony...

    Democrats nominate the 2-time LUSER and she gets her ass stomped by President Trump..

    AGAIN!!!!

    BBBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Based on bookies' bets and a few recent actions, speculation is once again starting to grow that Hillary Clinton may be about to enter the Democratic Party presidential nominee race...

    First, the repeatedly failed presidential candidate has a suddenly full media schedule this week, making appearances on CBS Sunday Morning, Stephen Colbert, and The View among others.

    I really really REALLY hope Hillary runs again!!

    It would be the PERFECT book-end to the Dumbocrats totally decimated (AGAIN) by their impeachment failure.. :D

    If there are gods, they would make Hillary the Dim nominee!! :D

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay JL,

    If Hillary is the nominee, I will release you from your promise to vote President Trump and will allow you to vote for Hillary... :D

    No, no.. Don't thank me.. :D

    The only thing more hilarious than seeing you vote Trump is to see you vote Hillary.. :D

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former CIA officer who's a Democrat says Trump impeachment inquiry setting 'horrific precedent'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-cia-officer-democrat-trump-impeachment

    Apparently, not ALL who work for the CIA are scum-sucking Trump/America haters...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    The impeachment inquiry set in motion by House Democrats this week is setting a "horrific precedent" and the whistleblower must testify before Congress, former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright argued on "Fox & Friends" Friday.

    Wright, a Democrat, noted that the inspector general for the intelligence community found that the whistleblower showed indications of "political bias" and was "in favor of a rival political candidate." He said the whistleblower relied on secondhand information about Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine and relied on other sources who also may have political biases.

    "Now the American people are being told we're going to impeach the president ... but guess what America, you can't ask any questions of any of these people because they have certain protections," Wright said. "That's a sham; that doesn't make any sense. That is an effort ultimately to kneecap ... the president of the United States. This president or any other president, it is a horrific precedent."

    Democrats want to hide the identity of this so-called "whistle blower"...

    Democrats want to hide the identities of the alleged "people" who told this so-called "whistle blower" these things..

    Democrats want to nullify a free, fair, legal, democratic and CONSTITUTIONAL election and they want to use secret testimony from anonymous individuals to do it.

    It simply WILL NOT be allowed to happen..

    It's that simple...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    "This isn't about trying to get facts. We've already decided, as a partisan Democratic Party. I'm sorry to say, we've already decided we have to get rid of the president. We're moving forward with it, irrespective of facts. That is clear."
    -Former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright

    THAT is how it's done.. Public TRANSPARENT on the record statements.. Not anonymous bullshit without a glint of supporting fact...

    Democrats have NO FACTS to support ANY of their claims..

    And they won't even publicly identify the people who are feeding them this bullshit..

    Here's the message, Dumbocrats, from REAL and PATRIOTIC Americans.. Publicly identify ALL Of the people making these claims or shut the frak up and go home..

    Anyone who accepts these claims at face value has NO RIGHT to call themselves an American..

    It's really THAT simple..

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maher warns anti-Trumpers about 'whistleblower' hype: 'I wouldn't get my hopes up'
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-warns-anti-trumpers-over-whistleblower-hype-i-wouldnt-get-my-hopes-up

    This coincides with the "OFFICIAL" Weigantian position that it is a virtual certainty that President Trump will remain in office..

    Now, of course, all Trump/America haters in here will now back-pedal and claim that they never believed impeachment would remove Trump from office..

    As I have said.. Ya'all are so incredibly predictable.. :D

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Real Time" host Bill Maher offered a grim forecast for those who believe the "whistleblower" controversy will lead to the impeachment of President Trump.

    On Friday's edition of his show, Maher expressed his doubts that the controversy will lead to Trump's removal from the Oval Office.

    "A lot of people today were saying, 'We got him!' you know, like I've never heard that before," Maher said during the show's panel-discussion segment. "'Because this is different, because there's a bribe involved -- maybe."

    "I wouldn't get my hopes up," he added. "Maybe you can convince me this is going to be different. ... Right now, I don't think so."

    This is simply going to be another Mueller report.. You democrats get all your hopes up, you get hysterical and FRENZY'ed about it..

    And then it is all dash'ed to the ground and yer left with nothing but my laughter echo'ing forever in your ears.. :D

    And, what's more, President Trump will use the Senate acquittal to PROVE he has been completely and utterly exonerated.. And it will be factually accurate..

    And, once again, democrats will be demoralized and decimated. Dumbocrats lucked out in 2018 that the Mueller report hadn't been released.. If the report had been released in Apr of 2018 instead of 2019, Dumbocrats would have been UTTERLY demolished in the 2018 mid-terms.

    So, it will be in the 2020 elections.

    With the albatross of ANOTHER failure around their necks, ANOTHER total beat down at the hands of President Trump, ANOTHER humiliating loss...

    Dumbocrats will be lucky to be elected county dog catcher..

    And I'll be around to point out how wrong ya'all were..

    AGAIN.. :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    The HBO star then pointed to the Russia investigation report by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller -- and slammed Democrats for being the "super-indulgent parent who never disciplined the kid who now can get away with anything."

    "Now that all this time has passed and they didn't get him for this, and this, and this, and this... It just looks like, 'Oh, this is a roadshow version of Russia. We couldn't get him on Russia. ... Ah, we'll try the next country over, Ukraine.' That's what this looks like," Maher continued.

    "In the last debate, Democrats didn't talk about the economy at all. Didn't talk about the economy! I think that's what the voter is going to say. It's like, 'You guys are obsessed with this and you're f----- bad at it, and you're not talking about what matters to me! I'm worried about the end of the month, not the end of the world.'"

    Democrats.. Never miss a chance to step on their own dicks.. :D

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ed Henry challenges Dem lawmaker on Trump impeachment push in fiery exchange
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-inquiry-john-garamendi-democrats-trump-henry

    Democrats don't like it when their bullshit is exposed... :D

  107. [107] 
    dsws wrote:

    Terrifying Scenario (1): the House impeaches Trump and Mitch McConnell decides that he's just not going to hold a trial in the Senate.

    He certainly wouldn't hold a real trial. But some sort of festival of bogus exoneration seems more likely than not having a "trial" at all.

    In previous impeachments, the House has provided the prosecution. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says they have to be given that opportunity. The Senate makes the rules of its own proceedings, and trying impeachments is a Senate proceeding. Let's suppose the House does vote articles of impeachment. Before the "trial" begins, the Senate will adopt rules that give John Roberts about about as much control over the chamber as Biden had in 2015 when he was president of the Senate.

    There will be no role for the House, for any outside expert who might show an flicker of independence, or for the House minority. The proceedings will focus entirely on whether Joe Biden's crimes in the Ukraine were dire enough to warrant everything our Dear Leader did. The preordained conclusion will be that yes, Biden was such a rat that hanging's too good for him, and the Dear Leader is to be praised for his restraint and moderation in handling the situation.

    The Senate does indeed have the power to bar someone from ever holding office again, but they could only do this if they voted to remove Trump from office

    I'm not sure the Constitution is clear on this point. Judgment in cases of impeachment can include disqualification. But could impeachment proceed, for purposes of disqualification, if the impeached official resigned to avoid removal? It seems to me as though the most natural answer is yes, an impeached official can be disqualified even if they resign.

    This is documented collusion between the president's campaign and a foreign power to get dirt on his political opponent in the 2020 election.

    So? No one who voted for putting babies in cages, bragging about sexual assault, constant lying, race baiting, violating the freedom of religion of US citizens who travel abroad and want to come home, stealing from veterans for his vanity project, inciting his followers to violence, and so on -- no one who voted for all that is going to have any problem with some technicalities in how he worked with our allies to (as they see it) catch the bad guy.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The whistleblower clearly identifies... the kind of people that he talked to," Garamendi said. "And apparently, this is an assumption based upon the written testimony from the inspector general, that the inspector general collaborated the information that the whistleblower brought forth -- so the inspector general surely must've talked to one or more of those people."

    Henry, however, further pressed the lawmaker on opening an impeachment investigation prior to receiving a first-hand account of the call.

    "Shouldn't you have had these facts and not had assumptions before you actually move ahead with an impeachment inquiry?" he asked.

    Garamendi assured Henry the facts in the case "will be forthcoming" -- calling the Ukraine matter "clearly a shakedown" later in his interview.

    Democrats don't have a SINGLE FACT to support impeachment.

    All they have is hearsay and bullshit from a KNOWN Trump/America hater...

    But that's good enough for Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS

    No one who voted for putting babies in cages,

    You DO realize you are talking about Democrats, right? :D

    This is documented collusion between the president's campaign and a foreign power to get dirt on his political opponent in the 2020 election.

    So?

    Exactly.. So???

    No one here had a problem with the WELL DOCUMENTED collusion that Hillary had with Ukraine... That Obama had with a Brit and with Russian intelligence..

    Why is collusion with a foreign power ONLY a problem when Trump does it??

    I know, I know... It's a rhetorical question..

    We both know the answer to that..

  110. [110] 
    dsws wrote:

    [45] CW
    85-15% to Trump staying in office. Impeachment fails, one way or another. Trump lives to grift another day.

    That would imply a 25% chance of Trump dying in the next thirteen months. Come on, his health isn't that bad. And there's no way the chance of him leaving office by impeachment or resignation can possibly be higher than negative ten percent.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    That would imply a 25% chance of Trump dying in the next thirteen months.

    Care to show the math on that??

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:
  113. [113] 
    Paula wrote:

    For the sentients among us:

    The Hunter Biden Timeline: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/09/the-hunter-biden-timeline/

    Rightwing character assassins trying to create a scandal out of this are, as usual, 100% full of shit. There's no there there.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the sentients among us:

    The Hunter Biden Timeline: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/09/the-hunter-biden-timeline/

    Mother Jones and "sentients" do NOT belong in the same sentence.. :D

    Rightwing character assassins trying to create a scandal out of this are, as usual, 100% full of shit. There's no there there.

    And yet, CW just gave Hunter Biden a most well-deserved MDDOTW award..

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rightwing character assassins trying to create a scandal out of this are, as usual, 100% full of shit. There's no there there.

    And yet, CW just gave Hunter Biden a most well-deserved MDDOTW award..

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    SO, I guess in your mind, CW is a "rightwing character assassin"..

    CW... Kewl... Did you like, go to school for that?? Did ya get a kewl super duper decoder ring?? :D

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy [30],

    I see that you are a veritable newbie here.

    If you don't like what some commenters are saying here, then try to change the conversation rather than complain about ad infinitum, as so many others here are wont to do.

    You could be part of the solution, you know.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see that you are a veritable newbie here.

    If you don't like what some commenters are saying here, then try to change the conversation rather than complain about ad infinitum, as so many others here are wont to do.

    You could be part of the solution, you know.

    Would that they could, Liz.. Would that they could..

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And yet, CW just gave Hunter Biden a most well-deserved MDDOTW award..

    Nice, but you didn't answer the question implied by the timeline. If Hunter Biden wasn't in trouble at Burisma, why is he a part of this? Or does your side just take after anyone with a well-known name?

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice, but you didn't answer the question implied by the timeline.

    The mere fact that it's "implied" PROVES it's not factual...

    And, it's MOTHER JONES for christ's sake!!! DUU...

    If Hunter Biden wasn't in trouble at Burisma, why is he a part of this?

    If he wasn't in any trouble why was Shorkin preparing to interview him??

    Hunter Biden is a shit, a crook and a druggie.. The FACT that he has made tens of millions off the Biden name is sufficient...

    No "character assassination" is possible because it's OBVIOUS to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Hunter Biden HAS no character..

    The fact that he has a -D after his name is sufficient for you to worship him.. :eyeroll:

  120. [120] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The mere fact that it's "implied" PROVES it's not factual

    ???!!

    If he wasn't in any trouble why was Shorkin preparing to interview him??

    Was he? For what? Under what investigation?

    The timeline says that Shorkin wasn't planning to investigate him, and that this is all bullshit.

  121. [121] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Let me help: (from Wikipedia)

    Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    The mere fact that it's "implied" PROVES it's not factual

    ???!!

    I am not surprised you can't fathom the meaning. :D

    Was he? For what? Under what investigation?

    We'll never know now, will we...

    Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.

    Let me help..

    Shorkin himself relayed that he was preparing to interrogate Hunter Biden when he was fired.

    My first person account trumps your 3rd person hearsay..

    The timeline says that Shorkin wasn't planning to investigate him, and that this is all bullshit.

    Which, because it's Mother Jones, we KNOW it's bullshit.

    And we come full circle..

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not surprised you can't fathom the meaning. :D

    Let me help..

    Based on all your rantings here, it's implied that you are a moron..

    Does that mean, it's FACTUAL that you are a moron??

    Of course not..

    Implied != fact

  124. [124] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [116]

    Elizabeth Miller of course you're right. I'm a Liberal so I'm supposed to be better than to mock some poor working stiff in Moscow.

  125. [125] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.

    Shorkin himself relayed that he was preparing to interrogate Hunter Biden when he was fired.

    My first person account trumps your 3rd person hearsay..

    But my third person documents trump your first person account three years after his firing.

    And I've heard people say that Biden was "doing the bidding of the international community" when he insisted that the prosecutor go.

    Are you saying that the "international community" was wrong?

  126. [126] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    (Wikipedia)

    Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings. However, Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation. . .provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.

  127. [127] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Victor Shokin was fired because he was incompetent.

    It was not because he "investigated" or was about to investigate Biden's son.

  128. [128] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    (Wikipedia)

    Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victor Shokin was fired because he was incompetent.

    That's funny.. Because everyone else says he was fired for corruption..

    You people REALLY need to get yer bullshit straight..

    WIKIPEDIA is your source???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And I've heard people say that Biden was "doing the bidding of the international community" when he insisted that the prosecutor go.

    Irrelevant..

    It's STILL quid pro quo..

    Even if it were factually accurate (which it's not) it's completely irrelevant..

    Further?? Why hasn't Obama stepped up and backed Biden???

    Because even OBAMA knows that it was JUST to save Hunter Biden from going to jail..

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller of course you're right. I'm a Liberal so I'm supposed to be better than to mock some poor working stiff in Moscow.

    Any FACTS to support your bullshit claims??

    No??

    What a SHOCKER.. :D

    Son, I was fight Russians on the world battlefield while you were in diapers..

    So, take your America hating bullshit... And shove it..

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how no one can address this point..

    Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

    Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

    Why did the Trump/America haters in the intel community secretly lower the standards for whistle-blowing to include hearsay claims UNSUPPORTED BY FACT..

    To make it easier for Trump/America haters to attack President Trump behind a wall of anonymity....

    This coup has been planned for a long time..

  132. [132] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Irrelevant..

    Of course you deem the international community irrelevant.

    It's STILL quid pro quo..

    Of the type that presidents and their allies do all of the time. What it wasn't was a demand that the foreign country begin an investigation into his political rival.

    Why hasn't Obama stepped up and backed Biden?

    A good and timely question. I suppose that's next.

  133. [133] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why hasn't Obama stepped up and backed Biden?

    One answer would be that he did..at the time that it happened.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    False Testimony

    Sworn statements at a recent congressional hearing on policing veered sharply from the truth: here are the facts.
    https://www.city-journal.org/police-shootings-racial-bias

    Democrats LYING about the facts!!?????

    Say it ain't so!! :eyeroll:

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    One answer would be that he did..at the time that it happened.

    Even if factually accurate (as per your usual, you have no facts) that was then and this is now..

    Even CW comments on how Obama has remained silence and it's relevant to the here and now...

    I simply provide the reason WHY Obama is remaining silent.

    Because he KNOWS that Biden went off script to protect his son with the quid pro quo extortion to Ukraine..

    Do you have any FACTS to dispute my claim??

    No?? Of course you don't..

    Then my claim stands as valid.. :D

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course you deem the international community irrelevant.

    Only the Trump/America hating international community..

    Of the type that presidents and their allies do all of the time. What it wasn't was a demand that the foreign country begin an investigation into his political rival.

    Again.. IRRELEVANT..

    It's QUID PRO QUO..

    Something YOU claim to be against.. When it's a DUMBOCRAT who is doing it..

    We are talking Quid Pro Quo.. Period..

    WHY or WHEN is irrelevant..

    You fully support it when a guy with a -D after his name does it.

    You hysterically are against it when a guy named President Trump does it.

    That makes you a hypocrite and a Party slave and simply not worth listening to or taking seriously..

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

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Something YOU claim to be against.. When it's a DUMBOCRAT who is doing it..

    oops.. Got ahead of myself there..

    You claim that quid pro quo is PERFECTLY acceptable when a Dumbocrat does it.. You are just against it when a guy named President Trump does it..

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why hasn't Obama stepped up and backed Biden?

    A good and timely question. I suppose that's next.

    "Next"??

    The polls are decimating Biden.. This has been going on over a week..

    What's Odumbo waiting for??

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy...

    You ever notice??

    You put yer head up..

    I bitch slap you to hell ..

    And then you run away...

    Why is that???

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either you are against Quid Pro Quo by the US government or your not..

    Anything else is simply Party slavery at work and it can be safely written off as that with NO MEANING whatsoever..

    It's really THAT simple

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww righty....

    It's quitting time.. My lovely wife owns me now.. :D

    I'll be back to bitch slap ya'all tomorrow early AM.. :D

  142. [142] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Son, I was fight Russians on the world battlefield while you were in diapers..

    Was this before or after you were fight crime as a commissioned law enforcement officer? Anyone who’d steal the honor of those who serve and protect our communities as LEO’s wouldn’t have too far to stoop to steal the honor of those that actually served in the armed forces!

    Binge watching Law & Order doesn’t make you a LEO. Playing Call of Duty doesn’t make you a veteran. Lying about your service history does make you an asshole!

  143. [143] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's QUID PRO QUO..

    Something YOU claim to be against.. When it's a DUMBOCRAT who is doing it..

    You're missing the point. Quid Pro Quo's exist in plenitude in the international world.

    What doesn't often exist is the QPQ: you dig up dirt on my opponent, and I'll give you what you want. As we've gone round and round, under US law, that's illegal.

    Moreover, he was clearly meaning "dirt", since there would be little other reason to investigate.

    And bringing up "Crowdstrike" was akin to asking them to do Russia's dirty work for them.

    One has to wonder what Zelensky and the Ukrainians make of all this, unofficially.

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    MtnCaddy [38] - Now there's an interesting idea. For now, comments just alternate colors, but I'm always open to suggestion...

    Actually, bad idea.

    But, if you're going to do it, then you can go ahead and make mine a paler shade of aubergine.

  145. [145] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    This week's talking points are unique as well, because instead of seven discrete talking points, the entire rant is essentially devoted to one single word. You can probably guess what it is, from this week's column title.

    Points? No...wait, Talking!? Oh....collusion! That was gonna be my next guess....after Friday’s.

    I have to disagree with your suggestion that Democrats start using collusion to describe Trump’s crimes. A couple of reasons why:

    1. Democrats have already argued that collusion isn’t a criminal charge in response to Trump’s non-stop claim that the Mueller report had cleared him of collusion. For Democrats to start using “collusion” at this point, it would provide Republicans an legitimate defense for calling Democrats “hypocrites” that actually had merit.

    Why give them something they can actually use to deflect?

    2. Using “collusion” makes it look like the Democrats are still arguing the Russian interference. This, again, will work to the Republicans’ advantage in convincing the public to ignore this new and separate criminal act by the President.

    I prefer focusing on using “conspiracy” or “cover-up” — both are accurate and more precise.

    Also, why hasn’t anyone asked why if what Hunter Biden did years ago was so bad, then why are we allowing Trump’s family to do it now? Trump’s business has secured multiple loans since he won the presidency; his daughter had Chinese trade marks for her clothing line fast tracked and approved just after Trump chose not to sanction Chinese electronics maker, ZTE; and Kushner’s family secured a huge financial bailout from a foreign bank right after Trump took office. These are ones that I can recall off the top of my head...there are a lot more that I don’t remember all the details of that I didn’t list.

    Hunter was hired to be on the board of a foreign oil company — presumably because his last name would bolster the company’s credibility. That isn’t a crime...and unless anyone has proof that the company used his relationship to his father being VP inappropriately on behalf of the company, there is nothing there.

    Lastly, the Trump Whitehouse released this extremely damaging rough transcript of the phone call with the Ukrainian president on their own. As bad as this version makes Trump appear, we shouldn’t forget that they did withhold portions of the call from being released. These hidden portions are undoubtedly far more damning — if that is possible...honestly, at this point, the only thing that could make this call any worse for him is if Trump actually used the term “quid pro quo” to make sure the Ukrainians understood what he was asking of them!

    Cue the, “He was joking!” defenses!

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Better than talking points and rants, in this case, is just distilling everything down to just one sentence …

    President Trump asked a personal favour of the Ukrainian government which was to help him win the 2020 election by discrediting, through innuendo and lies, the Democrat most likely to be his political opponent.

    I would wager that most American voters can see corruption all over that Trumpian conduct and would wish to see and end to it.

  147. [147] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [142]

    ListenWhenYouHear do you mean Michale is the fake LEO you've been bagging on?

  148. [148] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [147]

    If so, my bad! I thought for sure this guy is a Russian tweaker-troll.

    My apologies to all the Mikhails and Mishas out there - apparently this guy is an Americam tweaker-troll.

  149. [149] 
    dsws wrote:

    Care to show the math on that??

    I interpreted CW's 85 15 thing as saying that there's an 85 percent chance of Trump finishing his term, and fifteen percent chance that he won't. He can't leave office both by being removed and by dying, and probabilities of mutually exclusive events add. That is, the probability of leaving early is just the sum of the two probabilities. CW said (as I interpreted it) that the total is fifteen percent. The chance that the partisan Senate would remove him is at most negative ten percent, so to add up to positive fifteen, the other one has to be at least positive twenty five.

  150. [150] 
    dsws wrote:

    President Trump asked a personal favour of the Ukrainian government which was to help him win the 2020 election by discrediting, through innuendo and lies, the Democrat most likely to be his political opponent.

    True.

    I would wager that most American voters can see corruption all over that Trumpian conduct and would wish to see and end to it.

    Most Americans don't want to see the beginning, middle, OR end. Close your eyes tight enough, and you can avoid seeing any of it. As I estimate it, about twenty percent of Americans are Democrats, twenty percent Republicans, five percent independents, and fifty-five percent are apolitical. Even if all the independents want to see an end to it, that still leaves seventy-five percent who want to never see the problem in the first place.

  151. [151] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Did the White House Hide a Bombshell Memo From Mueller?

    Oh, this is so sweet that it has to be fattening!

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/white-house-hide-memo-trump-meeting-russia-sergei-lavrov-robert-mueller.html

  152. [152] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy [147]

    ListenWhenYouHear do you mean Michale is the fake LEO you've been bagging on?

    The one and only...thank goodness! He’s a troll for every occasion and every season!

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Isn't this different? Are the old assumptions still in play?

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This comments section is NOT ABOUT MICHALE.

  155. [155] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    to be fair, this comments section is about 50% michale by volume.

    JL

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    and almost another 50% by asinine responses

    If they can't respond to Michale in an intelligent manner then it would be best for this site if they would just ignore him

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Either you are against Quid Pro Quo by the US government or you're not..

    "The world's not black and white; it's gray, [my friend]!"

    Biden et al.'s quid-pro-quo = good

    Trump's quid-pro-quo = bad

    And, it has nothing to do with the D's and R's but rather with substance and motivation.

  158. [158] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [152]

    This is just too rich! Toooo rich.

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear do you mean Michale is the fake LEO you've been bagging on?

    As usual, Russ has absolutely NO FACTS to back up his claims.

    He just spews it because he thinks it bothers me.. But the hysterical bullshit rants of a cockholster are simply amusing to me..

    I have known CW and been part of his blogging experience for going on 16 years now..

    My LEO/Military/Security experience has been well-documented in that 16 years.

    Russ is an idiot.. Nothing more..

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    This comments section is NOT ABOUT MICHALE.

    When no one has any FACTS to counter my facts.... This comments section is ALWAYS about Michale..

    It's standard ignoramus behavior.. When you can't attack the message... Attack the messenger..

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Biden et al.'s quid-pro-quo = good

    Trump's quid-pro-quo = bad

    That's exactly what *I* have been saying.. :D

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    I interpreted CW's 85 15 thing as saying that there's an 85 percent chance of Trump finishing his term, and fifteen percent chance that he won't. He can't leave office both by being removed and by dying, and probabilities of mutually exclusive events add. That is, the probability of leaving early is just the sum of the two probabilities. CW said (as I interpreted it) that the total is fifteen percent. The chance that the partisan Senate would remove him is at most negative ten percent, so to add up to positive fifteen, the other one has to be at least positive twenty five.

    Thanx for clearing that up.. :D

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    With Biden Damaged And Warren Surging, Could Hillary Clinton Still Enter The Presidential Race?

    Just a few weeks ago, it seemed exceedingly unlikely that Hillary Clinton would enter the race for the White House in 2020. But now the Biden campaign is deeply struggling, and the constant focus that the impeachment inquiry is putting on his son’s dealings in Ukraine has already significantly damaged his chances. Joe Biden’s numbers are sliding nationally, and in the early voting states they are really starting to plunge. The only thing that made him a strong candidate in the first place was the fact that he was Barack Obama’s vice-president for eight years, and unfortunately for Biden his weaknesses are really being exposed over course of this campaign. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren has been surging nationally, and she is now in first place in several of the early voting states. This has put the Democratic establishment in panic mode, because it now looks like Warren has a really good shot of actually beating Biden. But none of the other establishment candidates have been able to maintain any sort of traction whatsoever, and at this point none of them are even close to double digits in the major national polls. So that means that establishment Democrats need a savior, and it turns out that “savior” could end up being Hillary Clinton.
    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/with-biden-damaged-and-warren-surging-could-hillary-clinton-still-enter-the-presidential-race

    O M G wouldn't this just be the PERFECT bookend to the 2016 election??? :D

    Could this ACTUALLY come to pass!!??? :D

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtcCaddy

    I have known CW and been part of his blogging experience for going on 16 years now..

    My LEO/Military/Security experience has been well-documented in that 16 years.

    I am also constrained to point out that I have been, by far, the largest donor to CW, $$$-wise in the past 13 years.

    "You should... show me some respect.."
    -Castiel, SUPERNATURAL

    If so, my bad! I thought for sure this guy is a Russian tweaker-troll.

    Nice to see that you can concede you were full of shit..

    There MAY be hope for you yet...

    "No, not really. I can't back that up."
    -Dr Evil

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to disagree with your suggestion that Democrats start using collusion to describe Trump’s crimes. A couple of reasons why:

    1. Democrats have already argued that collusion isn’t a criminal charge in response to Trump’s non-stop claim that the Mueller report had cleared him of collusion. For Democrats to start using “collusion” at this point, it would provide Republicans an legitimate defense for calling Democrats “hypocrites” that actually had merit.

    TRANSLATION: Michale is dead on ballz accurate when he states that it's blatant hypocrisy to claim NOW collusion is a crime, when just a few months back, we'all were screaming to the high heavens that collusion is NOT a crime...

    Thank you, Russ.. I accept your concession. :D

    It's also important to note that hypocrisy amongst Democrats is so obvious and pervasive, one could say with complete factual accuracy that hypocrisy is a defining trait of being a Democrat..

    Thank you again for your concession, Russ.. :D

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    to be fair, this comments section is about 50% michale by volume.

    Only 50%!? Shirley, you jest... :D

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they can't respond to Michale in an intelligent manner then it would be best for this site if they would just ignore him

    Would that they could, Liz.. Would that they could.

    It's a fascinating psychological study...

    They feel they HAVE to bring me down.. They can't do it with FACTS so they have to attack me personally..

    They SCOUR the entire Internet looking to dig up dirt that they hope to use to silence me.

    Now digging up dirt on an opponent in a campaign is rational and logical..

    Digging up dirt on the guy who kicks your ass all the time in a political blog??

    That is the EPITOME of hysterical and irrational behavior...

    I take it as a compliment that they think of me as such an intellectual threat that they will go to such lengths to try and discredit me...

    Of course, they could ALWAYS just counter my claims with facts..

    But, of course, they have no facts to support their dispute of my claims..

    And sometimes, in VERY rare instances, they will be forced to agree that I am dead on ballz accurate. Like Russ did above with the Collusion/Hypocrisy issue.. Like with MtnCaddy and his bullshit accusation that I was a Russian.

    Their concessions and capitulations makes it all worthwhile.. :D

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment now a threat like no other Trump has faced
    https://apnews.com/6f4f4a684812489ab29bd43fb5862111

    What a crock o' BS that is..

    Colluding with the Russians to win the election was a MUCH MORE SERIOUS threat then the hearsay word of some anonymous accuser. Especially when the FACTS clearly prove beyond any doubt that there is no crime or impeachable offense..

    If President Trump had been PROVEN to collude with the Russians to win the election, THAT would have caused Trump's entire base to reconsider their loyalty...

    But this latest bullshit??

    It's nothing..

    Democrats were looking for ANY lame excuse to begin the impeachment process..

    Unlucky for them, the ONLY thing that came down the pipe in the time frame they needed was the lamest of the lame excuses possible..

    This impeachment will serve TWO purposes and two purposes only..

    It will eliminate Joe Biden from the race.

    And it will guarantee a land-slide re-election for President Trump..

    Many Wiegantians here agree with me.. I dare say that the MAJORITY of Weigantians agree with me..

    We only differ on the magnitude of the win.. Not the win itself.. :D

  169. [169] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    113

    The Hunter Biden Timeline: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/09/the-hunter-biden-timeline/

    Nice... thank you!

    Rightwing character assassins trying to create a scandal out of this are, as usual, 100% full of shit.

    Potty mouth! *wink*

    Hugs and hugs. :)

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mike Staffieri, a retiree and Republican who lives just outside of Richmond, Virginia, said Democrats were trying to “throw enough poop at the wall and hope something sticks.”

    On Capitol Hill, some Trump allies concurred, confidently dismissing the impeachment inquiry as just another partisan effort to take down a president who is despised by many Democrats. That rough transcript of a phone call in which Trump presses Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to work with Attorney General William Barr and personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on an investigation into Biden? It’s just Trump being Trump, according to his backers.

    “You’ve heard President Trump talk. That’s President Trump,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

    Mark Updegrove, a presidential historian and president of the LBJ Foundation in Austin, Texas, said it’s that enduring support from Republican lawmakers that currently separates Trump from Richard Nixon, who resigned in the midst of the Watergate impeachment inquiry because his party began to abandon him.

    “The big difference between this and Watergate is that you had both Republicans and Democrats being deeply concerned about the president being involved in criminal wrongdoing,” Updegrove said. “It was a bipartisan effort and you certainly don’t have that here.”

    Yep.. Exactly..

    That is why this impeachment is going to use the Clinton precedent as it's model, not the Nixon precedent.

    The factions today are aligned nearly EXACTLY as they were during the Clinton impeachment.

    And we all know how bad it went for the GOP after their attempt to kill the king..

    It's going to be 10x worse for the Democrats this time around for 2 reasons.

    1. MANY Democrats were morally disgusted with Clinton. They just felt his actions didn't rise to impeachment.. In there here and now, while there are some GOP who are annoyed by President Trump's actions, there is no real moral disgust, except for the very small group of Trump/America haters amongst the GOP..

    2. Clinton's actions were blatant and obviously morally disgusting and violated every #metoo-esque platform of the Democrat Party at the time. If one ignores the hearsay and anonymous sources that Democrats are relying on to make their case, it's clear to the most dullard of Americans that there is no crime here...

    That blatant obviousness explains why the Democrats are speed-impeaching. They are hoping to find some REAL witches before the American people shut the Democrats down...

    The Democrats will fail.. As they have always failed..

    By the end of the Weigantian Fundraiser, it will become blatantly obvious to even the BIGGEST Party slave that Democrats have royally scroo'ed the pooch.. :D

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    "The world's not black and white; it's gray, [my friend]!"

    Very true..

    But SOME THINGS in this world ARE black and white..

    If you assign one set of standards to your opponents and a completely opposite set of standards to your allies, that's blatant hypocrisy..

    Black and white hypocrisy...

    I mean, CW doesn't hand out MDDOTW awards on whim... If he is actually condemning a Democrat, then that MEANS something...

    Hunter Biden's entire life has been one brush with the law after another.. And he has been riding daddy's coat tails the whole time...

    I said this at the outset that this whole sham of the Democrats will hurt Biden more than it will hurt President Trump.

    And, as usual, my prediction has come to pass..

    Biden's approval numbers are plummeting..

    I don't like saying it because I know that Biden doesn't deserve it..

    But those who suffer from HHPTDS only know what thing.. TAKE DOWN TRUMP.. And it doesn't matter WHO is burned or destroyed in pursuit of that single minded goal..

    Biden got in the way of that agenda..

    And he is paying the price..

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    116

    I see that you are a veritable newbie here.

    You and the board troll need to divest yourselves of the ridiculous notion that your tenure on the blog somehow means anything beyond the fact that you're stodgy and antediluvian.

    If you don't like what some commenters are saying here, then try to change the conversation rather than complain about ad infinitum, as so many others here are wont to do.

    You should have taken Elizabeth Miller's advice on this and just skipped his post:

    Why can't people just ignore what they don't want to read here by people they don't like without always making a big issue out of it.

    If you (generic you) can't do that, then you are part of the problem (general disrespect) that plagues this site.

    You could be part of the solution, you know.

    So could you.

    I guess I just don't see the utility in your demand that everyone in the house should ignore an elephant shitting all over the living room floor. :)

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    First rule of being a grammar cop: always check the grammar in your own snide putdowns. Like spelling "describing" correctly, for instance, or recognizing the difference between an apostrophe and a hyphen. Oh, and "never-ending" properly does have a hyphen in it. Sheesh!

    Really??

    THIS is what ya'all are reduced to??

    Grammar-Lame. ON A TWEET!!!????

    Seriously!!?????

    What's next?? Spelling Lames!????

    "Oh how the mighty have fallen."
    -Guinan, STAR TREK TNG, Deja Q

    :^/

    If nothing else proves that Democrats have nothing, it's the fact that Grammar Lames are the latest attack route to President Trump..

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats say White House stonewalling won't drag out inquiry and will boost case for impeachment
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/white-house-stonewalling-democratic-strategy/index.html

    Democrats can say any kind of bullshit they want to..

    But until such time as Democrats PUBLICLY put the alleged whistle-blower AND the people who allegedly told him the things he is spewing, on the stand....

    Until that time, Democrats **HAVE** no case...

    Not a SINGLE subpoena honored until Democrats PUBLICLY put the "whistle blower" and his minions on the stand to be cross-examined..

    Tell Democrats to go pound sand until they bring out their witnesses..

    That should be President Trump's position on this whole sad and bullshit coup....

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    "Secondhand reports are nothing short of hearsay, and are not admissible in court."

    "So what? This isn't the end of the investigation, but the beginning. There is plenty of time for Congress to interview those directly involved and find out exactly what they have to say.

    Then you agree with me..

    You agree that Democrats should MAKE THEIR CASE first, with solid EYEWITNESS 1st-Person cross-examined testimony of every witness to date.

    BEFORE they begin any fishing expedition..

    You agree with that??

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry,"
    -Democrat Moron

    Democrat can make any proclamation they want.

    But, until they actually have a REAL case with REAL 1st person non-hearsay witnesses.

    They don't have shit..

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    142

    Son, I was fight Russians on the world battlefield while you were in diapers..

    Da ya boryus' russkim... and now am the keyboard troll who suck furiously for President Russian Whore who wear diapers. ~ Mike

    Was this before or after you were fight crime as a commissioned law enforcement officer?

    Russ, we too were fight criminal, no?

    Anyone who’d steal the honor of those who serve and protect our communities as LEO’s wouldn’t have too far to stoop to steal the honor of those that actually served in the armed forces!

    Da! And we were fight liar too.

    Binge watching Law & Order doesn’t make you a LEO.

    Da! It only make you spew same television quote over and over like broken plastinka.

    :)

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    The House Intelligence Committee, which is leading the impeachment inquiry for now, is focused on allegations that Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July to initiate an investigation that he thought could benefit his reelection. The panel's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, and other Democrats are signaling they won't put up with efforts to drag out the probe, as the Trump administration has done during its other battles with Congress this year.

    Congress
    If the Trump administration does not comply with their subpoenas and turn over records, House Democrats are considering citing that as part of an article of impeachment on defying congressional subpoenas -- similar to an article against then-President Richard Nixon, Democratic sources say. Schiff is preparing for hearings, subpoenas and depositions as soon as next week as Democrats try to finish the probe this fall.

    Cite away, morons.. Unless you can produce some FACTS that support your case, you don't HAVE a case.. Therefore, since you don't have a case, you have no basis for a subpoena..

    Bring out your "anonymous" sources to be cross-examined..

    THEN we can discuss your baseless subpoenas..

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually kind of hilarious when ya look at it.

    Democrats have absolutely NO CASE on impeachment because they have no facts to support any case..

    Russ, Stig et al have NO CASE on my well-documented military/LEO/security careers spanning over two and a half decades because they have NO FACTS to support any case..

    Funny how Dumbocrats in Congress are just as hysterically stoopid and moronic as Dumbocrats here in Weigantia..

    And, like Dumbocrats in Congress who get their asses slapped down by President Trump every day of the week and twice on Sunday..

    Dumbocrats here in Weigantia get THEIR asses slapped down by your's truly every day of the week and twice on Sunday..

    And lookie here.. Today IS Sunday!! :D

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the White House blocks all their requests, it may only speed up consideration of articles of impeachment, which Democrats are hoping to advance in the House as soon as this fall.

    Good.. Get this lame case over and done with.. The sooner I can start laughing at Dumbocrats and gloating on have bad they got their asses handed to them.

    AGAIN....

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Blathy..

    How's that McGann subpoena coming along??

    Ya read the unredacted Mueller report yet??

    How about President Trump's tax returns?? Able to see them yet?? :D

    heheheheheheehehehehehe

    It's funny how ya'll have LOST at **EVERY** juncture..

    And yet ya'all keep coming back for more.. :D

    "I find that funny.. heh.. But ya'all ain't laughin'..."
    -Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

    I don't blame ya'all.. If I kept getting my ass handed to me day in and day out, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year..

    I probably wouldn't be laughing either..

    I mean.. Look at ya'all.. The people who CONSTANTLY make these comments about me.. Ya'all are wha?? a half dozen people?? A dozen??

    And ya'all's simply CAN'T bring the Alpha Dog down.. :D

    12-1 odds and I am kicking ya'all's ass.. DAILY... **HOURLY**!!! :D

    Like I said..

    I find that funny as hell.. :D

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Little Engine That Couldn’t

    The Democrats think the very fact that a president is impeached is enough tarnish his reputation and diminish his chances of success in the election. Don’t bet on it.
    https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/09/28/the-little-engine-that-couldnt/

    Democrats ignore the ONLY precedent that is similar to the current situation because it doesn't fit their agenda..

    It's obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Democrats will come to regret their current action..

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make ridiculous. Has it happened to the Democrats yet? I think so, yes. I think so.

    “Whistleblower” is already being enrolled in the lexicon of political disasters, and not just on account of pictures of the priapic Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky and featuring a rude joke about “whistleblowers” (“You know how to whistle don’t you? You just put your lips together and blow”).

    No, “whistleblower” has entered the joke book of American politics because of the wild discrepancy between aspiration and reality that it represents.

    Like I have said.. If Democrats actually had ANY facts to support their bullshit claims, then they MIGHT have a chance to actually dent President Trump's armor..

    But Dims have NO facts.. There is simply NO FACT that supports their bullshit claims of crimes or impeachable offenses...

    And THAT is why they will lose...

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just last week, an all-points bulletin was blaring from the Get Trump media and the assorted fantasists in the Democratic Party. “Now we’ve got him, lads. Impeachment is just around the corner.” The New York Times said so. So did CNN and MSNBC. So did Nancy Pelosi, soon-to-be-former speaker of the House. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was so certain of it that he thought he could get away with pretending to read the transcript of Donald Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president while actually just making stuff up.

    Really. There he was, piece of paper in hand, addressing the House Intelligence Committee (and millions of viewers at home), exuding his signature “the-President-is-not-above-the-law-deer-in-the-headlights-automaton” countenance. The whole thing, Schiff said, was a “mafia-like shakedown.”

    “I want you,” he pretended to read, “to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.”

    When it was pointed out that Donald Trump said none of that, Schiff replied that his words—his lies—were a “parody.” Oh.

    Democrats entire existence is a parody.. That is why we have President Trump...

    Because Dumbocrats are not fit to govern...

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    In general, one tends to admire perseverance. We like to think it betokens a certain seriousness of purpose. We remember The Little Engine That Could from our childhood and want to root for the blundering but stalwart underdog. “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.” But in this case, the Democrats are not bringing the Christmas presents of impeachment and the destruction of a duly elected president they dislike to the boys and girls on the other side of the mountain. On the contrary, they are making fools of themselves. What we are seeing unfold before our eyes is not a reprise of The Little Engine That Could but a signal illustration of Chesterton’s observation that madness means “using mental activity so as to reach mental helplessness.”

    THAT describes Demcorats PERFECTLY..

    Mental Helplessness

  186. [186] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Only 50%!? Shirley, you jest... :D

    nope, i counted. as of 154 posts, 74 were yours. maybe you were having a slow day?

    JL

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beginning in 2015 and continuing until the day before yesterday, we had wall-to-wall lies about Donald Trump “colluding” with the Russians. We spent tens of millions of dollars, destroyed countless careers, and came up with zilch. There was no collusion, though not for want of intimidation, fabrication, and round-the-clock hysteria on the part of the media and damaged souls like Bill Kristol, Pastor David Fench, and poor Max Boot, among many others.

    Like so many pseudo-Hamlets, they looked around and decided that “the time is out of joint. O cursèd spite/that ever was I born to set it right.” The problem is, they have no play to catch the conscience of the king. They only have made-up gossip, lies fabricated by people on the payroll of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, hearsay, rumor, innuendo, and hate-inspired fantasy. They brought it to bear against Donald Trump during his campaign and in the first two years of his first term: nada.

    They tried the same thing, twice, against Brett Kavanaugh. Again, nothing, nichts, rien. And now they are trying it yet again against the president.

    As I have said, the Democrats' track record is abysmal....

    EVERY TIME they try to take down President Trump...

    EVERY TIME they fail..

    And EVERY TIME, they scroo themselves over bigtime..

    EVERY..... TIME.....

    Why do Democrats believe THIS time is going to be any different??

  188. [188] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike

    Funny how no one can address this point..

    Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

    Funny how you believe all the right wingnut conspiracy theory bullshit that fits your narrative.

    You know, Mike, when you keep posting bullshit like this, you're only serving to reinforce the idea that you're a fake. Anyone who's served in the military or in the United States government for even a short amount of time have it pounded into their heads that they are required to report any knowledge of wrongdoing to their superiors. This isn't remotely a new concept since it has been law since the Continental Congress of our Founding Fathers:

    It is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge ~ Continental Congress Resolution, July 30, 1778

    This is recognized as the United States' first whistleblowers' protection, and please take specific note of the words "which may come to their knowledge" and lack of any requirement that this knowledge be firsthand.

    A United States asset killed by another asset in a fight witnessed by no one is not able to speak for himself, but if another asset were to later gain second-hand knowledge of the incident, he would be required by longstanding law to report that knowledge up through the requisite chain of command. We the People retain sufficient resources to research multiple claims in order to determine the facts... most particularly when you consider we're dealing with the Intelligence Community as we are in the relevant incident.

    In our most famous whistleblower case of the moment, the IC correctly identified his knowledge as second-hand, but this knowledge he possessed came from multiple sources with first-hand knowledge. It was then incumbent upon the ICIG to determine the validity of his claims by speaking to those who would have first-hand knowledge.

    This procedure would naturally be carried out by the ICIG -- a man appointed by Donald Trump, of course -- to then verify said claims via those with first-hand knowledge. I would wager there are multiple first-hand accounts who can corroborate said claims including multiple "higher ups" in the IC community since Donald Trump's administration is a veritable revolving door of first-hand witnesses:

    * Herb McMaster
    * Dan Coats
    * Sue Gordon
    * John Bolton
    * I could go on

    I will now do you a favor and attach a lengthy but UNCLASSIFIED handout that is given to employees of the United States who are sworn to protect and defend the United States of America and not any mortal, moron, and/or monarch. In it, you will find the passage from the Continental Congress I quoted above and multiple scenarios used to train United States employees regarding their responsibility to report knowledge of wrongdoing:

    https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Whistleblower.PDF

    Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information

    You are now free to stop pretending you were ever a soldier for the United States of America if you keep spewing bullshit that proves you haven't even got the most rudimentary of knowledge regarding reporting requirements... one of the rock-bottom basic skill sets that are given to all employees of the United States.

    Class... Dismissed

  189. [189] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    law of averages? after all, you can fail a thousand times but you only have to succeed once. many on both sides of the aisle genuinely believe that the evidence indicates donald has betrayed the USA. that being the case, it's not a stretch to want to impeach, regardless of whether or not the effort is successful.

  190. [190] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (164)-
    "... I have been, by far, the largest donor to CW, $$$-wise in the last 13 years."

    Considering how many times Pelosi has been given the MIDOTW award when her actions deserve the MDDOTW award and how that is just the tip of the iceberg, I find it difficult to believe you have provided more funding than Pelosi, the DNC or the DCCC.

    But if you are the largest donor it does kind of justify why it is the Michale comments section as you are certainly not getting a good return on your investment in the articles.

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    An unnamed “whistleblower” (personally, I think it is a protégé of John Brennan or possibly Michael Avenatti) cites various rumors he has overheard second- or third-hand, writes it up as an official complaint, and the whole stinking pile of malignant calumny is carefully fed into the Trump outrage machine and takes over the media narrative for a week or so.

    It is impossible to overstate how preposterous the whole whistleblower gambit is. As Sean Davis has pointed out at The Federalist, the “intelligence community” (another phrase that has entered the lexicon of political malfeasance) recently, and secretly, changed the rule that “whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.”

    The new rules, which were made public only after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was released, “eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only heard about [wrongdoing] from others.” Interesting, what?

    Impeachment frenzy cascaded over airwaves and displaced every competing story, even the exploitation of that sick child crusader Greta Thunberg, for about 48 hours. But the floodwaters are rapidly receding and the malodorous muck and detritus that has been left behind are already being subject to the sanitizing scrutiny of people who don’t like being lied to.

    Very interesting how this "Whistle Blower" tried to file a previous complaint, but was stymied by the rules governing the complain process..

    So, the coup backers in the intelligence community simply, and secretly changed the rules governing whistle blowers.

    Perfect and factual evidence to support this being a coup..

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    law of averages? after all, you can fail a thousand times but you only have to succeed once.

    True.. But failing a thousand times, there is no logic or fact to support the idea that you CAN succeed..

    many on both sides of the aisle genuinely believe that the evidence indicates donald has betrayed the USA.

    "And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wagon"
    -Scotty

    The problem is that Democrats think that BELIEF is sufficient and therefore they don't need any facts.

    And THAT is why they always fail..

    that being the case, it's not a stretch to want to impeach, regardless of whether or not the effort is successful.

    The problem with your position is that it ignores the fact that Democrats wanted to impeach even before Trump took office.

    Given that FACT, their desire to impeach has NO factual merit, because it is SOLELY based on hatred and intolerance and bigotry...

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale (164)-
    "... I have been, by far, the largest donor to CW, $$$-wise in the last 13 years."

    Considering how many times Pelosi has been given the MIDOTW award when her actions deserve the MDDOTW award and how that is just the tip of the iceberg, I find it difficult to believe you have provided more funding than Pelosi, the DNC or the DCCC.

    Proportionally speaking, I bet I have.. :D

    But if you are the largest donor it does kind of justify why it is the Michale comments section as you are certainly not getting a good return on your investment in the articles.

    "Good return" is subjective.. :D

    I am, more or less, satisfied with how things go... :D

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    Several of my friends are resigned to the prospect of Trump’s impeachment by the House. There is no question—despite Bill Kristol’s active fantasy life—that the Senate will not muster a two-thirds majority to convict him and remove him from office. But, the Democrats presumably are reasoning, the very fact that a president was impeached would tarnish his reputation and diminish his chances of success in the election.

    I am not at all sure that is correct. It didn’t happen with Bill Clinton. And beyond that, I am not convinced that the move to impeach the president would even garner the requisite 218 votes in the House. Already, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, you can hear the furious sounds of backpedaling as a dim consciousness of what they have done with their impeachment frenzy steals over the reptilian brains of the impeachment choristers.

    I think it's a REAL possibility that Democrats won't be able to muster the votes required to send the impeachment to the Senate..

    And on that glorious day, my gloating and my laughter will be long and heard loudly over ALL of Weigantia.. :D

  195. [195] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    145

    I prefer focusing on using “conspiracy” or “cover-up” — both are accurate and more precise.

    Cover-Up! I like it. *grin*

    Also, why hasn’t anyone asked why if what Hunter Biden did years ago was so bad, then why are we allowing Trump’s family to do it now?

    Yes, and all these years later why did Donald Trump wake up suddenly and decide that Hunter Biden needed to be investigated if he was such a criminal? You don't suppose it had anything to do with the fact that his father -- what's his name -- decided to run for the office of the presidency, do you?

    Trump’s business has secured multiple loans since he won the presidency; his daughter had Chinese trade marks for her clothing line fast tracked and approved just after Trump chose not to sanction Chinese electronics maker, ZTE; and Kushner’s family secured a huge financial bailout from a foreign bank right after Trump took office.

    What the hell is wrong with you, Russ? You keep typing exactly what I'm thinking! ;)

    honestly, at this point, the only thing that could make this call any worse for him is if Trump actually used the term “quid pro quo” to make sure the Ukrainians understood what he was asking of them!

    Okay, you lost me there since Trump would have naturally effed that up and referred to it as "quid pro Joe".

    No quid pro Joe, no quid pro Joe! ~ President Dumbfuckery Moron Putin Whore

    Cue the, “He was joking!” defenses!

    I know, right!? Funny how Trump always says he's joking, but he never laughed after he asked Russia to hack around for emails and even was asked by a reporter if it gave him "pause," to which he replied "no" and was dead serious and wasn't laughing. Also, I didn't see him laughing when he equated the whistleblower with being a spy and talking about handling him old-style. Funny how he wasn't laughing and almost never seems to laugh about any of his verbal diarrhea.

  196. [196] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    146

    President Trump asked a personal favour of the Ukrainian government which was to help him win the 2020 election by discrediting, through innuendo and lies, the Democrat most likely to be his political opponent.

    Exactly this! No "quid pro Joe" required.

    I would wager that most American voters can see corruption all over that Trumpian conduct and would wish to see and end to it.

    On the flip side, there's a whole bunch of them with their heads shoved firmly up into their asses. They are mostly older men with bald heads and no education. :)

  197. [197] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT 196

    Elizabeth Miller
    146

    President Trump asked a personal favour of the Ukrainian government which was to help him win the 2020 election by discrediting, through innuendo and lies, the Democrat most likely to be his political opponent.

    Exactly this! No "quid pro Joe" required.

    I would wager that most American voters can see corruption all over that Trumpian conduct and would wish to see and end to it.

    On the flip side, there's a whole bunch of them with their heads shoved firmly up into their asses. They are mostly older men with bald heads and no education. :)

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it is actually worse than that, much worse. I think Thomas Lifson, writing for The American Thinker, is right. The whoops of the impeachment war dance are echoing in an otherwise silent and most severe chamber. All this frenetic activity—the screaming front-page headlines, the salivating attacks on Trump in the now-routinely anti-Trump Drudge Report—all that, as Lifson says, is but the “prelude to the coming time bombs about to explode in their faces.”

    The bombs in question, Lifson points out, have names: Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general whose report on malfeasance in the FBI and the “intelligence community” is due any day; John Durham, the U.S. attorney looking into the origins of the attempted coup against Donald Trump; and John Huber, the U.S. attorney who is looking into the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page and connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One scandal.

    Those time bombs are indeed ticking, and even the Dems must be able to make out the tick-tick-tick above the fury of their anti-Trump skirling. Some people say that what we are witnessing is just an instance of hardball politics. They hate us, we hate them, let the game begin.

    I think it is much worse than that. There were plenty of hints and adumbrations before, but it really took shape with Donald Trump. What we have seen over the last few years is an effort to render a large part (indeed, a majority) of the electorate illegitimate.

    Donald Trump won the presidency in a free, open, and democratic election. And yet a sliver of the population—the Antifa thugs, the Hollywood brats, the media sissies, the beautiful people with expensive degrees, and, of course, the radical fringe of the Democratic Party—all refused to accept the results of the election.

    It’s not just that they disliked Donald Trump. They declared him illegitimate. By implication, they declared anyone who supported Trump illegitimate, too. In essence, they bowed out of the social compact that underwrote the legitimacy of the American regime.

    They adopted the extreme rhetoric and tactics of revolutionaries. “Jusq’au-boutisme” became their rallying crying: by any means necessary. Whatever it takes to rid the country of the Bad Orange Man—and (often unstated but always implied) his unenlightened supporters, whose lack of enlightenment is guaranteed by their support for a man who is “literally Hitler” etc., etc.

    Which is ironic because MANY Trump/America haters here have stated they would VOTE for Hitler over President Trump..

    Such is the inherent (and hysterical) illogic of their positions..

  199. [199] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    156

    If they can't respond to Michale in an intelligent manner then it would be best for this site if they would just ignore him

    So in your perfect world, the elephant is free to roam freely about the house spewing all kinds of repetitive spew through its blowhole and depositing its repetitive stench while everyone else has to pretend like its not shitting all over the house?

    No effing way, Canada!

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is difficult to take the measure of this political wrecking ball, but of this I am confident. The only thing that might—might—assuage our troubled polity is a systematic exposure of the destructive tactics, motives, and political presuppositions of the anti-Trump onslaught. That exposure will require the candid scrutiny of the law, and anyone who cares about the future of American democracy can be heartened that William Barr is the attorney general. Nancy Pelosi is not, as she floated on Friday, going to be able to impeach him any more than Kamala Harris is going to be able to impeach Brett Kavanaugh.

    What has been happening these last three years is not just an effort to destroy Donald Trump. That, indeed, is merely incidental to the larger project of destroying the fundamental American consensus. I do not think it will succeed. But I am sufficiently disillusioned to realize just how grave a threat these forces pose to what we used to be able to call, without irony, the American dream.

    It's simply astounding how UN-AMERICAN the actions of the Democrats are...

  201. [201] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    159

    My LEO/Military/Security experience has been well-documented in that 16 years.

    So... not just a liar but a liar with no math skills.

    Duly noted.

  202. [202] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    164

    I am also constrained to point out that I have been, by far, the largest donor to CW, $$$-wise in the past 13 years.

    So... not just a liar with no math skills but a liar with no math skills and no class who brags about his donations to other posters. This confirms you're a prat.

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz

    If they can't respond to Michale in an intelligent manner then it would be best for this site if they would just ignore him

    It's just as I say.. They *CAN"T* ignore me.. The FACTS are simply too pervasive and transparent.

    EVERY time they attack me personally, they are simply CONFIRMING the validity and the factual nature of my claims..

    And they don't have any facts of their own to counter my facts..

    So, their ONLY recourse to create a bunch of bullshit claims that they ALSO have no facts for to try and discredit me..

    But they fail at THAT too because my bona fides are too well established and too well documented..

    So, their ONLY recourse??

    Attack my family.. Attack my wife.. Attack my children.. Attack my grandchildren... Make bullshit attacks on THEM and hope it intimidates me. Coerce me into silence..

    I am betting Stig and Russ et all have an entire folder on their computer with files and pictures and documents, all dedicated to attacking my personal life and my children's personal life and even my grandchildren's personal life...

    So I have to ask ya.. Honestly and seriously..

    Someone who goes to SUCH lengths to attack someone and their family?? SOLELY because of political differences???

    How can someone who does something like be ANYTHING BUT sad and pathetic??

    Their actions simply disqualify them from ANY serious consideration or credibility...

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    See what I mean, Liz??

    I am talking politics here and all the morons can come back with is nothing but personal attacks..

    Personal attacks that CONFIRM the validity and factual nature of my claims..

    Every personal attack they make, is basically saying

    "You are dead on ballz accurate, Michale.. I have no facts to counter your claims so I simply resort to immature personal attacks and childish name-calling. I acknowledge your superior intellect"

    So, no matter what.. *I* win.. :D

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Amid the political frenzy, eight keys to the coming Trump impeachment fight
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/eight-keys-to-the-coming-trump-impeachment-fight

    Since the Democrats are insisting on Speed Impeaching, their downfall will come sooner rather than later..

    Culminating in Democrats not having enough votes to send impeachment to the Senate..

    :D

    This will happen before 1 Jan 2020... :D

    And it's gonna be GLORIOUS!!! :D

  206. [206] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    168

    Impeachment now a threat like no other Trump has faced
    https://apnews.com/6f4f4a684812489ab29bd43fb5862111

    What a crock o' BS that is..

    Your spew generally is a "crock o' BS." Nice of you to concede that fact.

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment mania has gone from zero to 60 in record time in Washington. Little more than a week ago, President Trump seemed to have beaten back Democratic efforts to use the Trump-Russia affair to remove him from office. Now, he faces ferocious Democratic efforts to use the Trump-Ukraine affair to remove him from office.

    But facts matter, even in an impeachment frenzy. And what is remarkable is how quickly House Democrats jumped on the impeachment train before knowing some of the basic facts of the Ukraine matter. Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry before the rough transcript of Trump's July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was even released and also before an intelligence community whistleblower's complaint — the document that sparked the entire controversy — was given to Congress or the public. When those documents came out, of course, both sides claimed support for their case.

    Now, there is much more to be learned and issues to be resolved as Democrats go forward with their drive to bring Trump down. Here are eight keys to the future fight:

    That's what is so hilarious about this whole thing.. Democrats screamed IMPEACHMENT before they even KNEW there was a case..

    They are STILL ignorant of whether or not the is a case because they haven't talked to a SINGLE witness...

    Democrats have wanted IMPEACHMENT since even before President Trump took office..

    Given this *fact*, is it THAT far out of the realm of possibility that Democrats simply screamed IMPEACHMENT out of rote, figuring they can just fill in the blanks later??

    "I really hate her.. I'll think of a reason later."
    -Lee Ann Womack

    Democrats just want to IMPEACH.. They'll think of a reason later..

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    On Tuesday, Pelosi made an "address to the nation" on the Ukraine matter. "Today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," the speaker said, adding that she has directed six House committees to go forward with investigations under the "umbrella" of the just-announced inquiry.

    Nowhere in Pelosi's remarks was any indication that she would have the House vote to begin a formal inquiry. That was a break from past presidential impeachments. On Oct. 9, 1998, the House voted 258 to 176 to begin a "broad, open-ended impeachment inquiry," in the words of a New York Times headline. The vote forced lawmakers to make a big decision, even though it was only to start an inquiry, and not to approve any particular articles of impeachment.

    Now, there's been no vote. That might become a problem in coming days when the House seeks to enforce subpoenas in the impeachment investigation. If lawmakers seek to get grand jury information, or to pierce executive privilege, they will be in a stronger position if they are conducting what courts recognize as a "judicial proceeding" — in this case, an impeachment inquiry. But it's not clear whether judges will recognize Pelosi's because-I-say-so inquiry as having the same standing as an inquiry voted on by the entire House.

    What's hilarious is that we don't even HAVE an impeachment yet..

    Just because Pelosi says we do doesn't make it factually accurate..

    The full House must vote for impeachment to officially begin..

    Subpoenas won't be honored and are unenforceable UNTIL the House votes to begin Impeachment..

    So, we might actually see an impeachment vote within weeks instead of at the end of the year as I first thought..

    And, given that Democrats have absolutely NO FACTS and NO WITNESSES available, the Democrat vote to impeach WILL FAIL... :D

    And it's gonna be GLORIOUS!!!! :D

  209. [209] 
    Kick wrote:

    PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

    The President of the United States through his personal lawyer asked the Ukrainian government and President of Ukraine to expend resources to provide information that would be helpful to the President's reelection campaign in disparaging his most likely opponent in the 2020 general election.

    This is illegal under statute no matter how you spin it, and there is absolutely no "quid pro quo" required whatsoever.

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi is said to favor a narrowly focused impeachment based entirely on the Ukraine matter. That would certainly be easier for the House to do quickly, plus it would emphasize the issue that has united the vast majority of House Democrats in favor of impeachment. The problem is, it would ignore the other issues — Russia, emoluments, campaign finance — that Democrats have highlighted in recent months and years. Indeed, Pelosi has authorized the six committees to go forward with inquiries, even though they're not all looking into Ukraine.

    So there is a question whether those committee chairs will be happy to see their impeachment work end up on the cutting room floor as Pelosi and her new favorite chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, move forward with a Ukraine-only impeachment. Nor is it clear whether the Democratic base, which has faced a wrenching emotional adjustment after the failure of the Russia effort, will be satisfied with a singular focus on Ukraine. On the other hand, adding additional areas, and additional articles of impeachment, will slow down what Pelosi wants to be a quick process. At the moment, it is unclear what Democrats will do.

    Pelosi has really scrooed over her caucus... :D

    It's going to be really really FUN to see Democrats scramble when they discover that the so-called whistle blower simply made up all the other so-called "witnesses"..

    Oh the egg on the face and the crow to eat will be hilarious!! :D

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    There have been thousands of references to the "whistleblower" in the past few days. Some news accounts have reported a few things about his identity, most importantly that he is a CIA employee who has been detailed to the White House in the past. But the whistleblower's identity remains a secret.

    That seems unlikely to last. Even a cursory glance at the whistleblower complaint suggests that the whistleblower and his legal team (and, possibly, Democrats on Capitol Hill) carefully planned the complaint campaign. As Washington veterans, they knew, or should have known, that it will be hard for the whistleblower to remain anonymous if a presidential impeachment proceeds based on the whistleblower's account.

    One reason the president's defender's would like to know the whistleblower's identity — and some on the Hill believe they already know — is to examine the question of bias. The intelligence community inspector general, while determining the complaint to be "urgent" and "credible," also noted the presence of "some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate." Republicans will certainly want to look into that. Democrats will dismiss any such claims, saying it doesn't matter what the whistleblower's political convictions are if the information is accurate. But in a full-blown impeachment battle, the whistleblower's politics will almost certainly become part of the fight.

    Yep.. And until we have a REAL official impeachment (which we can't have until Democrats have real actual facts from real actual witnesses) Democrats can take their subpoenas and go pound them up their collective asses.. :D

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the days since the Ukraine story broke, it has become common to hear Democrats and their allies in the press declare definitively that there is "absolutely no evidence" that either Joe Biden or his son Hunter did anything wrong in Ukraine. The implication is that there has been investigation upon investigation, and none found anything amiss in the Bidens' actions.

    Those claims will have to be examined more closely in an impeachment proceeding. After all, if Trump was pointing to a real question of corruption in the Zelensky phone call, that would lend legitimacy to his concerns, even if he stood to benefit politically from an investigation of Biden. At the least, that would make the idea of removing the president from office for those concerns seem ridiculous.

    There appears to be widespread interest among Republicans, House and Senate, in finding out more about the Biden business. In an interview with Hugh Hewitt Wednesday, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said, "Hunter Biden is a key issue here that everyone doesn't want to deal with, and all the Democrats have said that's irrelevant ... We need to actually get any details there, and those details have not come out, to say the least."

    It seems reasonable to expect to expect a fight over the facts of the Biden case. Democrats will argue that the Bidens are totally clean, or mostly clean, or even if they're not clean that their actions are irrelevant. Republicans will try to find inappropriate conduct on the Bidens' behalf and, if possible, use it in the president's defense.

    Joe Biden is already the first casualty of the Democrat witch hunt..

    Hunter Biden is a crook, through and through and will not survive the full force of the US investigative prowess crawling up his ass...

    It's regrettable that Joe Biden is going to suffer humiliation and defeat, but that can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of the Democrat Party...

    And it's not as if Joe Biden went into this blindly..

    Given the depth of hatred and intolerance and bigotry on behalf of the Democrat Party, Joe had to have known he was walking a knife edge..

  213. [213] 
    dsws wrote:

    [153] LizM
    Isn't this different? Are the old assumptions still in play?

    If anything, it's more the same than ever. Most people want politics to go away and not bother them at the best of times, when the statecraft is admirable, the rhetoric beautiful, and the goals uplifting. They're really not going to want to slog through it when it's like this.

  214. [214] 
    Kick wrote:

    Agreement reached for Whistleblower to testify before Congress.

    Well done, Adam Schiff. It's on!

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Could Trump's Impeachment Crisis Push Hillary Clinton to Run in 2020?

    As much as Trump loathes President Obama, it’s Hillary who has been his true foil. A 2016 election 2.0 would be a dream come true for him.
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/could-trumps-impeachment-crisis-push-hillary-clinton-run-2020-84301

    O M G!! Just think of the possibilities..

    Anyone wanna lay any bets on this happening?? :D

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean.. Can it be??

    Can it be that Democrats will be STOOPID enough to nominate Hillary??

    Could Democrats be THAT stoopid? AGAIN???

  217. [217] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!

    EVERY politician of EVERY PARTY, would happily use every possible opportunity to seek "political dirt" on his opponent, from every possible source, foreign and domestic, including old Beelzebub himself.

    Democratics will insist on defining that as being "illegal no matter how you spin it", ('cause you know it's gotta be "a thing of value"), unless of course,it happens to be one of its own doing it.

    They called that on "Russian collusion", promising us Trump haters that we would be rid of the moron, but last I checked, he was still there, inciting trade wars, and generally phuqueing up the whole country.

    But hey, maybe it'll all be Okay, if we can just be patient and "wait for the Mueller Report", Right?

  218. [218] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That sort of nonsense doesn't belong below the intelligent columns presented here on a daily basis.

    Why can't such remarks be kept to the parts of the internet(s) that sort of content?

  219. [219] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Well, this episode isn't complicated unless people want to complicate it.

    I think if people don't lose sight of the fact that President Trump thinks he needs to ask Ukraine for help discrediting his likely opponent in 2020 with outrageously untrue accusations all in an effort to get himself re-elected, then they will pay attention to this and even vote for the first time.

    I think it all depends on how effective the media can be in covering what the president has done.

  220. [220] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Republican representative Jim Jordon on CNN this morning tried to smear the Bidens but it was a piss poor attempt and only succeeded in making himself out to be a first class nutcase.

    Republicans had better come up with someone better than Jordan and something better than some of the quotes in your comments on this issue.

    You just have to understand one piece of this - Biden advocated for firing a Prosecuter General who wasn't doing any corruption investigations and prosecutions whatsoever, including into the Ukraine energy firm, Burisma.

    Biden actually made it more likely that Burisma would be seriously investigated for corruption by having a corrupt prosecutor replaced by someone who actually would do something about corruption and re-open the Burisma investigation.

    I hope you will stop making yourself look like just another Jim Jordan.

  221. [221] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am talking politics here and all the morons can come back with is nothing but personal attacks..

    Seriously, Michale?

    All you have been doing here is making asinine comments about the former vice president which is not what I call "talking politics".

    So, don't come to me for protection.

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CRS,

    PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!

    EVERY politician of EVERY PARTY, would happily use every possible opportunity to seek "political dirt" on his opponent, from every possible source, foreign and domestic, including old Beelzebub himself.

    Democratics will insist on defining that as being "illegal no matter how you spin it", ('cause you know it's gotta be "a thing of value"), unless of course,it happens to be one of its own doing it.

    They called that on "Russian collusion", promising us Trump haters that we would be rid of the moron, but last I checked, he was still there, inciting trade wars, and generally phuqueing up the whole country.

    But hey, maybe it'll all be Okay, if we can just be patient and "wait for the Mueller Report", Right?

    "There you go again..."
    -Saint Ronald Reagan

    Bringing FACTS into a forum that simply refuses to accept them..

  223. [223] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't like saying it because I know that Biden doesn't deserve it..

    You have a very strange way of showing that. :(

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Whatever motivations Biden had for the quid pro quo or extortion actions he took is not relevant to the discussion..

    The fact is, you can't demonize and vilify President Trump for quid pro quo (that never even happened) until you acknowledge and condemn Biden's quid pro quo and extortion..

    The fact that Obama hasn't come to Biden's rescue indicates that Biden went rogue...

    Seriously, Michale?

    All you have been doing here is making asinine comments about the former vice president which is not what I call "talking politics".

    So, don't come to me for protection.

    I think I have aptly proven that your ... "protection" is nothing I desire, call for or even (no offense) need...

    I simply illustrate the FACT that lowlifes here who attack my family, my children, my grandchildren are the problem here..

    Not I.. We all got along just fine before they showed up. That alone proves my point is valid and factually accurate..

    All you have been doing here is making asinine comments about the former vice president which is not what I call "talking politics".

    Yea?? And ya'all making asinine comments about our current President IS politics?? :D

    Once again, the double standard rears it's beautiful and glamorous head.. :D

  225. [225] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, the double standard argument is such an easy one to make. You don't have to worry about what is true or what is false and you can say anything you want without thinking.

    I never make that argument.

  226. [226] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The fact that Obama hasn't come to Biden's rescue indicates that Biden went rogue...

    Well, that's wild speculation. Stick to facts.

    There are any number of reasons that we haven't heard from Barack Obama including, "he's a big boy."

  227. [227] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is easier to be silent.

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So far on this issue, Biden has also been silent, for all intents and purposes.

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, the double standard argument is such an easy one to make.

    Don't blame me ya'all got low hanging fruit..

    The double standard argument is all that is needed.. It proves that the ONLY thing here at work is a partisan agenda..

    Well, that's wild speculation. Stick to facts.

    If it is, it's also CWs speculation.. He was the first one to bring it up..

    Speculation based on FACTS is nothing to be ashamed of..

    So far on this issue, Biden has also been silent, for all intents and purposes.

    Well, that's to be expected..

    If yer explaining, yer losing..

    It is easier to be silent.

    If I longed for "easy" I wouldn't be here.. :D

    "TO THE JOURNEY"
    -Ensign Harry Kim

    :D

  230. [230] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that's to be expected..

    I don't expect that. I hope he doesn't think like you do and that explaining what actually took place is akin to having already lost the nomination.

    You know, the Republicans have a legitimate like of inquiry here, but it isn't the integrity of Joe Biden.

  231. [231] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're at 230 comments now and there is still a lot of time left for the thread.

    What do y'all say that we keep the rest of the conversation to the subject at hand while keeping the personal attacks to zero.

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    But ya gotta see, Liz..

    Isn't it fun to have these discussions, these back and forths without any of the hatred and hostility and personal attacks??

    That's what I miss from the old Weigantian of 10-12 years ago...

    How it's just all hatred and bile.. :(

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do y'all say that we keep the rest of the conversation to the subject at hand while keeping the personal attacks to zero.

    I am all for that.. We'll see if others can do the same.. :D

  234. [234] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't wait for others, Michale. Between the two of us, we can be the change we seek!

    Starting with, if you think former vice president Biden doesn't deserve these outrageously untrue attacks, then say why you think that

    You probably already read what I had to say about the MDDOTW award. If Republicans want to make hay on this, then they could make some legitimate arguments. But, seriously, I don't think many of them are even capable of making cogent arguments, about this or any other issue because that is their track record.

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer Brian Mulkeen
    New York City Police Department, New York
    End of Watch: Sunday, September 29, 2019

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak...
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  236. [236] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The few?

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Starting with, if you think former vice president Biden doesn't deserve these outrageously untrue attacks, then say why you think that

    Honestly?? I think what Biden did was politics as usual with a little bit of fading the heat for his son thrown in because.. well.. it's HIS SON...

    By that same vein, what President Trump did was normal politics with a bit of collusion thrown in..

    No big deal..

    If Democrats want to make a mountain out of a mole hill, then they need to be consistent and logical about it.

    Otherwise, it's nothing more than a partisan agenda that is a detriment to this country..

    If Republicans want to make hay on this, then they could make some legitimate arguments.

    The "legitimate" arguments have already been made by Democrats when they attacked Don Jr for similar activities..

    Again, if Democrats want to complain about Don Jr's activities they have to accept the complaints about Hunter Biden's activities..

  238. [238] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, Irony!

    I find it deliciously ironic that in their efforts to create a Cover-Up for Benedict Donald, the co-conspirators decided to sequester the documents that could implicate Trump in the penultimate code-word classified intelligence system that can only be accessed by a small number of persons and cannot be erased and/or manipulated in any way without a record of who did it. *laughs*

  239. [239] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    By that same vein, what President Trump did was normal politics with a bit of collusion thrown in..

    No big deal..

    No, not for the guy that screamed "no collusion" all through the Mueller investigation...

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, not for the guy that screamed "no collusion" all through the Mueller investigation...

    For which Mueller confirmed EXACTLY that..

    In other words, ALL of ya'all were wrong and President Trump was factually accurate..

    :D

  241. [241] 
    Kick wrote:

    I also don't remember any Republicans whining incessantly and insisting that Linda Tripp wasn't a firsthand witness to the myriad of accusations she relayed regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

    Linda spoke to Monica in the same way that this Whistleblower spoke to multiple of Trump's closest advisors, and there are multiple of them because:

    * Trump goes through them like toilet paper, and that's on Trump and no one else.

    * They took an oath to the United States of America and not Donald Trump, and they are concerned about the repeated corruption and/or violations of statute they are seeing committed by the POTUS, and that too is on Trump and no one else.

    So pay no attention to all the bullshit about firsthand or secondhand knowledge and the utter asinine proclamations spewing forth from the White House designed to distract and muddy the waters because the president has already admitted to what he did and also helpfully released a transcript that corroborates nicely with exactly what the Whistleblower reported. I would wager it's the tip of the iceberg regarding what's coming via the testimony of the Whistleblower's sources who are no different than Linda Tripp who sure shit wasn't in the room with Bubba and Monica.

    Add all that to Trump's repetitive and multiple obstruction of Congress's investigations that just further adds additional impeachable offenses... so all those righties who were laughing repeatedly about the obstruction by Trump and their gleefully begging for impeachment of Donald Trump for said multiple abuses of power as if he were a king... well, they just got exactly what they kept asking for.

    Funny how they're not laughing anymore.

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Schiff said that the agreement with the whistleblower and his or her lawyers has been settled and that there are precautions being taken to protect the identity of the person amid the criticism from Trump and his allies.

    So, it's going to be ANONYMOUS sources that fuel this Impeachment agenda..

    It won't pass the House then..

    The whistle blower AND all of his alleged "witnesses" must be identified.. They have to stand up and face the American people and tell their story..

    Anything less and this impeachment of President Trump won't be legal or accepted by the American people..

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I really hope you answer this one because it could eliminate hundreds and hundreds of comments down the road..

    "Secondhand reports are nothing short of hearsay, and are not admissible in court."

    "So what? This isn't the end of the investigation, but the beginning. There is plenty of time for Congress to interview those directly involved and find out exactly what they have to say.

    OK... OK....

    So, let me ask you...

    What if it IS at the **END** of the this investigation??

    Would you accept an impeachment as legitimate if it SOLELY depends on anonymous and 3rd person hearsay evidence???

    Or do you believe, as I do, that the whistle blower and his alleged "witnesses" must be identified and be on the record before ANY impeachment can proceed??

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrr....

    CW,

    I really hope you answer this one because it could eliminate hundreds and hundreds of comments down the road..

    "Secondhand reports are nothing short of hearsay, and are not admissible in court."

    "So what? This isn't the end of the investigation, but the beginning. There is plenty of time for Congress to interview those directly involved and find out exactly what they have to say.

    OK... OK....

    So, let me ask you...

    What if it IS at the **END** of the this investigation??

    Would you accept an impeachment as legitimate if it SOLELY depends on anonymous and 3rd person hearsay evidence???

    Or do you believe, as I do, that the whistle blower and his alleged "witnesses" must be identified and be on the record before ANY impeachment can proceed??

  245. [245] 
    Kick wrote:

    I keep hearing people whining about Hunter Biden working for a company in the Ukraine where his father made executive decisions.

    Meanwhile Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are both actually part of the United States government where their father-in-law and father are making decisions while they're gleefully doing business in multiple countries where they father is definitely making policy.

    Why all the kerfuffle about Hunter Biden working for a company in another country while Jared and Ivanka are affecting policy and doing business right alongside the President of the United States where Trump is doing business as usual? If you don't care that Donald and Ivanka and their ilk are getting paid every time foreign diplomats stay at their hotels and taking taxpayers' dollars for their stays at their own properties worldwide right now as we "speak," then why are you so all of a sudden concerned that Hunter Biden worked for a private company in the Ukraine circa 2015?

    If you think the Vice President's son shouldn't be working for a private company in a country where his father made policy, what would you think if Hunter Biden worked for Biden Company Properties all over the world who also gleefully accepted the taxpayers' money?

    Where is your outrage about Donald Trump and his multiple children working for the United States government while doing business worldwide and having a hotel in Washington, DC and properties all over the world where they accept money from foreigners globally and are routinely paid via taxpayers' dollars?

    Hunter Biden worked for a private company. Meanwhile, multiple of the Trumps are working directly in our government and are daily in violation of the emoluments clause right now.

    Oh, where is your outrage?

  246. [246] 
    Paula wrote:

    [245] Kick:

    If you think the Vice President's son shouldn't be working for a private company in a country where his father made policy, what would you think if Hunter Biden worked for Biden Company Properties all over the world who also gleefully accepted the taxpayers' money?

    Where is your outrage about Donald Trump and his multiple children working for the United States government while doing business worldwide and having a hotel in Washington, DC and properties all over the world where they accept money from foreigners globally and are routinely paid via taxpayers' dollars?

    Yep, where is the outrage? The Repubs r going after HRC AGAIN over her emails - while they have nothing to say about the wholesale abuse of security by not just Blotus, but everyone around him.

    Righties take hypocrisy to new heights - we need a new word for the breadth/depth/height of hypocrisy by which they live.

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Paula

    Yep, where is the outrage?

    The same place where Democrats' "outrage" over Hunter Biden is.

    DUH.....

  248. [248] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    246

    Yep, where is the outrage? The Repubs r going after HRC AGAIN over her emails - while they have nothing to say about the wholesale abuse of security by not just Blotus, but everyone around him.

    No worries there... the Trump administration and Bill Barr retroactively classifying documents after the fact and attempting to claim culpability on dozens of employees (some for email received in their inboxes after they resigned. Oh, come on! This is a big exercise in "ain't going nowhere" and might actually be handing the Democrats another abuse of power claim in their impeachment of the POTUS and others. Also statute of limitations.

    Just more distractions which wouldn't be necessary if they had a defense of Trump. Notice how you're not hearing much except deflection. Who is defending Trump? How do you defend a guy who signaled Russia to hack his opponent and then is being manipulated by Russia to clear Russia, withhold money from Ukraine, and take down Biden. Why is Hunter Biden suddenly an international criminal and suddenly relevant? Utter bullshit.

    Russia's fingerprints are all over this shit because it's them who benefit by Trump's withholding the hundreds of millions from Ukraine and Trump/Giuliani/Barr etc. attempting to rewrite the narrative and clear Russia, Manafort, Stone of what they've done. Trump is Putin's Whore and has no choice because they've got a book 2 inches thick on his for money laundering with multiple oligarchs for multiple decades.

    Righties take hypocrisy to new heights - we need a new word for the breadth/depth/height of hypocrisy by which they live.

    Hmmm. Dipshittery?

  249. [249] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Or do you believe, as I do, that the whistle blower and his alleged "witnesses" must be identified and be on the record before ANY impeachment can proceed??

    You keep claiming to be a police officer and yet you seem blissfully unaware that any witness that testifies before a Court or another human -- and Congress is full of humans -- would have no way whatsoever to remain anonymous when they are questioned.

    Witnesses have to be subpoenaed by name. Duh!

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    If The Case For Trump’s Impeachment Is So Strong, Why Are Liberals Lying About It?
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2019/09/29/if-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment-is-so-strong-why-are-liberals-lying-about-it-n2553861

    THAT is the age old question, isn't it.. :D

  251. [251] 
    Paula wrote:

    [248] Kick: Yeah, I don't think the HRC harassment will go anywhere but it still stinks to high heaven. It is nothing more nor less than use of government resources/power to harass a political opponent out of malice.

  252. [252] 
    Paula wrote:

    The lack of Repub defense today has been notable. A couple of top-Blotus-toadies made the rounds, made fools of themselves, and were generally mocked.

    CBS poll has support for impeachment at 55%. It will continue to climb.

  253. [253] 
    Paula wrote:

    Great Op Ed by Will Bunch:

    It took the great courage of one person — and two-thirds of an out-of-control president’s disastrous term in office — to show us how deeply the stench of fear otherwise permeated 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That one whistle-blower — maybe a CIA agent, but definitely an individual who did not check his or her moral compass at the White House front gate — has revealed Trump’s abuse of power, potential lawbreaking and casual willingness to solicit, and arguably extort, foreign election interference in his dealings with Ukraine. These revelations have brought Trump to the brink of impeachment and could topple the tottering Jenga of corruption that has been his administration.

    ...

    When we finally learn the identity of the individual who blew the whistle on Trump’s treachery and triggered his impeachment — and we will — that person will rightfully become etched into the history textbooks, and remembered as a true American hero long after you and I are gone. But there will also be a page in that chapter about the likes of Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, Mnuchin, Tillerson, Cohn, Spicer, etc., etc, — and it will not be kind. History is always cruel to those who pretend to serve their country but who ultimately betrayed it with their silence.

    https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/trump-impeachment-whistle-blower-mattis-maguire-kelly-20190929.html

  254. [254] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's so great about it?

  255. [255] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This place has more links than, well, you know ...

  256. [256] 
    Paula wrote:

    Per 60 Minutes he Whistle-blower is under "federal protection" since Blotus has been threatening him/her and siccing his thugs after him/her.

  257. [257] 
    Paula wrote:

    Of course the question is, is the Whistle-blower safe? Coz DOJ is in the bag for Blotus.

  258. [258] 
    dsws wrote:

    [219] LizM
    . I think if people don't lose sight of the fact ..., then they will pay attention

    That's kinda backward. To have the facts in sight, they have to pay attention first. This is icky and depressing. Why would anyone want to start paying attention now?

    And it will take plenty of attention: with the stakes this high, the smokescreen from the far right will be thicker than ever.

  259. [259] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't quote me out of context.

  260. [260] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz [255]

    a sausage factory?

  261. [261] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a chain gang?

  262. [262] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a golf tournament? a legend of zelda cosplay convention?

  263. [263] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    heck, i guess i ought to add a link to the party. here's my most recent reading:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/66291/trumps-call-to-ukraine-may-constitute-honest-services-fraud-a-core-crime-of-public-corruption/

    Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, has defended Trump’s phone conversation with Zelensky by stating that they did not discuss any “quid pro quo,” that is, an offer to trade one thing for another. Even if Giuliani’s statement is true, it is not dispositive of the matter. The report indicates that the subject of the whistleblower’s complaint is a series of events, not just one phone call in isolation. In addition, in public corruption cases, it is rare that the parties speak openly about the illegal transaction. More often, they speak in vague terms, communicating veiled threats.

    The parallels between Trump’s conduct and honest services fraud should not be seen as a need to charge Trump under a criminal statute, but to emphasize the point that there is a serious cost to the country when Trump behaves like a ruthless business owner instead of a president. There’s no excuse for the federal government’s chief executive to violate the public trust in this manner. That’s the reason federal and state officials do hard time for such conduct, and at a bare minimum are removed from office.

  264. [264] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good God.

  265. [265] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    My LEO/Military/Security experience has been well-documented in that 16 years.

    Russ is an idiot.. Nothing more..

    “Well-documented” in that you chose to lie to everyone here for years about your LEO/Military/Security “experience”?

    Or “well-documented” in that you lied to me when you admitted that you had never actually worked in law enforcement, but had been an MP when you were in the military?

    Which is it? Or were you lying about both?

    You chose to attack my husband’s work history in law enforcement for asking you a simple question regarding policing — and, shockingly, you never bothered to provide an actual answer.

    So why not tell us all the truth instead of continuing to steal the honor of everyone who does risk their lives by serving their communities and country? Seriously, you can put this all to rest just by telling us which is the truth. Why does that scare you so?

  266. [266] 
    Kick wrote:

    IMPEACHMENT DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

    Subpoenaed Documents

    October 4: Mike Pompeo
    https://tinyurl.com/y329epjt

    Subpoenaed Witnesses

    Date Unannounced: Whistleblower. Active measures will be taken to protect identity as mandated by federal statute. Of course, the right-wing conspiracy theory nutjobs of 4Chan and their ilk have a $50,000 bounty, and the President of the United States has signaled threats -- another violation of federal statute -- active measures to discourage other existing potential whistleblowers (yep).

    October 2: Marie Yovanovitch, Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, who was disparaged by Trump in his April 21 phone call with Zelensky. Ambassador Yovanovitch was publicly attacked by Donald Trump, Jr. and Rudy Giuliani. Trump administration officials then falsely claimed that Yovanovitch was leaving her post "as planned." Trump then disparaged the ambassador in the April 21 telephone call to a foreign leader, telling Zelensky that "the woman" was "bad news" and vaguely but ominously noting that "she's going to go through some things." Apparently Yovanovitch was focusing on pressing the Ukrainian government to fight corruption, pushing ahead with reforms and continuing to resist Russia's aggression and was having none of Trump/Giuliani's attempts to focus Ukrainians on digging up disparaging information to further Trump's political interests.

    October 3: Kurt Volker, U.S. special representative to Ukraine (resigned Friday) who met with Rudy Giuliani and agreed to connect him with Andrey Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky.

    October 7: Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, a career Foreign Service officer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the European and Eurasian Bureau, overseeing policy toward Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Kent served as deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev from 2015 to 2018.

    October 8: T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, State Department counselor who was named in the Whistleblower Complaint as the official at State who listened in on the April 21 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky. It's unusual for a State Department official to be on what is generally a standard "congratulatory call" from the POTUS to another world leader.

    October 10: Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Portland hotelier, Provenance Hotels, now US Ambassador to the European Union, whom Giuliani said he briefed on his conversations with Ukrainians.

    _________________

    And there you have it. :)

  267. [267] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    265

    You chose to attack my husband’s work history in law enforcement for asking you a simple question regarding policing — and, shockingly, you never bothered to provide an actual answer.

    Well, it was a very simple question that absolutely did go unanswered and remains ever thus. Point to Russ.

    Russ, sincerely though, thank Devon for his service. He sounds like one of the "good ones," and I know that you know that not all of them are. So please thank him for that.

    *hugs* :)

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cockholster,

    “Well-documented” in that you chose to lie to everyone here for years about your LEO/Military/Security “experience”?

    And your FACTS to support this???

    Like everything else you spew.. You have none..

    Or “well-documented” in that you lied to me when you admitted that you had never actually worked in law enforcement, but had been an MP when you were in the military?

    Facts to support??

    No?? Figures..

    You chose to attack my husband’s work history in law enforcement for asking you a simple question regarding policing — and, shockingly, you never bothered to provide an actual answer.

    Only after you claimed he made most stoopidest of comments that no real LEO would EVER MAKE..

    So why not tell us all the truth instead of continuing to steal the honor of everyone who does risk their lives by serving their communities and country? Seriously, you can put this all to rest just by telling us which is the truth. Why does that scare you so?

    I have done so much better than tell you the truth..

    I have told you the FACTS..

    Now, where are your FACTS that back up everything you claim??

    {{{cchhhiiirrrrrpppp}}} {{chiiirrrppp}}

    Yea.. Figgers.. :eyeroll: moronic

  269. [269] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, has defended Trump’s phone conversation with Zelensky by stating that they did not discuss any “quid pro quo,” that is, an offer to trade one thing for another. Even if Giuliani’s statement is true, it is not dispositive of the matter. The report indicates that the subject of the whistleblower’s complaint is a series of events, not just one phone call in isolation. In addition, in public corruption cases, it is rare that the parties speak openly about the illegal transaction. More often, they speak in vague terms, communicating veiled threats.

    Please acknowledge for the record, that all we have here is hearsay and anonymous complaints that have NO SUBSTANTIATION in fact..

    I'll ask you what I asked CW..

    Is second and third hand hearsay enough to impeach..

    It's a simple yes or no question..

  270. [270] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, all this second and third hand evidence is nothing but a VERY weak justification to go on a fishing expedition.. Just like the Russia Collusion bullshit.

    "Let's put out some phony evidence and we can use that to try and dig up more dirt!!"
    -Trump/America hater

    Yea.. Cuz that worked out SO WELL for the Russia Collusion delusion.. :eyeroll:

    But here's the thing...

    If it IS discovered that the "whistle blower" is full of shit and there are no other so-called "witnesses" then anything investigated FROM that is Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree and is inadmissible as evidence...

    If Democrats try to succeed in pushing impeachment based on that tainted evidence, Trump supporters and Independents and NPAs will take to the streets...

    Ironically enough, Democrats likely chose this action to fade the heat from the soon-to-be revelations that this is EXACTLY what Democrats did in the Russia Collusion delusion.. Fabricated evidence as a justification to a fishing expedition.

    Democrats and Trump/America are going to cause another civil war...

    Which is basically what Putin wants...

    Democrats are Putin's bitch right now..

  271. [271] 
    dsws wrote:

    [259]
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't quote me out of context.
    [ Permalink ] [ Sunday, September 29th, 2019 at 21:05 UTC ]

    We're in the same comment thread. I included the post number. This is not something snatched out of one conversation and inserted into a different one where the antecedents of all the pronouns are distinct and dissimilar components of a distinct and dissimilar situation. Not only is it literally within the same context, but the "if" clause that I partially quoted is the one that applies to the "then" clause that I quoted in its entirety. The ONLY thing I clipped out is the specification of which fact people would hypothetically be keeping sight of. So here's the entire thing:

    [219] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Well, this episode isn't complicated unless people want to complicate it.

    I think if people don't lose sight of the fact that President Trump thinks he needs to ask Ukraine for help discrediting his likely opponent in 2020 with outrageously untrue accusations all in an effort to get himself re-elected, then they will pay attention to this and even vote for the first time.

    I think it all depends on how effective the media can be in covering what the president has done.

    Or do I have to go back and quote 94,894,789,056,235,678,443 posts of Michael's cut-and-paste logorrhea before I can indicate what statement of yours I'm commenting on?

  272. [272] 
    dsws wrote:

    WTF? I was sure I typed "Michale" correctly. Derisively altering people's names is not something I intentionally do.

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now we see Democrats laying the ground work to hide the whistle blower from the American people..

    So much for transparency that Dumbocrats promised..

    If Democrats try to impeach on PUBLIC and CROSS-EXAMINED testimony from the so-called "whistle blower" and his so-called "co-whistle-blowers" twice removed..

    This "impeachment" will be invalid and illegitimate..

    And PATRIOTIC Americans will take to the streets...

  274. [274] 
    dsws wrote:

    [260]-[262] Loll.

  275. [275] 
    Michale wrote:

    WTF? I was sure I typed "Michale" correctly. Derisively altering people's names is not something I intentionally do.

    Nor would I ever suspect you of that... :D Intentionally.. :D

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or do I have to go back and quote 94,894,789,056,235,678,443 posts of Michael's cut-and-paste logorrhea before I can indicate what statement of yours I'm commenting on?

    Would ya mind?? :D

    heh

    I do agree with Liz..

    This *ISN'T* a complicated issue.

    Democrats are using anonymous and third person hearsay evidence to justify a fishing expedition.. A witch hunt..

    It's very simple because it's exactly what Democrats did with the Russia Collusion delusion..

  277. [277] 
    dsws wrote:

    Anyway, what I came here to say:

    I heard an interesting take on the impeachment process, namely that it's not intended to accomplish anything, only to express the frustration of the Democratic base, so that we'll know the Democratic leadership is in touch with our feelings and not replace them with a new set of party leaders.

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats try to impeach on PUBLIC and CROSS-EXAMINED testimony from the so-called "whistle blower" and his so-called "co-whistle-blowers" twice removed..

    Once again, got ahead of myself..

    If Democrats try to impeach WITHOUT PUBLIC and CROSS-EXAMINED testimony from the so-called "whistle blower" and his so-called "co-whistle-blowers" twice removed..

    Patriotic Americans and Trump voters, Independents and NPAs(I know.. that's all redundant) will take to the streets...

  279. [279] 
    Michale wrote:

    I heard an interesting take on the impeachment process, namely that it's not intended to accomplish anything, only to express the frustration of the Democratic base, so that we'll know the Democratic leadership is in touch with our feelings and not replace them with a new set of party leaders.

    Now THAT is the most logical and rational thing anyone here has said..

    And it was funny too..

    "It's funny 'cause it's true.."
    -Homer Simpson

    As an aside to JL, if you want to give me any grief over the quote.. :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYje57V_BY

    :D

  280. [280] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    There’s no excuse for the federal government’s chief executive to violate the public trust in this manner. That’s the reason federal and state officials do hard time for such conduct, and at a bare minimum are removed from office.

    "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan."
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    "I welcome the public debate on domestic surveillance"*
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    I'm just sayin..

    *-Weigantia 2013(??) Lie Of The year

  281. [281] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    260-262

    What? No love for pie chain? *grin*

    https://shop.kingarthurflour.com/items/pie-chain

  282. [282] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats and Trump/America are going to cause another civil war...

    Which is basically what Putin wants...

    Democrats are Putin's bitch right now..

    That would be:

    Democrats are Putin's bitches right now..

  283. [283] 
    Michale wrote:

    Record-Smashing, Historic September Snowstorm Brings Up to 4 Feet of Snow, Blizzard Conditions to Northern Rockies
    https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/2019-09-25-september-blizzard-montana-northern-rockies-snow

    I bet the folks in Montana are WISHING there was some real global warming right now. :D

  284. [284] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrrrrr

    Record-Smashing, Historic September Snowstorm Brings Up to 4 Feet of Snow, Blizzard Conditions to Northern Rockies
    https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/2019-09-25-september-blizzard-montana-northern-rockies-snow

    I bet the folks in Montana are WISHING there was some real global warming right now. :D

  285. [285] 
    Michale wrote:

    Activists wonder why California Democratic political donor Ed Buck wasn’t arrested sooner
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/30/activists-wonder-why-political-donor-wasnt-arrested-sooner/

    Oh, that's an easy question to answer..

    Democrats are more interested in donor dollars much more so than actual American lives or justice... :eyeroll:

  286. [286] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    277

    I heard an interesting take on the impeachment process, namely that it's not intended to accomplish anything, only to express the frustration of the Democratic base, so that we'll know the Democratic leadership is in touch with our feelings and not replace them with a new set of party leaders.

    That's a ridiculous "take" regardless of from whence it came. If that was their aim, they had a roadmap handed to them in Volume 2 of the Mueller Report, and they could have begun that process months ago.

    Nope. Evidence came forth that left them no choice except to begin a formal impeachment inquiry based on the Abuse of Power/Office wherein the President of the United States through his personal attorney is focused on advancing his personal political interests, while at the same time -- either wittingly or unwittingly -- advancing those of our adversaries, specifically Russia, over the interests of national security and the interests of the American people to have democratic elections without interference of foreign nations... something our Founding Fathers envisioned and warned against.

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the:

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Department..

    NEWS ALERT: 60 Minutes completely misinterpreted contents of our letter, which is now published online at https://compassrosepllc.com/intelligence-community-whistleblower-matter/ …. Nor have we, as we stated earlier today, reached any agreement with Congress on contact with the whistleblower. Discussions remain ongoing.

    Looks like Adam Schiff-head 9 (AND the Weigantians who quoted Schiff-head) are STONE COLD LIARs when they claimed that there was a deal in place for the so-called "whistle blower" to testify..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Once again..

    Ya'all have hysterical bullshit.

    And I have the facts.. :D

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now the FACTS are coming out..

    "Is @60Minutes now asserting it has a source other than letter our legal team sent to @ODNIgov? Because if it doesn't, and I know it doesn't, then it is literally making stuff up. That helps no one, especially the #whistleblower. The media should always accurately report facts,"
    -So-Called "Whistle Blower" attorney Mark S. Zaid

    Democrats and Trump/America haters are simply making stuff up..

    Who could have possibly predicted that this whole thing is just based on made up shit!!???

    Oh... Wait...

  289. [289] 
    Michale wrote:

    A SWORN statement from the Ukraine Prosecutor who was fired based on coercion, extortion and quid-pro-quo pressure from Joe Biden.. Prosecutor was fired because he was investigating Hunter Biden...

    https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

    The FACTS don't lie, people...

    But, apparently, many of ya'all do.. :^/

    So much for ya'all's claims that Hunter Biden was NOT being investigated..

  290. [290] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

    And Biden's poll numbers continue their free fall..

    Who was it that said Joe Biden would be the first casualty of Trump/America Hater lies and bullshit?

    "Oh! I think it was me!!"
    -Judy Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D

  291. [291] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz Peek: Democrats toss Biden aside in zeal to impeach — ensuring Trump's reelection

    President Trump did something stupid when he asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden for corruption.

    Democrats did something even stupider.

    By jumping so eagerly on the impeachment bandwagon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues have taken Biden, Democrats' most credible candidate, out of contention. The former vice president’s campaign was already on the downslope, but widespread speculation about his possible abuse of office will only accelerate his demise.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/liz-peek-biden-zeal-impeach-trump

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!!!???

    Liz, what do you think of the Democrats now??

  292. [292] 
    Michale wrote:

    Almost certainly, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., will become the new frontrunner, and will win the Democratic nomination. And, almost certainly, she will lose.

    There is no disputing that Hunter Biden accepted a lucrative job in Ukraine at a time when his father, who was vice president at the time, became the point person for the U.S. in that notoriously corrupt country. That he allowed his son to do so demonstrates extreme bad judgement on the part of Joe Biden. That he pushed the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor reputed to be investigating his son’s employer smells bad.

    Most Americans will not read beyond the headlines. What they have learned, courtesy of the newest attacks on President Trump, is that good old Joe Biden, the likeable and loyal Obama sidekick who somehow has not secured the former president’s endorsement, cannot be trusted.

    One really has to wonder why Obama won't step up and defend his former VP as CW indicated Obama should..

    Is it because even Obama recognizes that Hunter Biden is corrupt and Joe Biden should NEVER have coerced and extorted the Ukraine government at the time??

  293. [293] 
    Michale wrote:

    Voters will experience a whiff of déjà vu, remembering that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s clan also profited mightily from her position in the Obama administration. They may recall that, according to The New York Times, "While the State Department was involved in securing a uranium mining deal with Russia, investors in the company involved in the deal, Uranium One, gave millions to the Clinton Foundation."

    The NYT report added, "Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

    Voters rejected Clinton for many reasons in 2016, but one of the most enduring throughout her run was that people didn’t trust her. On the cusp of the Democratic nomination, a CNN poll found that 68 percent of the country didn’t think she was "honest and trustworthy." Despite being awarded innumerable "Pinocchios" on the campaign trail, Trump’s score on that front was much better than Hillary's.

    President Trump is trusted more than the Dubmocrats' 2016 champion, Hillary Clinton..

    Not really shocking...

    What IS shocking is that Democrats are SERIOUSLY considering supporting ANOTHER Hillary run for POTUS!!

    O M G how awesome would that be!!!???

    Poor Paula.. She'll have a schizo-oid embolism trying to figure out who she support support..

    Paula's current hero or Paula's has-been/never-was hero.. :D

  294. [294] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden is not Hillary, of course. He is more popular, but as he has campaigned, his star has fallen. In two recent polls, according to RealClearPolitics, Warren has grabbed the lead nationally, and in Iowa, Biden’s position has fallen precipitously; he is now clearly in second place. Moreover, a recent Quinnipiac poll shows, Biden's personal favorability rating among registered voters split 45-45 percent, down from last December, when his favorability was 53-33.

    Assuming that Warren’s surge continues, and that she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee, most analysts reckon she will have to pivot to the political middle to win the voters lost to Democrats in 2016. That includes blue-collar workers in crucial states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, who defected to Trump.

    Almost certainly, Elizabeth Warren will become the new frontrunner, and will win the Democratic nomination. And, almost certainly, she will lose.

    So when Warren promises to ban fracking, voters in gas-rich Pennsylvania, where the Marcellus shale boom has added tens of thousands of jobs, will wonder, is this good for me? When she advocates "Medicare-for-all," United Automobile Workers in Michigan will ask, why do I have to give up my hard-won Cadillac health benefits? When she argues for decriminalizing illegal immigration and vows to give federal benefits to people in the country illegally, Americans will complain — what about us?

    It's real simple people.. Warren has pushed too far Left to ever be able to FIND the center...

    If Warren is the nominee, it's all over for Democrats..

    You heard it here first... :D

  295. [295] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    287

    Looks like Adam Schiff-head 9 (AND the Weigantians who quoted Schiff-head) are STONE COLD LIARs when they claimed that there was a deal in place for the so-called "whistle blower" to testify..

    No one in Weigantia quoted Schiff or gave any details about the testimony... just that the Whistleblower had agreed to testify before Congress.

    This makes YOU the LIAR.

    You're flailing Michael, and you should really stop with the threats of violence on this board.

    Your ignorant questions about secondhand witnesses that no LEO would ever ask are moot because every witnesses scheduled to testify under oath have firsthand knowledge of events. :)

  296. [296] 
    Michale wrote:

    Warren is determined to eliminate the Electoral College, so that New York and California will run the country. She wants to break up big farms and also big tech, undermining two of our most productive and competitive industries, legalize marijuana, ban assault weapons and allow abortions up to the moment of birth.

    She also wants to punish our most successful entrepreneurs and inventors by confiscating their wealth, which will drive many out of the country. Though she’s eager to take more money out of the hands of our private citizens in order to build up the powerful state, she is determined to slash defense spending.

    There are many people who will agree with some of these policies, but the majority of Americans will stumble on issues like open borders or limitless abortion. And, as she is asked how we will pay for all her grandiose plans, it will occur to some that their taxes will go up.

    Indeed, when pressed by Stephen Colbert on whether she’ll hike middle-class taxes, she danced around the question. It will come up again.

    More important, it will become obvious as she campaigns on higher taxes and increased regulations, that Warren will undo the good that has occurred under President Trump. People who have seen the income gap between rich and poor narrow and job opportunities multiply for all workers, will decide they are better off today that they were four years ago, and decide there is risk in turning our entire economy upside down. They will be right.

    Warren simply CAN'T appeal to Independents and NPAs...

    A Warren nomination will guarantee a President Trump re-election..

    Although I am loathe to speak for them (so I won't), I am fairly certain that I can accurately opine that CRS, JL and DSWS feel the same...

    I am also fairly sure that CW also feels the same, but he has a constituency to maintain and keep happy.. :D

    So, I won't put him on the spot.. :D

    "It's ok, Danny. I know you don't have a good excuse so I won't force you to come up with a bad one.."
    -Captain Whitaker, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

  297. [297] 
    Michale wrote:

    Normally I just ignore the bullshit and spewings of DLC Victoria... But this was just too good to pass up..

    No one in Weigantia quoted Schiff or gave any details about the testimony... just that the Whistleblower had agreed to testify before Congress.

    Agreement reached for Whistleblower to testify before Congress.
    Well done, Adam Schiff. It's on!</B.
    -DLC Victoria

    BBBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    This was like the time when DLC Victoria said that the "gun sale in Odessa was perfectly and absolutely legal" and I bitch slapped her with the FACT that it wasn't...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Now, two things will happen..

    DLC Victoria will tap dance around her bullshit.. Dance little BITCH, dance!! :D Remember, DLC Victoria.. When yer explaining, yer lusing.. And you are the biggest LUSER here.. :D

    BBBBBBAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And then she'll do personal attacks on my wife, my children and my grandchildren, as she always done when she is caught in a lie and her bullshit... :D

    The fact is, DLC Victoria.. You lied..

    You said that there was an agreement to testify.. There isn't.. YOU LIED..

    Then you gave credit to Adam Schiff for this non-existent agreement.. YOU LIED.. AGAIN...

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

    BITCH IS PWNED!!! :D

  298. [298] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh carp!!

    Normally I just ignore the bullshit and spewings of DLC Victoria... But this was just too good to pass up..

    No one in Weigantia quoted Schiff or gave any details about the testimony... just that the Whistleblower had agreed to testify before Congress.

    Agreement reached for Whistleblower to testify before Congress.
    Well done, Adam Schiff. It's on!

    -DLC Victoria

    BBBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    This was like the time when DLC Victoria said that the "gun sale in Odessa was perfectly and absolutely legal" and I bitch slapped her with the FACT that it wasn't...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Now, two things will happen..

    DLC Victoria will tap dance around her bullshit.. Dance little BITCH, dance!! :D Remember, DLC Victoria.. When yer explaining, yer lusing.. And you are the biggest LUSER here.. :D

    BBBBBBAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And then she'll do personal attacks on my wife, my children and my grandchildren, as she always done when she is caught in a lie and her bullshit... :D

    The fact is, DLC Victoria.. You lied..

    You said that there was an agreement to testify.. There isn't.. YOU LIED..

    Then you gave credit to Adam Schiff for this non-existent agreement.. YOU LIED.. AGAIN...

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

    BITCH IS PWNED!!! :D

    It's always better the second time anyways!! :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  299. [299] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, Trump supporters will not be moved by the most recent charges. They have become inured to the constant attacks; consequently, the Republican-led Senate will not throw him out of office. Not even close.

    Warren will try, but ultimately fail, to shift ground. She is an uncompromising zealot, who totally believes her rants about corporations being corrupt and greedy, and about everything in the United States being rigged. That’s why she claimed to have Native American ancestry; she knew that the lie would help her get a job in this rigged system.

    CAUSE AND EFFECT

    If Warren is the Dim nominee, President Trump will be re-elected..

    It's really THAT simple.. :D

  300. [300] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Shouldn’t Dignify Impeachment Parody With a Trial

    Assuming House Democrats ever manage to produce actual articles of impeachment.
    https://spectator.org/senate-shouldnt-dignify-impeachment-parody-with-a-trial/

    I completely agree..

    Unless Democrats provide PUBLIC and CROSS-EXAMINED testimony from the so-called "whistle blower" and his alleged "whistle blower'ettes".....

    The Senate should not take up any impeachment..

    Even IF Democrats, by come miracle, manage to pass actual Articles Of Impeachment...

  301. [301] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitch McConnell told NPR last Friday that, if the House impeaches President Trump, “the Senate immediately goes into a trial.” This is music to Democratic ears, despite the infinitesimal chance of conviction, because they desperately need the sordid spectacle into which impeachment trials inevitably devolve. The Senate, however, isn’t required to try the President. That chamber possesses the “sole power to try all impeachments,” but is under no constitutional obligation to do so. The Democrats ignored House precedent and longstanding tradition to launch their “impeachment inquiry.” Why should Senate Republicans consider themselves bound by precedent and procedural rules where the trial is concerned?

    It would be the epitome of hilarity if Dumbocrats scream and struggle to impeach President Trump..

    And then the Senate says, "Sorry.. This is not a legitimate impeachment.. No trial for yooooo.."

    I would LOVE to see the Democrats with their mouths hanging open and their dicks in their hands when the Senate does this.. :D

  302. [302] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dsws (277)-
    What? The Dems are not trying to actually accomplish anything with impeachment other than to convince frustrated Dems the leadership is in touch with their feelings so the leadership of the party is not replaced?

    As if it was all some sort of show?

    What s novel observation. :D

    The only flaw I find in your statement was the "...so that we'll know the leadership is in touch with our feelings..." part.

    It should be "...so that we'll THINK the leadership is in touch...".

    The only in touch with the feelings coming from the leadership is to use those feelings to manipulate those feelings in the show.

    The leadership does nor SHARE those feelings which is
    what citizens really need to KNOW aboot the leadership.

  303. [303] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Senate could entertain a motion to dismiss the charges at the outset of a trial on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the constitutional standard of impeachable offenses, and a majority of the Senate could send the House packing without ever hearing a witness or seeing evidence. If a majority of the senators thought the House was abusing the impeachment power … there is no reason why the Senate would have to pay obeisance to the House by going through the motions of a pointless trial.
    -Professor William Nelson Cromwell
    Professor of Politics
    Princeton University

    How utterly DELICIOUS would that be!!!

    House Dumbocrats scrape and scrap and whine and cry and bully to make a faux "case" against President Trump..

    And the Senate simply dismisses all articles on the basis of their flimsy and unfactual nature..

    As much as it would be nice for President Trump to be able to factually declare (AGAIN) that he is completely and utterly exonerated...

    It would be infinitely nicer for the Senate to simply say, "ALL THESE CHARGES ARE BULLSHIT!! AND THEY ARE SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE"

    BBBBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And what makes it even MORE hilarious!!???

    DUMBOCRATS CAN'T DO DICK TO STOP IT!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Of course, all of this presupposes that Democrats will actually be able to pass Articles Of Impeachment..

    THAT is by NO means, a certainty at this point..

  304. [304] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dsws (277)-
    What? The Dems are not trying to actually accomplish anything with impeachment other than to convince frustrated Dems the leadership is in touch with their feelings so the leadership of the party is not replaced?

    As if it was all some sort of show?

    What s novel observation. :D

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery. And THAT was definitely mockery.."
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

    The only flaw I find in your statement was the "...so that we'll know the leadership is in touch with our feelings..." part.

    It should be "...so that we'll THINK the leadership is in touch...".

    The only in touch with the feelings coming from the leadership is to use those feelings to manipulate those feelings in the show.

    The leadership does nor SHARE those feelings which is
    what citizens really need to KNOW aboot the leadership.

    Excellent distinction.. :D

  305. [305] 
    Michale wrote:

    It goes without saying that there are dissenting voices. The respected legal scholars of Twitter pounded out countless retweets of an unsourced HuffPost article claiming, “The Republican leadership issued a memo Saturday clarifying that the Senate must take action if the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.” No link to the memo was provided, of course. Bloomberg found a “Republican Senate leadership aide” willing to cite a 1986 memo from then-Parliamentarian Robert Dove, who advised that “both the rules and the precedents argue for a rapid disposition of any impeachment trial in the United States Senate.” Oddly, no link was provided to this memo either.

    As with Trump/America haters here..

    They spew.. But have not a SINGLE FACT to back it up.. :D

    The latest Democratic impeachment parody is pathetic. If Democrats ever manage to produce articles of impeachment, the Senate shouldn’t dignify them with a trial. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority and the GOP would begin the process with a majority of 53-47. That means 20 Republicans would have to defect. Thus, the only purpose served by a trial would be to smear President Trump while generating enough sound and fury to convince the increasingly unhinged Democratic base that its “representatives” are actually accomplishing something. It would dignify the Democrats’ destructive agenda, their low regard for the voters, and their willingness to waste the Senate’s time on a tawdry circus.

    As I said.. it would be HILARIOUS to see Democrats totally destroy themselves in the eyes of the Independents and NPAs....

    And then be denied their kangaroo trial ta boot!

    Thereby adding insult upon insult upon insult to injury... :D

    And the beauty of it all??

    DEMOCRATS CAN'T DO DICK ABOUT IT!!!! :D

  306. [306] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am in fine form today..

    I bitch-slapped the biggest luser here til she ran away..

    And Democrats are taking a beating!! :D

    MOVING ON!! :D

  307. [307] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats risk it all moving full speed ahead with impeachment
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463535-democrats-risk-it-all-moving-full-speed-ahead-with-impeachment

    Democrats are scared that the American people will shut it down..

    Democrats are RIGHT to feel that way.. They KNOW they don't have any REAL facts... They are trying to cast the die before the American people realize that as well..

  308. [308] 
    Michale wrote:

    From a political and practical standpoint, while these accusations against the president are indeed serious and disturbing, the Democrats will almost certainly not achieve their end goal of removing Trump from office, given the Republican Senate majority. With Trump already weakened in the polls, and the Democrats ahead on a number of key issues like health care and climate change, it is a profound error to focus the country on an impeachment inquiry, notably at a time when close to 60 percent of the American people are currently against impeaching the president.

    Although I dispute the author's claims of the strength of President Trump's position, I whole heartedly support his conclusion..

    Dumbocrats are the EPITOME of stoopid in pushing this speed impeachment..

    The Dumbocrat reasoning is clear.

    They HAVE to get SOMETHING... ANYTHING tangible on the record before the IG Horowitz report is released.

    If Democrats have nothing (which they won't because there is nothing there) and the DEVASTATING AND DECIMATING IG report is released..

    The American people will collectively rip the Democrats a new one..

    So, this speed impeach is the Dumbocrat Party's only hope..

  309. [309] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, this speed impeach is the Dumbocrat Party's only hope..

    "I have half a mind to deny that!!"
    -Frank "DUMBOCRATS" Burns

    "I deny you have half a mind!"
    -Hawkeye "Michale" Pierce

    :D

  310. [310] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moreover, an impeachment inquiry of this magnitude only detracts from the ability of the Democrats to connect with 2020 voters on critical issues such as the economy, health care, and climate change. It once again places national attention solely on Trump instead of policy proposals. Amid the mass of Democrats who came out in support of impeachment this week, however, many of them still believe it is a bridge too far.

    Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey told the Washington Post last week, “I wish we waited a little longer. I wish we looked at it a little more, continuing the investigation, continuing the hearings that we have had.” Representative Ben McAdams also said that, while he found the transcript to be improper, the House needs to “get all the facts on the table before deciding how to proceed” before it formally impeaches Trump.

    Even within their own ranks, Democrats are saying this was a bad idea...

  311. [311] 
    Michale wrote:

    This news has been calamitous for Biden, as talk of Trump and Ukraine have precluded him from getting any positive campaign messages out, and has brought his son into the spotlight. While Democrats may appear to have a lot to gain from impeachment, they also have a great deal at stake. Come 2020, Democrats could lose it all, from the presidency to governorships to Senate seats to House control, if the American people determine that they overreached on this issue. A notable number of districts that swung blue in the 2018 midterms were in traditionally Republican areas such as Orange County, yet the Democrats who won those districts claimed victory with 1 percent or less of the vote.

    The author is being kind to Joe Biden. This is nothing short of a campaign-ending apocalypse...

    The signs are already pointing that way and getting more prevalent..

    Again, I have to comment on the irony..

    Democrats utterly DESTROY their last best shot to win against President Trump at the ballot box....

    And, after accomplishing THAT, they won't even get a trial in the Senate..

    The laughter in the halls of Weigantia will be long and robust...

    "Yea? So's my johnson"
    -Slider, TOP GUN

    :D

  312. [312] 
    Michale wrote:

    Undoubtedly, I want the Democrats to win. I am a Democrat who has worked for Democrats, but it would be a fundamental mistake for moderate Democrats to give into the left wing of the party and begin impeachment proceedings without a proper investigation and analysis of the facts as they pertain to the phone call with Ukraine. When I worked for President Clinton during his impeachment in 1998, the American people saw in clear terms how extensively the Republicans overreached in their investigation. Indeed, this partisan impeachment hurt Republicans in the 1998 midterm elections, when we campaigned on progress, not politics.

    Democratic leaders would be wise to heed the lessons of the past. No president has ever been convicted in the Senate after being impeached. Given all of the available information at this point, it is clear that there is simply no open and shut case on impeachment. It is still not yet clear whether the Democrats are actually going to go forward with a formal vote on impeachment. Party leaders have certainly given the nod in that direction, but they have not voted yet, and they could easily back off.

    Yep... As I said.. This isn't even a REAL impeachment...

    It's a pretend-impeachment

    Which is perfectly acceptable because all the Democrat "evidence" is ALSO all pretend...

    <I<{YYYYYAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN}

    Come talk to me when there is a REAL impeachment..

    With REAL facts... :eyeroll:

  313. [313] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dammit!!!!

    Undoubtedly, I want the Democrats to win. I am a Democrat who has worked for Democrats, but it would be a fundamental mistake for moderate Democrats to give into the left wing of the party and begin impeachment proceedings without a proper investigation and analysis of the facts as they pertain to the phone call with Ukraine. When I worked for President Clinton during his impeachment in 1998, the American people saw in clear terms how extensively the Republicans overreached in their investigation. Indeed, this partisan impeachment hurt Republicans in the 1998 midterm elections, when we campaigned on progress, not politics.

    Democratic leaders would be wise to heed the lessons of the past. No president has ever been convicted in the Senate after being impeached. Given all of the available information at this point, it is clear that there is simply no open and shut case on impeachment. It is still not yet clear whether the Democrats are actually going to go forward with a formal vote on impeachment. Party leaders have certainly given the nod in that direction, but they have not voted yet, and they could easily back off.

    Yep... As I said.. This isn't even a REAL impeachment...

    It's a pretend-impeachment

    Which is perfectly acceptable because all the Democrat "evidence" is ALSO all pretend...

    {YYYYYAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN}

    Come talk to me when there is a REAL impeachment..

    With REAL facts... :eyeroll:

  314. [314] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I have to point out the fact..

    The Weigantia of decade yore would NEVER have supported such a travesty, even if it came from Democrats..

    Hell, ESPECIALLY if it came from Democrats..

    The Weigantia of decade yore actually BELIEVED that Democrats were better than this...

    What a difference HHPTDS makes, eh? :^/

  315. [315] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moving forward, Democrats must ensure they have a strong bipartisan coalition as they press on with their investigations. If they do end up voting on articles of impeachment, they should be absolutely sure they are not doing so merely on partisan lines. If Trump is not convicted, he and his base will become emboldened, and Democrats will ensure both his reelection and risk losing the hard fought electoral gains of 2018.

    And Schoen brings it home!!

    This is EXACTLY where Democrats are heading...

    This is actually a first for President Trump..

    If Democrats can't bring forth Articles Of Impeachment because AOI can't pass in the house..

    Democrats lose...

    If Democrats ARE able to bring forth Articles and the Senate denies a trial and dismisses the charges...

    Democrats lose...

    If Democrats ARE able to bring forth Articles and the Senate agrees to a trial, President Trump will be vindicated and exonerated...

    Democrats.... (you guessed it) LOSE...

    These are the ONLY possibilities that are worth considering.. NO OTHER possibility is possible...

    President Trump has outdone himself..

    He has maneuvered the Democrat Party into a LOSE-LOSE-LOSE situation...

    :D

    Anyone who denies that President Trump is a puppeteer'ing genius is simply ignorant of the facts!!

    :D

  316. [316] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment Coup Analytics

    The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/29/impeachment-coup-analytics/

    Succinct... Reality based... And above all else.. Dead on ballz accurate..

    "It's an industry term"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY.

  317. [317] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat Al Green let's slip the Democrat Agenda..

    “To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice, would do our nation a disservice. I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”

    TRANSLATION:

    "Facts be damned, we HAVE to impeach President Trump. We know we can't win at the ballot box so a gaudie'ed up faux-impeachment AKA a coup is our ONLY chance to steal the levers of power from the legally, fairly, freely, democratically and CONSTITUTIONALLY elected President Of The United States."

    Ladies and gentlemen and assorted scumbags...

    I give you your Democrat Party.. :eyeroll:

  318. [318] 
    Michale wrote:

    Translated, that means Green accepts either that Trump’s record is too formidable or that the agendas of his own party’s presidential candidates are too frightening for the American people to elect one of them. And that possibility is simply not permissible. Thus, impeachment is the only mechanism left to abort an eight-year Trump presidency—on a purely partisan vote to preclude an election, and thus contrary to the outlines of impeachment as set out by the Constitution.

    Consider it another way: Why is it that the House is controlled by Democrats, yet its leadership is not pushing through any of the policy proposals voiced so openly on the Democratic primary stage?

    Why aren’t progressive representatives introducing bills to pay reparations to African Americans, to legalize infanticide in some cases of late-term abortion, to offer free medical care to illegal aliens, to confiscate AR-15s, to extend Medicare for all, to impose a wealth tax and raise top rates to between 70 and 90 percent, to abolish student debt and ensure free college for all, or to grant blanket amnesty to those currently living in the country illegally?

    That's a very good question...

    Any of you Weigantians care to field that??

    If all the proposals from the Dem candidates are such good ideas....

    WHY aren't Demcorats in the House pushing them??

    Hell, Democrats send up a trial balloon in the Senate for one of those "GOOD IDEAS" and NOT A SINGLE DEM SENATOR VOTED FOR IT!!!???

    Even DEMOCRATS know their agenda is bullshit..

  319. [319] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simple answer: none of those issues poll anywhere near 50 percent approval. And no Democratic candidate would expect to beat Trump as the emissary of such an agenda.

    If the economy was in a recession, if we were embroiled in another Iraq-like or Vietnam-sort of war, and if Trump’s polls were below 40 percent, then the Democrats would just wait 13 months and defeat him at the polls.

    But without a viable agenda and because they doubt they can stop Trump’s reelection bid, they feel they have no recourse but to impeach. If Trump were to be reelected, not a shred of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” would be left, and the strict constructionist Supreme Court would haunt progressives for a quarter-century.

    Yep..

    The logic is as impeccable as it is undeniable..

    Democrats are going to lose and Democrats KNOW they are going to lose.. THAT is why they are pushing this faux-impeachment AKA coup.....

    CW hisself has stated that the zeal to impeach is directly and inversely proportional to the confidence Democrats have in defeating President Trump at the ballot box.*

    Considering the utter ZEAL and hysterical speed in which Democrats are pushing this faux-impeachment...???

    Their "confidence" in being able to prevail against President Trump in the 2020 election must be somewhere in the low (VERY LOW) sub-zero range..

    * or words to that effect....

  320. [320] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.

    Think of what we have witnessed since the 2016 election. Do we even remember charges that voting machines in the 2016 election were rigged, and the efforts to subvert Electoral College voting, or to invoke the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, and the 25th Amendment?

    The “collusion” and “obstruction” fantasies of the Mueller investigation now seem like ancient history. So do the James Comey leaks, the palace coup of Andrew McCabe, the Trump tax records, the celebrity rhetoric about blowing up, shooting, stabbing, burning and variously killing off the president of the United States—along with the satellite frenzies of Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, Charlottesville, Jussie Smollett, the Covington Kids, and the Kavanaugh hearings.

    No matter WHERE ya'all want to turn your Democrats have LOST.. And LOST.. and IMPRESSIVELY LOST...

    You want the list??

    Mueller Russia Collusion Delusion...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-1

    Comey Leaks...
    -Democrats-0 President Trump-2

    McCabe Coup...
    -Democrats-0 President Trump-3

    President Trump Tax Records...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-4

    McGann testimony...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-5

    Unredacted Mueller Report...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-6

    Michael Avanetti...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-7

    Stormy Daniels...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-8

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-9 and 10

    Jussie Smollett...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-11

    Charlottesville...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-12

    Covington Boys...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-13

    Illegal Immigration Court Cases...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-14, 15, 16, 17, 18

    Other President Trump v Democrats Court Cases...
    Democrats-0 President Trump-19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

    Ya'all seeing the pattern???

    It's NO WONDER that Democrats have become so desperate that a dressed up coup is the ONLY recourse they have..

    What ya'all are witnessing may very well be the beginning of the end of the Democrat Party...

  321. [321] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is left but to try the new “Ukraine collusion”—especially given three other considerations?

    First, volatile and always changing polls appearing to favor impeachment roughly reflect Trump’s own popularity (or lack of same). Around 45-46 percent of Americans do not want him impeached and about the same or slightly more say they do.

    Second, the hard left-wing of the party might not yet control all the Democrats, but it does not matter because they are clearly younger, more energized, and better organized. And they want something to show for all their social media and photo-op grandstanding, given their socialist agenda is mysteriously moribund.

    Third, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is said to oppose impeachment on pragmatic grounds, but I am not sure that is right. It’s the equivalent of saying Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was opposed to the progressive character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh. Neither is or was true.

    A better description would be that Pelosi and Feinstein simply go along with the perceived 51-plus percent surge of their party, and sit back gleefully watching the fireworks happen, willing to jump in or pull back depending on the atmospherics and polling. Impeachment, remember, will make the Kavanaugh hearings look like a seminar on etiquette, and so everything and anything can happen once dozens of unhinged leftists are unbound.

    Pelosi is setting up her own caucus to fail..

    Of course, Democrats will lose the House..

    But, by discrediting the hysterical Left of her Party, Pelosi will assure her place as Leader. Even if it is MINORITY Leader...

  322. [322] 
    Michale wrote:

    Be prepared for a half-dozen Christine Blasey Ford-type witnesses to pop up, and 20 or so unhinged Cory Booker-esque “I am Spartacus” performance acts, along with a whole slew of new Steele dossiers—all interspersed with breathless CNN bulletins announcing new fake news developments with “the walls are closing in” and “the end is near” prognostications. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is already reading fantasies to the House Intelligence Committee and passing them off as the text of Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s new president. Only after he was called on such absurdities did he describe his performance as a parody.

    Schiff-head is too smart by half..

    He has proven that it's HE, HIMSELF who is the parody...

  323. [323] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left is hellbent on impeachment and the absence of a case won’t matter. They do not care if they will sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

    In the coming days, after all, we will probably learn that the whistleblower’s “Schiff dossier” was prepared by ex-Lawfare-type lawyers in service to House Democrats, who just needed a vessel to pass off the hit as a genuine cry of the heart, rather than a scripted attack with all the Steele dossier/Mueller report/Comey memo fingerprints: classification obfuscations, footnotes to liberal media hit pieces, pseudo-scholarly references to court cases, and lawsuit-avoiding, preemptive disclaimers about not actually possessing firsthand knowledge of any of the evidence, prepped hearsay, supposition, and the subjunctive and optative mood composition.

    In a sane world, the impeachers would worry their charges that Trump forced Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to investigate his possible 2020 Democratic opponent Joe Biden might boomerang. After all, Trump never actually cut off Ukrainian aid. Nor did he outline a quid pro quo deal. Essentially he is accused of unduly asking a foreign president to clamp down on corruption in his midst going back to 2016. So what? Especially if there is something more to the strange antics of Hunter Biden and CrowdStrike.

    Democrats aren't thinking straight..

    The are so much consumed with HHPTDS that they don't realize that they are doing **EXACTLY** what the faux-impeachment was supposed to prevent..

    Invite MORE investigative scrutiny on the actions of Democrats...

    "The Klingon's experiment in retroactive tampering with time and history was not only a failure, but also a warning. When their mission logs are analyzed, I believe they will come to realize that not only did they not achieve their ends, but in attempting to achieve them, they in fact precipitated the very chain of events they sought to stop."
    -Commander Spock, ISHMAEL

    In simpler terms...

    "HOISTED BY THEIR OWN PICARD!!"

    Democrats epitomize that to a 'T'!!!

    :D

  324. [324] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK OK.. Lemme finish up this one and I'll take a break and give ya'all a chance to catch yer breaths :D

  325. [325] 
    Kick wrote:

    Time once again to update my House retirements list to add yet another Republican to my list, and oh, no! It looks like it's another Texan, Mac Thornberry.

    Yes, sir... Republicans are leaving in droves; we've got us a genuine stampede for the exits and a Texodus.

    House incumbents who have announced their retirement from public office:

    Republicans

    AL-02 Martha Roby
    CA-08 Paul Cook
    GA-07 Rob Woodall
    IL-15 John Shimkus
    IN-05 Susan Brooks
    MI-10 Paul Mitchell
    TX-11 Mike Conaway
    TX-13 Mac Thornberry
    TX-17 Bill Flores
    TX-22 Pete Olson
    TX-23 Will Hurd
    TX-24 Kenny Marchant
    UT-01 Rob Bishop
    WI-05 Jim Sensenbrenner

    Democrats

    CA-53 Susan Davis
    IA-02 Dave Loebsack
    NY-15 Jose Serrano
    _______________

    Retirements by incumbents generally signal the Party lawmakers believe will control the House; the insiders are predicting Blue.

  326. [326] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-325

    A lot of Texans are fleeing The Alamo!

  327. [327] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden’s problems are not such thought crimes, but are confirmed by his own boasting: that he used the clout of the United States to help his own family financially, by threatening to cut off U.S. aid unless a Ukrainian state prosecutor looking into his own son’s suspicious lobbying was fired within six hours. And in Biden’s own words, “Son of a bitch,” he was fired.

    In contrast, Trump might have been all over the map in his call, but he kept the aid to Ukraine coming without demanding the scalp of any Ukrainian official. In some sense, Trump’s culpability boils down to one issue: progressives believe that in not-too-veiled a manner, he threatened a foreign government to start going after the Biden family without cause, whose patriarch Joe might be Trump’s 2020 election opponent.

    The other half of the country believes that what is material is not Biden’s current transient electoral status (he is not now and may not be the Democratic nominee), but the fact that he was vice president of the United States when he used his office to threaten the loss of foreign aid to stop investigations of his son, who was using his father’s position to further his own profiteering.

    Given that Trump denies any quid pro quo and his call supports that fact, while Biden, on the other hand, openly brags that he made threats which made the Ukrainian to cave (“in six hours”), one can draw one’s own conclusions.

    When one looks OBJECTIVELY at the facts, one can clearly see why Biden is going down and President Trump will rise to the challenge..

  328. [328] 
    Michale wrote:

    A lot of Texans are fleeing The Alamo!

    Anyone who thinks Texas is going to turn blue, given the Democrat Candidates STATED intention to eliminate fossil fuels.......

    Well, they are a BIGGER moron than first thought..

    And THAT says something.. :D

  329. [329] 
    Michale wrote:

    For now, we await more documents—with caveats that the canny Ukrainians, for their own self-interest, will predicate their release of information on the likelihood of which party will win the 2020 election.

    The Left hints it has lots of incriminating documents outlining a quid pro quo threat; conservatives suspect that Ukrainian and legal documents will show the prosecutor was neither unethical nor uninterested in Hunter Biden, but was fired precisely because he was not corrupt and very much concerned with Biden.

    As far as precedent, there is a good recent example. Barack Obama got caught promising to consider cuts in Eastern-European-based missile defense if Vladimir Putin would give him some room during his reelection campaign.

    Translated into Adam Schiff’s Mafiosi parody lingo: Putin would calm down on the international stage to make the U.S.-Russia “reset” look good, Obama would then get rid of Eastern-European missile defense, and Obama would get reelected in 2012.

    And all three of those events transpired as planned—one can surmise whether any of the three would have happened without Obama compliance with Russian conditions. Remember, Obama’s quid pro quo was caught on a hot mic on the premise that what he said to Russian President Medvedev was never supposed to be heard. “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved,” Obama said. “But it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space . . . This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

    Once that understanding was

    Yea.. You people had ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with Odumbo's quid pro quo...

    Funny how ya'all change yer tune when the shoe is on the other hand, eh? :D

  330. [330] 
    Michale wrote:

    Long-term, however, Trump wins.

    We still have a number of government audits coming from Michael Horowitz, John Durham, and John Huber—and the targets are not Trump. The Senate will not convict the president under any foreseeable circumstances. The full story of the whistleblower has not been told, but there are a lot of narratives to come about the sudden rules allowing hearsay, DNC involvement, and who knew far in advance about the complainant’s writ. Once the Democratic debates continue, the candidates’ screaming and hysterics return, and the impeachment hearings descend into a Kavanaugh-esque farce, the public will begin to get scared again by the Left’s shrieking Jacobins. Schiff’s “parody” is a small foretaste of what’s to come. Voters soon will surmise that the only thing between their 401k plans and socialism is Donald J. Trump.

    Warren or her possible facsimile is a weaker candidate than even the enfeebled Biden. Her lack of viability will be of enormous advantage in NeverHillary-fashion to Trump. His fundraising, already ascendant, will hit the stratosphere. The idea that the new and old NeverTrumpers will be on the side of socialism will finally discredit them. Wall Street and Silicon Valley will keep trashing Trump, but privately write checks to stop Warren’s wealth tax that would be only the beginning of her Venezuelization of America.

    So if Trump’s health holds out, if we don’t have a recession, if there is not an optional war, and Trump endures the next few weeks of 360-degree, 24/7 targeting, 2020 will be far more favorable than ever imaginable for him.

    When 2020 rolls around, Democrats will be lucky to be elected county Dog Catcher..

  331. [331] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Working on another project.. I'll let ya'all catch up.. :D

  332. [332] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    326

    A lot of Texans are fleeing The Alamo!

    Heh! That particular Texan is from the panhandle... so not a seat that could likely be flipped.

    I can't say as I blame him for retiring, though. If I was a passenger on the Trumptanic, I'd be looking for a way off that thing myself. :)

  333. [333] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Y'know, you never link to any of these articles, so I have no idea if the writer is a russian hack, or a Pulitzer-prize winning author.

    My guess is more of the former and less of the latter.

    Most are just opinion pieces, written for and by Trump loyalists. They say the things that they want to hear, and pretty much ignore the rest.

    And they mean nothing, save as eye-catnip for Trump fans, of which you find fewer and fewer as the election grows nearer.

  334. [334] 
    Michale wrote:

    Y'know, you never link to any of these articles, so I have no idea if the writer is a russian hack, or a Pulitzer-prize winning author.

    Once again, Blathy.. you are caught in bullshit..

    Impeachment Coup Analytics

    The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.
    amgreatness.com/2019/09/29/impeachment-coup-analytics/

    Activists wonder why California Democratic political donor Ed Buck wasn’t arrested sooner
    mercurynews.com/2019/09/30/activists-wonder-why-political-donor-wasnt-arrested-sooner/

    Amid the political frenzy, eight keys to the coming Trump impeachment fight
    washingtonexaminer.com/news/eight-keys-to-the-coming-trump-impeachment-fight

    EVERY comment I have has a link to it..

    My guess is more of the former and less of the latter.

    Yep...

    And AS USUAL, your guess is 1000% wrong..

    Most are just opinion pieces, written for and by Trump loyalists. They say the things that they want to hear, and pretty much ignore the rest.

    Once again, not factually accurate..

    MOST are written by Democrats themselves..

    So, once again, you are full of shit..

    And they mean nothing, save as eye-catnip for Trump fans, of which you find fewer and fewer as the election grows nearer.

    Yea.. THAT's what you said in the run-up to 2016..

    Even early in the game, you were full of shit.. :D

  335. [335] 
    Michale wrote:

    And they mean nothing,

    Of course they mean nothing to YOU..

    You ( and the rest of your Trump/America haters here) can't accept the reality that ya'all are going to lose. AGAIN..

    So, you simply ignore the FACTS and the reality..

  336. [336] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FACT is, Democrats have 3 possible outcomes and 3 possible outcomes only....

    #1 Democrats can't bring forth Articles Of Impeachment because AOI can't pass in the house..

    #2 Democrats ARE able to bring forth Articles and the Senate denies a trial and dismisses the charges...

    #3 Democrats ARE able to bring forth Articles and the Senate agrees to a trial. President Trump will be vindicated and exonerated...

    Those are the ONLY 3 outcomes possible...

    And, whichever way it goes...

    Democrats LOSE...

  337. [337] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FACT is, Democrats have 3 possible outcomes and 3 possible outcomes only....

    #1 Democrats can't bring forth Articles Of Impeachment because AOI can't pass in the house..

    #2 Democrats ARE able to bring forth Articles and the Senate denies a trial and dismisses the charges...

    #3 Democrats ARE able to bring forth Articles and the Senate agrees to a trial. President Trump will be vindicated and exonerated...

    Those are the ONLY 3 outcomes possible...

    If anyone can point to the flaw in the logic, I'll be happy to shoot it down..

    I mean, address it.. :D

  338. [338] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Democrats ARE able to bring forth Articles and the Senate agrees to a trial. President Trump will be vindicated and exonerated...

    ..and voters disagree! In the embarrassing aftermath, they give Senate Republicans the boot, and elect a Democrat to the White House.

    There.

  339. [339] 
    Michale wrote:

    Referring to Outcome Possibility #2...

    For those of ya'all who doubt the possibility, according to the US Constitution the US Senate is the "SOLE power" to try all impeachments...

    Just as the US Senate is the "SOLE power" to advise and consent nominations to the Courts...

    Just as that power is ALSO the power to NOT "advise and consent" the power to try all impeachments is ALSO the power **NOT** to try ANY impeachment..

    If the majority of the Senate feel impeachment articles are flimsy and not based in fact, the US Senate can formally DISMISS all charges the House puts forth..

    The more and more "facts" (or in this case, LACK OF facts) come out, the more and more likely this scenario is the one that will come to pass..

    The US Senate will dismiss with prejudice ANY articles that come out of the House.

    AS IS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL Right and Obligation to.. :D

  340. [340] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..and voters disagree!

    Even if that were factually accurate.. It's irrelevant.

    The US Constitution is the law of the land.. NOT your whimsical and fantasy voters..

    In the embarrassing aftermath, they give Senate Republicans the boot, and elect a Democrat to the White House.

    You must live in a state that has legalized marijuana because yer high as a kite if you think that THAT will actually come to pass.. :D

  341. [341] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-

    Michael posts basically read like MAD LIBS:

    "a phrasal template word game where one player prompts others for a list of words to substitute for blanks in a story, before reading the – often comical or nonsensical – story aloud." - and Thank you Wikipedia :)

    If all you want to do is annoy people, this simple approach allows a new post every 1-3 minutes before you have to change/reload the template! Apparently he only carries one template in his fanny pack.

    He has made a cottage industry of this, or perhaps a more descriptive term would be a "Double Wide Industry."

    He's a pirate - and he's been up to his buckin' ears" with the consequences. Loose lips sink shits.

  342. [342] 
    Paula wrote:

    In keeping with my theory that Blotus will resign to avoid public shame, Newsweek puts out the first trial balloon: DONALD TRUMP WILL RESIGN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2019 IN EXCHANGE FOR IMMUNITY FOR HIM AND HIS FAMILY, FORMER BUSH ADVISER SAYS

    https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-resign-2019-family-immunity-1276990

    Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But I bet Repubs will be trying to get this outcome so THEY don't end up holding the bag. Senate Repubs won't want to have to vote for or against in an impeachment trial; McConnell won't want to have to allow it - which he would. John Roberts won't want to have to preside.

    Blotus won't care about any of that, but he will care about his image and staying out of jail.

  343. [343] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The US Constitution is the law of the land.. NOT your whimsical and fantasy voters..

    Hate to burst your liddle bubble, but the Constitution gives ALL of the power to the voters. I know that your dear leader says that it gives all of the power to him, but an actual READ of the documents says different.

    And next year is..an ELECTION YEAR!

  344. [344] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    Michael posts basically read like MAD LIBS: And YOU claim to ignore me..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

    Looks like I just proved that it's YOU who is the lair.. :D

  345. [345] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hate to burst your liddle bubble, but the Constitution gives ALL of the power to the voters.

    Yea??

    So, what you are saying is that it was the VOTERS who didn't want Merrit Garland as the new SCOTUS..

    Is THAT your claim???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

    And next year is..an ELECTION YEAR!

    Yes it is.. And as has been PROVEN by you Democrats, ya'all are SCARED SHITLESS of this coming election year..

    Hence yer hysterical pursuit of this faux-impeachment coup...

    Hell, even CW says as much.. :D

  346. [346] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww carp!!

    Stig,

    Michael posts basically read like MAD LIBS:

    And YOU claim to ignore me..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

    Looks like I just proved that it's YOU who is the lair.. :D

    Much better.. it's always good the second time around. :D

  347. [347] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Politically Motivated Impeachment Is No Laughing Matter
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/30/a_politically_motivated_impeachment_is_no_laughing_matter_141366.html

    Probably true....

    But the AFTERMATH is going to be FRAKING HILARIOUS!!! :D

    For those who are brain cell challenged ({{cough}} BLATHY {{cough cough}}) note the link.. :D

  348. [348] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    341

    He has made a cottage industry of this, or perhaps a more descriptive term would be a "Double Wide Industry."

    I see what you did there.

    He's a pirate - and he's been up to his buckin' ears" with the consequences. Loose lips sink shits.

    I see what you did there too. :)

  349. [349] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do otherwise smart people say that impeachment has nothing to do with crimes but is rather a brute political calculation?

    As one example out of many, Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal said Wednesday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that Congress “could impeach the president for laughing the wrong way. They can impeach for anything they want.”

    Well, actually, no they can’t. Not unless they pass a law first that says “laughing the wrong way” is either a high crime or a misdemeanor. Assuming that “high” is not an early constitutional reference to cannabis, then laughing is unlikely to be a crime of any sort, yet our pesky Constitution does insist that impeachment shall proceed only on the basis of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    The notion of impeaching a president — any president — on the basis of a political disagreement is unconscionable, or should be. Yet we have watched Democrats and the media scurry from one “impeachable” offense to another over the last three years, hoping that one might stick. It has all the appearance of being a punishment in search of a crime to justify it.

    And THAT is exactly what the machinations of the Dumbocrat Party is..

    A punishment desperately in search of a crime..

    As DEMOCRAT Al Green said:

    “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”

    That's a DEMOCRAT saying that, Blathy...

    Democrats are scared shitless that Trump will be re-elected.. Hell, even JL, DSWS and CRS agree...

    Yer gonna lose at the ballot box, Blathy..

    THAT is why your Trump/America haters came up with this faux-impeachment coup...

  350. [350] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-342

    I'll go even farther out on a limb. Trump flees the country with as much potable wealth as he can carry.
    (He doesn't give a rat's ass about his family) he can buy a new, younger family). Destination: anyplace with a hotel and/or golf course he can slap his name onto and no extradition treaty with the US.

  351. [351] 
    Paula wrote:

    MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Monday that Washington would need Russian consent to publish transcripts of phone calls between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

    Yep: Putin calls the shots in the Blotus administration.

  352. [352] 
    Michale wrote:

    So now we come to WhistleblowerGate and the Ukrainian corruption scandal. Let me see if I have this right: We are going to impeach President Trump because he asked the Ukrainian president to look into allegations of corruption involving a former vice president of the United States — and possibly a former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. That, to me, is weird. You would think we would all want to know if there was anything to the complaint against Joe Biden for pressuring Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who had oversight of the investigation of Biden’s son Hunter. Likewise, it is reasonable to think that if the Deep State coup against President Trump in 2016 had an outpost in the Ukraine, we would like to know that too.

    But no, apparently not. Instead we are told that Biden has bought himself immunity from any future investigation by the executive branch on the grounds that he is running for president, and therefore a political opponent of the current president. According to Swamp logic, it is a political dirty trick for President Trump to alert the Ukrainians to our national interest in knowing whether our former vice president was a crook. Likewise, we don’t want to know whether Clinton launched any attacks on Trump with phony evidence manufactured by Ukrainian agents eager to curry favor with the presumed winner of the 2016 election.

    By staking an impeachment claim on the phone call President Trump held with the Ukrainian president, the Democrats in Congress are essentially declaring that the president doesn’t have the power to negotiate with foreign leaders, he does not have authority as commander-in-chief to make deals, and he can neither cajole nor chide foreign nations to do our bidding without being brought to heel by the terrible oversight powers of Lord Congress.

    Proof positive that this is NOT an impeachment..

    It's a coup..

    Pure and simple..

    And do you know what happens to the conspirators in a coup???

    :D

    "Ye shall hang by the neck until you are dead!! DEAD!! DEAD!!!!"
    -Trelane, STAR TREK, The Squire Of Gothos

    :D

  353. [353] 
    Michale wrote:

    MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Monday that Washington would need Russian consent to publish transcripts of phone calls between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

    Yep: Putin calls the shots in the Blotus administration.

    So, now you unequivocally believe Putin's claims, eh??

    Well, I guess that's logical..

    Yer being Putin's bitch, after all..

    So, it stands to reasons that you have to believe all of Putin's spewings..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  354. [354] 
    Paula wrote:

    [350] TS: I'd love it if you were right! But I don't think he could pull it off - literally. I don't think he could make the arrangements - he's a delegator. Someone else would have to put it together...

  355. [355] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    342

    Blotus won't care about any of that, but he will care about his image and staying out of jail.

    He does not care about his image... he'll just lie as per usual and lead the ignorant rubes around by the nose in the same manner he's being led by Putin, but he's retweeting threats of violence and talk about this country descending into Civil War because he'd be happy to watch Americans die if it would keep him out of prison.

    Obviously he's concerned about prison because of consciousness of guilt; he knows what he's done.

  356. [356] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, let's take stock

    DLC Veronica has been shut up with her bullshit lie about Schiff-head's alleged great deed in securing testimony from the bullshit "whistle blower".. Testimony that is non-existent..

    Stig's been proven a total liar for claiming he ignores me..

    Blathy's been proven a purveyor of bullshit by claiming that I never have any links and that all my links are from Trump supporters...

    Xanax Pauly has been exposed for the Putin Bitch she is..

    "Well, I guess my work here is done.. "
    -Beetlejuice

    :D

  357. [357] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mike - I'm not concerned. I've run the numbers, and your guy has about the chances of an iceberg in hell to be re-elected.

    Should he be impeached? Well the basket is overflowing with impeachable offenses, so why not?

    Gotta do something while we wait for election day.

  358. [358] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that describes a world that doesn’t exist, and can never exist. Instead, Congress is constrained not by the imaginings of political pundits, not even by the wishes of our Founding Fathers, but by the hard black letters of the Constitution. I am aware that impeachments have indeed been used for political purposes before, but I am arguing for a return to the plain language of the Constitution as a safeguard against chicanery. If Congress tries to stretch a friendly phone call between the presidents of two friendly nations into an impeachable offense, it will lose not only its credibility but also its own legitimacy that is granted by the Constitution.

    Were a president to be threatened with impeachment for “laughing the wrong way,” he should immediately laugh himself right over to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether laughing is a high crime or misdemeanor on the same level as treason and bribery. The same goes for asking an ally for information on potential crimes committed by or against Americans. That should be considered an obvious duty of the executive branch. And if the Congress proceeds with impeachment on such a flimsy predicate, then it should be subject to the same judicial review that all legislative action has undergone since Marbury v. Madison.

    For remember, the Constitution says that the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” By including the word “other” in the formulation, the document is informing us that treason and bribery are examples of high crimes and misdemeanors and set the bar very high indeed for what other offenses might be deemed appropriate for removal of a president. It’s no laughing matter.

    Great idea!!!

    Let's let the SCOTUS decide if the Democrats impeachment is legitimate..

    I would abide by the decision of the SCOTUS in this regard...

    Will ya'all???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ya'all and I ALL know that ya'all wouldn't..

    Hence, a COUP is a PERFECT description of this action by the Democrats...

  359. [359] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mike - I'm not concerned. I've run the numbers, and your guy has about the chances of an iceberg in hell to be re-elected.

    Then you should be AGAINST impeachment..

    If your fantasy numbers are reality based, you should be against the coup..

    The fact that yer not PROVES not only that your numbers are bullshit..

    It ALSO proves that you KNOW your numbers are bullshit.. :D

    Should he be impeached? Well the basket is overflowing with impeachable offenses, so why not?

    And yet, you have not a SINGLE FACT that supports yer claim.. :D

    Gotta do something while we wait for election day.

    Sure, might as well destroy the country with a coup and do Putin's bidding..

    I have never been so disgusted with you as I am right now..

    You would let your hate and bigotry and intolerance strike a blow to this country...

    You really are Putin's bitch... :eyeroll:

  360. [360] 
    Michale wrote:

    The court might take the cowardly way out and say only the legislature can make a decision on the limits of its own power, but as we have seen repeatedly in the last three years, the judiciary has felt no such compunction when asked to rein in the executive branch; nor should it hesitate to correct the legislative branch when it goes astray. Moreover, impeachment is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the president should quickly file a motion to dismiss the charges against him if they were based on a political rather than criminal foundation.

    No guarantees about the outcome of such an action, but since impeachment is so rare, one cannot consider any precedent to be set in stone, and for all we know, an activist judiciary might jump at the chance to correct the wrong of an unjust impeachment whose sole purpose appears to be to prevent a gadfly president from being re-elected.

    If so, President Trump may have the last laugh.

    Yep..

    Considering the ONLY 3 possibilities that Dumbocrats face...

    President Trump having the last laugh is a pre-ordained conclusion.. :D

  361. [361] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy Testical Tuesday!!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

    Biden's campaign has plummeted almost 10 points in Iowa since this faux impeachment AKA coup has kicked off!!!

    Who was it who said that Biden will be the FIRST casualty of this bullshit coup of the Democrats on behalf of Putin???

    Oh, wait.. IT WAS ME!!!! :D

  362. [362] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congrats, Dumbocrats..

    You have totally destroyed the campaign of a good man, a man who at least had a SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL of beating President Trump...

    President Trump's landslide victory in Nov 2020 is on ya'all's heads.. :D

  363. [363] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You simply CANNOT support the Democrats in this..

    You simply cannot..

    It would be COMPLETELY illogical...

    The decision is thrust upon you..

    Do you hate President Trump more than you honor Joe Biden...

  364. [364] 
    Paula wrote:

    [355] Kick: Yep, Blotus is inciting violence to save his guilty orange ass. Welp, it's been inevitable as I've noted before. But it won't save him - quite the opposite. But it will seal the fate of Blotus, his enablers and his followers.

  365. [365] 
    Michale wrote:

    Before you lash out at me, I am constrained to point out that it's not me who put you into this situation..

    It's the Democrats you support..

    I simply ask you to declare a side..

    Are you a Democrat supporter???

    Or are you a Biden supporter???

    Because it's clear, what with the actions of the Democrats that are destroying Biden, you cannot be both..

  366. [366] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, it's been inevitable as I've noted before.

    WOW.. Paula agrees with me!!!

    Is the world ending??

    Yes, Paula.. Violence IS inevitable..

    And who do you think is going to win??

    The group that has all the training and all the guns??

    Or the group that is afraid of guns??

    "You must choose.. But choose wisely.."
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

  367. [367] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If your fantasy numbers are reality based, you should be against the coup..

    But they are reality based. The odds of Trump "cutting into an inside straight" in the electoral college are slim to none, now that everyone's looking for it.

    Don't forget, but for extremely thin margins in swingy states in 2016, Trump would have lost the election by 5 million votes.

    you have not a SINGLE FACT that supports yer claim

    Trump's complete obstruction of congress, to start.

    Do you deny that it's happening? I sure see it.

    might as well destroy the country with a coup and do Putin's bidding

    Funny, I was thinking the same about you, only MY side hasn't been feeding Putin top secret information, as Trump has. If anyone's earned the title of "Putin's Bitch" it's Trump (and by extension the republicants in congress).

  368. [368] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    356

    Your ever-present anger toward others and general hatred is near palpable and again duly noted; however, there is absolutely nothing you can say about a single poster on this forum that will do a damn thing to change your incontrovertible pathetic existence even one scintilla, and you have yourself and you own lousy choices to thank for it.

    You're bupkis. :)

  369. [369] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno.. It's funny..

    When I talk about the inevitably of a bloody civil war, ya'all jump 10-8 in my shit and deny it..

    When XanaX Paula says the exact same thing, ya'all are silent..

    How come??

    Oh, that's right.. It's universally understood here in Weigantia that Paula is a fragile head case and ya'all are treating her with kid gloves so she won't spiral into the gutter....

    It makes sense now..

  370. [370] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yes, Paula.. Violence IS inevitable..

    Well, there goes your invitation to Thanksgiving.

  371. [371] 
    Kick wrote:

    As I have said many times before, they cannot obstruct forever. :)

  372. [372] 
    Michale wrote:

    But they are reality based. The odds of Trump "cutting into an inside straight" in the electoral college are slim to none, now that everyone's looking for it.

    yea??

    Where are your facts to support your claim??

    You have none..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

    Don't forget, but for extremely thin margins in swingy states in 2016, Trump would have lost the election by 5 million votes.

    yea, cuz Virginia and Pennsylvania are going to vote for the candidate that promises to end fossil fuels..

    Michigan and Wisconsin are going to vote for the candidate who will end their cadillac health plans..

    I gotta ask, Blathy..

    Do you just recite all this bullshit by rote??

    Or do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE it??

    Trump's complete obstruction of congress, to start.

    What you call obstruction is simply self defense and defense of country against an illegitimate coup..

    Democrats have been promising this coup even BEFORE President Trump took office.

    And YOU want to spew the bullshit that it's based on facts!!???

    BBBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I have already PROVEN that you are a liar.. What makes you think you have ***ANY*** credibility???

  373. [373] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, there goes your invitation to Thanksgiving.

    Mine or Paula's???

    If mine..

    THANK GODS!! I couldn't stomach a tofu based "turkey"..

    "Not a fan of vegetarian cuisine, eh?"
    "Well, yea, no.. I thought we were going to have.. yunno.. FOOD"

    -STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

    Although, in all honesty, I have to admit that I did enjoy Burger King's IMPOSSIBLE BURGER.... :D

  374. [374] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Outside the Beltway, people want this thing to be over. I think they’ve had enough of it. This is one of my concerns about the continued release of materials even before the inquiry itself has begun. And I think the American people have other things they want their government to take care of other than dwell on this.”

    “It is time we move forward, and not have the Congress and the American people endure a specter of what could be a yearlong focus on a tawdry but not impeachable affair.”

  375. [375] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden is barely advertising online anymore
    https://theweek.com/speedreads/868657/joe-biden-barely-advertising-online-anymore

    The die is cast...

    Joe Biden is folding up operation..

    Great job, Dumbocrats.

    You just shit-canned the ONE guy that could have maybe, possibly, had an iota of a chance of beating President Trump...

    Hope ya got your Trump vote ready, JL...

    Stick a fork in Biden.. He's done..

  376. [376] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden is missing in action.

    The former vice president's seemingly untouchable polling lead has been leapfrogged a handful of times over the past few weeks, namely by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). That would imply that it's time for Biden to double down and reach out to more voters, but his online advertising is suggesting he's doing the opposite, The New York Times reports.

    In the month leading up to the September Democratic debate, Biden spent just $32,000 on Facebook ads, per the Times. That's less than five candidates who didn't make the stage spent, and less than two candidates who dropped out during that time. It's also a huge plunge from the $1.2 million Biden spent on Facebook and Google ads in the first two weeks after his April campaign launch. Instead, Biden has shifted his ad spending to TV ads — a move that Zac Moffatt, who ran Mitt Romney's digital operations, said "reeks of desperation." "You are spending at least a third to half your life on your mobile phone, and they're deciding they don't need to have a message for you there," Moffatt told the Times.

    Gods, I hate being factually accurate sometimes..

    Joe Biden did not deserve this..

  377. [377] 
    Paula wrote:

    #CivilWar2 has some fun tweets:

    Santa Claus, CEO
    @SantaInc
    [slow harmonica music
    ????
    ]
    My Dearest Martha,

    We have run out of memes. Lt. Rudy Giuliani is trying to keep our spirits up, but he sounds like a raving lunatic. I fear all hope is lost.

    Please send nudes.

    --

    My Dearest Martha,

    War is truly hell. I fear this may be my last letter as my battery is on 6%.

    General Trump refuses to surrender, yet the impeachment forces will soon overtake us.

    Please send nudes.

    --

    My Dearest Martha,

    It has been a fortnight since we last Snapchatted. Captain Stephen Miller insists that we are winning, but war has aged him greatly. Morale is too low to continue.

    Please send nudes.

    --

    My Dearest Martha,

    General Trump has taken ill; he has a touch of the bone spurs. Our army shall wait it out, but I fear he shall never recover.

    Please send nudes.

    -------------

    Gen. Filthy Mouthed Wife
    @snarkymom428
    ·
    6h
    Dear Mama,

    I only have a liddie’ covfefe left. All of our good Christian men are out of wife beaters (covered in blood) and red suspenders. The only camp we have is near the windmill, which our #TraitorTrump says will give us cancer.
    __________________

    Mrs. Betty Bowers
    @BettyBowers
    ·
    4h
    KID: “Grandpa, what was #CivilWar2 like?”

    GRANDPA: “Well, the Middle Class fought the Poor, while the Rich sat back and sold them both supplies and stories about each other. Crazy old Trump didn't pay any attention. Or bills. He was arrested and no statues of him are allowed.”
    _____________

    Dan the Eloquent
    @DanEloquent
    #CivilWar2
    #CivilWar2Letters

    Dearest Kaitlyn,
    we made 20 miles today. As we marched past each gutted Starbucks and looted McDonalds, I could hear your voice asking sweetly for extra whip.
    Captain says we’ll be in Billings by tomorrow. A regiment of Redhats have fortified a

    Costco. Between generators, appliances, and frozen foods, they could hide in there forever.

    I know times are hard, but worry not my love. I’ll return soon, once we’ve put down this Redhat Revolt. Maybe life can get back to normal once President Warren is sworn in.

    Love,
    Dan
    ____________________

    Matt V Skywalker
    @MIB1188
    ·
    13h
    Dearest Martha,
    We have yet to enter into battle, but we can hear the whining of the adversary in the distance. Most commonly it is cries of “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” and complaints they are low on covfefe and hamberders.
    I pray the conflict will be brief.
    #CivilWar2
    ______________

    Operative_X
    @OperativeXRay
    ·
    4h
    "Mother,
    I was recruited by the #AntifaDomesticTerrorists Division. We made Soros Cakes from the Deep State cookbook. We've joined forces with the Bowling Green Brigade and march on MAGA's Forest Rakers. Gen. Clinton leads us."
    #secondcivilwarletters
    #CivilWar2/#CivilWarSignup

    God I love the left.

  378. [378] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why're you trying to stick a fork in Joe Biden? I could be that his online advertising wasn't working, or that his current word-of-mouth will do.

    Are you AFRAID of Biden?

    are ya, punk?

  379. [379] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS

    Add another Trump associate to our White House Christmas card, TS!

    Rep. Chris Collins of My Ass Got Arrested fame... member of the Trump transition team and latest person in a long line of those associated with Treasonous Trump to feel the squeeze of the long arm of the law will apparently plead guilty of that insider trading he insisted he did not do from the White House lawn... along with those family members of his he frantically phoned from the White House lawn... caught on video.

    So another day, another criminal MAGAt.

    That Christmas card of ours is getting full! ;)

  380. [380] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and yet, biden still holds a 10 point lead nationally. maybe he'll win, maybe he won't. but one thing is certain: reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated.

  381. [381] 
    Kick wrote:

    MAGAt Chris Collins has resigned!

    That was quick. :)

  382. [382] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    380 Of course.

  383. [383] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why're you trying to stick a fork in Joe Biden? I could be that his online advertising wasn't working, or that his current word-of-mouth will do.

    Yea.. Cuz Bidens national and Iowa polls are NOT plummeting...

    :eyeroll: Once again, do you actually BELIEVE the bullshit you spew???

    Are you AFRAID of Biden?

    I feel sorry for Biden.. He actually had a chance at one point in time..

    Now that Democrats have kneecapped him??

    I only have sympathy and pity for Joe Biden..

    But there IS a silver lining.. JL is going to join me in voting for President Trump.. :D

    So, that's a plus...

  384. [384] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    He was a great receiver.

  385. [385] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    any shmoe can cherry-pick an outlier poll here or there, but most of senator warren's gains appear to have been coming at the expense of senator sanders. biden's dip this week is understandable given all the dirt being flung at him by donald and his supporters, but he's rebounded from every other dip so far.

  386. [386] 
    Michale wrote:

    and yet, biden still holds a 10 point lead nationally.

    Actually, Biden's lead is only 6 points nationally..

    And what was his lead before all this kicked off??

    20 point lead... I am sure you can do the math..

    :^/

    You want to talk about Iowa???

    but one thing is certain: reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated.

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to convince yourself you won't have to vote Trump.. :D

  387. [387] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    including being virtually decimated by kamala harris in the first primary debate. looking at it long term, kamala harris now has about as much chance of winning the nomination as don harris (which is to say, slightly less of a chance than pie).

  388. [388] 
    dsws wrote:

    [296] Michale
    A Warren nomination will guarantee a President Trump re-election..

    Although I am loathe to speak for them (so I won't), I am fairly certain that I can accurately opine that CRS, JL and DSWS feel the same...

    Um, have you read any of my posts in the last few months? I think Elizabeth Warren is our best general-election candidate. A Warren nomination will not happen. A Biden nomination will happen, and that's what will guarantee the president's re-election.

    And I was saying that before we knew that Hunter Biden was going to be on trial in the Senate for most of next year.

    [343] Balthasar
    Hate to burst your liddle bubble, but the Constitution gives ALL of the power to the voters.

    Read the document. It gives almost all the powers to Congress. It is framed as being a limited grant of powers from the People to the government. For it to try to give powers to the voters would be incoherent.

    [373]
    Although, in all honesty, I have to admit that I did enjoy Burger King's IMPOSSIBLE BURGER.... :D

    I'm glad to hear that. I've never liked the taste of meat.. (Ham, bacon, and most sausage were the exceptions, because they taste like salt and weird chemicals they're full of, not like meat.) So I don't have any interest in the iBurger for myself. But the conditions that livestock are subjected to are horrible, and if the new pseudo-meat satisfies people who like meat, hurrah for that.

  389. [389] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    any shmoe can cherry-pick an outlier poll here or there

    Uh.. Sorry to douse yer thunder..

    These are RCP polls, Joshua...

    but most of senator warren's gains appear to have been coming at the expense of senator sanders.

    While that may or may not be accurate, it doesn't change the FACT (as "fact" as polls can be) that Biden's numbers are in free-fall..

    biden's dip this week is understandable given all the dirt being flung at him by donald and his supporters, but he's rebounded from every other dip so far.

    A> The dirt is NOT being flung SOLELY by President Trump and supporters..

    and

    B> he has NEVER had such a large dip, even after Harris bitch-slapped him in the first debate..

    and

    C> Biden simply cannot recover because there will be *ONGOING* revelations about his and his son's actions in Ukraine AND China..

    Biden is done.. Fini... Finished..

  390. [390] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i stand corrected. yes michale, 6.5%. biden hasn't led by even close to 20% since mid-june, when harris tore him a new one. but invariably, those who attack biden have had a way of losing bigger and more permanently, while joe has thus far rebounded.

  391. [391] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    :eyeroll: Once again, do you actually BELIEVE the bullshit you spew???

    I can see that the person that spews bullshit, is the bullshitter.

  392. [392] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm glad to hear that. I've never liked the taste of meat.. (Ham, bacon, and most sausage were the exceptions, because they taste like salt and weird chemicals they're full of, not like meat.) So I don't have any interest in the iBurger for myself. But the conditions that livestock are subjected to are horrible, and if the new pseudo-meat satisfies people who like meat, hurrah for that.

    For those who have an aversion to real meat, I would highly recommend it.

    I dunno if it's because BK piles on the sauces and spices and lettuce/tomato/etc etc or what....

    Let's just say that, as an avid meat and potatoes kinda guy, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a blind taste test...

    Read the document. It gives almost all the powers to Congress. It is framed as being a limited grant of powers from the People to the government. For it to try to give powers to the voters would be incoherent.

    I knew that.. I just wanted to tweak Blathy's chain that, according to HIM, it was the VOTERS who wanted Merrit Garland out and Neil Gorsuch in... :D

  393. [393] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can see that the person that spews bullshit, is the bullshitter.

    So... yer looking in a mirror, then....

  394. [394] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    dsws: And I was saying that before we knew that Hunter Biden was going to be on trial in the Senate for most of next year.

    Not happening. Nothing to charge him with, for starters.

    Read the document. It gives almost all the powers to Congress. It is framed as being a limited grant of powers from the People to the government. For it to try to give powers to the voters would be incoherent.

    Okay, apples and oranges. Voters vote for congress. The point is that the power of the executive is strictly limited.

  395. [395] 
    Michale wrote:

    i stand corrected. yes michale, 6.5%. biden hasn't led by even close to 20% since mid-june, when harris tore him a new one.

    Yer right... I must have been thinking of Biden's free fall in IOWA..

    Regardless, it's impossible not to see Biden's precarious drop in the polls..

    Bide won't survive..

    Want to do a T-Shirt bet?? :D

    but invariably, those who attack biden have had a way of losing bigger and more permanently, while joe has thus far rebounded.

    That was true when it was fellow Democrats who were attacking..

    But 2 things..

    The American people are now having their say

    and

    The other Dem candidates never had such a huge piece of dirt on Biden.. ESPECIALLY in light of Obama's silence..

  396. [396] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can see that the person that spews bullshit, is the bullshitter.

    I mean, it WAS you who claimed that I don't have any links.

    I proved you were full of shit..

    It WAS you who claimed it's all Trump supporters in those links I "didn't have"..

    I proved you were full of shit there too.

    So, for anyone who is NOT a Party slave and has more than 2 brain cells to rub together...

    It's YOU who is the bullshitter..

  397. [397] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Want to do a T-Shirt bet?? :D

    i'm comfortable with the bet we have already. regardless of who wins, adding anything on top of that would just be rubbing it in.

  398. [398] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The other Dem candidates never had such a huge piece of dirt on Biden.. ESPECIALLY in light of Obama's silence..

    Oh that's it, you want it to work.

    Gotcha.

  399. [399] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws: And I was saying that before we knew that Hunter Biden was going to be on trial in the Senate for most of next year.

    Not happening. Nothing to charge him with, for starters.

    Since when has THAT ever mattered to politicians!!???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    We're talking the court of public opinion, dipshit..

    DUH...

    Okay, apples and oranges. Voters vote for congress. The point is that the power of the executive is strictly limited.

    It MAY have been at one time..

    But Odumbo totally destroyed that with the acquiesce of the Democrat Party :D

  400. [400] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    i'm comfortable with the bet we have already. regardless of who wins, adding anything on top of that would just be rubbing it in.

    I salute yer civility sir..

    It's so rare these days.. :D

  401. [401] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    394

    Voters vote for congress. The point is that the power of the executive is strictly limited.

    Exactly this! Congress is "We the People." :)

    Point to Balthasar.

  402. [402] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is this still going on?

    Well, I'd like to take this opportunity to suggest Adam Schiff for the next MDDOTW. or, several weeks, for that matter. Ahem.

  403. [403] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Blathy,

    He was a great receiver.

    :eyeroll:

    I assume YOU are talking about Chris Collinsworth...

    DLC Victoria was talking about Chris Collins

    Do you not eat yer wheaties this morning, Balthy???

  404. [404] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    why? or more aptly, why now?

  405. [405] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I'd like to take this opportunity to suggest Adam Schiff for the next MDDOTW. or, several weeks, for that matter. Ahem.

    I completely and 1000% agree..

    Schiff-head has scrooed da pooch six way's from sunday in the last couple days..

    And the Luser wanted to give him credit for the non-existent whistle-blower testimony!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  406. [406] 
    Michale wrote:

    @liz,

    why? or more aptly, why now?

    hehe Now THAT was funny.. :D

  407. [407] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For his poor performance - and, that's putting it mildly - at the DNI hearing and, thereby, giving Trump a shi, err boatload of ammunition against Democrats.

  408. [408] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, let that, mercifully, be the last word here.

  409. [409] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    There are a couple points I would like ya to address, if ya don't mind..

    Let me know if you can't find them.. I'll repeat... :D

  410. [410] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Please repeat.

  411. [411] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    If I recall correctly, 500 some odd comments is the record here in Weitgantia..

    If Democrats actually push his faux impeachment coup thru, it bodes very VERY well for the 14th Annual Weigantia Fundraiser.. :D

  412. [412] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, don't make me sorry I asked.

  413. [413] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'll sum up the two points..

    You simply CANNOT support the Democrats in this..

    You simply cannot..

    It would be COMPLETELY illogical...

    Democrats have done something that could harm Joe Biden immensely...

    Do you hate President Trump more than you honor Joe Biden...

    Before you lash out at me, I am constrained to point out that it's not me who put you into this situation..

    It's the Democrats..

    I simply am asking where your heart lies..

    Are you a Democrat supporter???

    Or are you a Biden supporter???

    Because it's clear, what with the actions of the Democrats that are destroying Biden, one really cannot be both..

  414. [414] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, don't make me sorry I asked.

    I'll try not to.. :D

  415. [415] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz:

    For my opinion of his poor performance - and, that's putting it mildly - at the DNI hearing.

    There. Fixed it for you.

  416. [416] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar

    Biden isn't done just yet. MAGAt Chris Collins, though... definitely done!

    https://twitter.com/NickReisman/status/1178737756702433281

    Balthy is absolutely correct that Collins was a "great receiver"... just too damn bad that he turned around and passed that insider info he RECEIVED to his family and got their pictures pasted onto family mugshots.

    Yet another MAGAt breaching the public trust for his own personal gain... if I saw patterns in things. ;)

  417. [417] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, let that, mercifully, be the last word here.

    Shirley, you jest.. :D

  418. [418] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    are you a Biden supporter?

    Mike is no Biden supporter. He supports Trump and the wild idea that after Jared and Ivana, and Don Junior, we ought to be giving one little shit about what Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine.

    This is his plan: to make it sound bigger than it is.

  419. [419] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Schiff-head doesn't mind getting dirt from Ukraine..

    GOP lawmaker digs up audio of Schiff telling prank callers he would accept Trump dirt from Ukraine
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-rep-digs-up-audio-of-schiff-saying-he-would-accept-dirt-on-trump-from-ukrainian-politician-in-prank-call

    As long as it's dirt on President Trump... :eyeroll:

  420. [420] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [411]

    Michale you got that right! For the longest time I never read the comments but I've found them to highly entertaining. I guess we'll find out if impeachment is real or faux.

  421. [421] 
    Michale wrote:

    Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz has dug up a nearly two-year-old prank call in which House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff told two Russian radio hosts posing as a Ukranian politician that he would be willing to accept damaging anti-Trump information.

    Gaetz on Sunday tweeted an edited clip from the eight-minute-long phone call. It comes as Republicans are pushing back at the House Democratic impeachment inquiry over allegations President Trump pressured the Ukranian president into investigating the family of 2020 rival Joe Biden.

    In the clip, Schiff, D-Calif., tells the Russian shock-jocks, who were posing as Andriy Parubiy, the former speaker of Ukraine's parliament, that he would be willing to accept dirt on Trump from the Ukranian.

    "So, you have recordings of both [Russian journalist Ksenia] Sobchak and [Russian model and singer Olga] Buzova where they're discussing the compromising material on Mr. Trump?" Schiff asked the callers posing as Parubiy.

    Schiff-head is truly a shit-head...

  422. [422] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [420]

    "...found them to BE highly entertaining."

  423. [423] 
    Michale wrote:

    MynCaddy

    Michale you got that right!

    Of course I got it factually accurate..

    I am *ALWAYS* factually accurate..

    I was dead on ballz factually accurate in 2016, predicting President Trump's win and even stating the EXACT EC spread..

    Of course, that was before your time...

    Yer just a JEEP and not worthy.... :D

  424. [424] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Well obviously we would welcome a chance to get copies of those recordings," Schiff said later in the call after he and the fake "Parubiy" go on to discuss more details of the bogus allegations.

    The Russian radio hosts, Vladimir "Vovan" Kuznetzov and Alexey "Lexus" Stolyarov, who have close ties to the Kremlin, told Schiff that the Kremlin had naked photos of Trump and that "Parubiy" could provide audio of Sobchak and Buzova discussing the photos. They also told Schiff that former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn had met with another Russian to talk about how to prevent the photos from going public.

    Schiff-head was ALL about getting dirt on Trump from foreign sources...

    Now, he's just a putz and the future winner of the Weigantian MDDOTW award.. :D

  425. [425] 
    Michale wrote:

    DOMINATION!!!!!
    -Mortal Kombat

    The Alpha Dog romps around his domain.. :D

  426. [426] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell: Senate must take up impeachment if House approves

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that Senate rules would require him to take up any articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump if approved by the House, swatting down talk that that the GOP-controlled chamber could dodge the matter entirely.

    “I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell said on CNBC. But he cautioned, “How long you’re on it is a whole different matter.”
    https://apnews.com/f1b464aec99348bd9f31c81fd4d80e5d

    OK It looks like the Senate Plan is option #3 of what I posted before...

    Take up impeachment, declare the articles flimsy and without fact and then dismiss them...

    This presupposes that Democrats will actually be able to pass the Articles Of Impeachment in the House..

    That is, by NO MEANS, assured..

  427. [427] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Boy, are you ever missing the point: The President can never, ever, pressure the leader of another state about digging up dirt on a political opponent.

    The Chairman of a congressional committee, can look at whatever comes his way. As long as he hasn't solicited the material, it isn't his. He'd probably report it to justice.

  428. [428] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    419

    The useful idiots can't defend Trump so here comes the Fox News propaganda bullshit brigade regurgitation from the bleating sheeple.

    Fox News! *laughs*

  429. [429] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gaetz accused Schiff of hypocrisy for appearing willing to accept information from the Ukranian government as his committee investigates Trump for advocating that Ukraine pursue an investigation that would have likely been politically beneficial to the president's reelection campaign.

    This comes as Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee take center stage in the impeachment fight as the committee is set to question intelligence community Inspector General Mike Atkinson on Friday. The committee also reached a deal for testimony from the whistleblower whose complaint set off scrutiny on Trump's call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky, shortly before which he put a hold on $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. Democrats have said the combination of the withheld aid and the requests for an investigation into the Biden family amounted to a proposed quid-pro-quo by Trump.

    It's unclear when the committee will hear from the whistleblower.

    But!!!!! But!!!!!

    Schiff-head has already arraigned the testimony of the faux "whistle blower"... LUSER here in Weigantian SAID SO!!!!

    What gives!!!???

    :D

    Gods it's tough bein' factually accurate all the time.. :D

  430. [430] 
    Michale wrote:

    While Schiff does not appear to question the veracity of the prank callers' assumed identity on the January 2018 call, his office said they did not simply take the pranksters at their word.

    In other words, Schiff-head was completely earnest until he found out he had been had, then tried to back-pedal furiously!!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  431. [431] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick wrote:
    Mike
    419

    "I've just collapsed it into about a dozen comments now that I've invoked "HIDDEN" and relegated it to its proper place of invisibility. Be gone! And so it is."

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Once again, the DLC LUSER is caught in another lie!!! :D

    BITCH IS PWNED!!!! :D

  432. [432] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, my "proper place" is NOT in invisibility, but rather in my rent-free space I enjoy in this LUSER's head!!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  433. [433] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It doesn't matter, Mike. Schiff can look at any material he wants. He's the head of the Intelligence Committee, for christs sake. It's what he does after that matters. You're chasing illusions.

  434. [434] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am betting I am going to be seeing emails soon from my fellow Weigantians, asking me to take it easy on the LUSERS here because I am kicking their asses so bad and hurting their feelings.. :D

  435. [435] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    427

    Of course, you're correct. I'm not hearing a vigorous defense of Trump here from any lawmakers. Just pissing on everyone else in the usual fashion.

    Tells you everything you need to know.

    John Bolton... come on down. You're the next contestant on the "Price is Indict." :)

  436. [436] 
    Michale wrote:

    It doesn't matter, Mike. Schiff can look at any material he wants.

    Really??

    So some lowly House committee member can solicit or be solicited dirt on a political opponent...

    But the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES cannot!!!???

    BBBBBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Did you just REALLY say that stoopid shit!!???

    I am DEFINITELY going to save that quote!!

    Jeesus!!! That's going to go right up there with JL's claim that we can "STOP CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!"

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  437. [437] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You're the only LUSER here, that can't stay civil, and gives no shits for the truth.

    The only feelings we have is PITY for a Trump guy.

  438. [438] 
    Michale wrote:

    ACK!!!!

    Jeesus!!! That's going to go right up there with JL's claim that we can "STOP CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!"

    That should be JM's claim, NOT JL....

    My bust, JL.. You KNOW I would never do that on purpose..

    I guess you were just on my mind.. :D heh

  439. [439] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're the only LUSER here, that can't stay civil,

    Says the moron who supports the CUNT who attacked my wife and children **AND** GRANDCHILDREN!!

    Do you HONESTLY believe I give a SINGLE SHIT about what you think???

    Son, you don't KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD "civil"...

    Asshole...

    The only feelings we have is PITY for a Trump guy.

    Yea, what you call "pity" is nothing but searing blinding hatred and you are lying to yourself if you think it's anything else..

  440. [440] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gregg Jarrett: Ukraine is just the latest ploy in 'witch hunt' to drive Trump from White House

    It is ludicrous to argue that President Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was an impeachable offense.

    Trump had every right to ask Ukraine to cooperate or assist in an official Department of Justice investigation into the origins of the Russia “collusion” hoax. His request was pursuant to an official probe being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham and initiated by Attorney General William Barr. In fact, Ukraine is required to comply under a binding treaty with the U.S.

    SCHIFF SAYS AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY BEFORE COMMITTEE

    The Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters obligates Ukraine to provide, upon request by the U.S., assistance “in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.” This treaty was negotiated by then-president Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago and approved by the U.S. Senate. Among other things, Ukraine agreed to furnish “documents, records, the taking of testimony or statements of persons” relevant to any U.S. investigation.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-ukraine-is-just-the-latest-ploy-in-witch-hunt-to-drive-trump-from-white-house

    Once again...

    President Trump rulez...

    Democrats droolz

    :D

  441. [441] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So some lowly House committee member can solicit or be solicited dirt on a political opponent...

    But the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES cannot!!

    Almost right. Schiff couldn't solicit the Ukrainians, but to BE SOLICITED is okay, provided that he calls the FBI afterward. In this case he found out right away that they were broadcasters.

    Trump, on the other hand, was caught SOLICITING the Ukrainians hard for dirt on Biden. He offered his personal attorney, and the Attorney General.

    Nope, can't do that.

  442. [442] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s reference to former Vice President Joe Biden and the suspicious activities of his son, Hunter Biden, comes later in the conversation:

    “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that 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.”

    It is indisputable that Biden is seen and heard on videotape bragging that he engineered the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine. Shokin is on record telling the Washington Post that he was sacked because his investigators were “on his (Hunter Biden’s) tail” in a case of suspected corruption involving $3 million in fees that found their way into the pocket of the VP’s son. Joe Biden has dismissed this as nonsense and the mainstream media have accepted his explanation as gospel. However, documents newly uncovered by The Hill’s John Solomon belie Biden’s claim. These records appear to show that that Shokin’s account, not Biden’s, was true.

    Joe Biden’s boast about his “quid pro quo” with Ukraine is compelling evidence that he may have used his public office to confer a benefit ($1 billion) in exchange for something of value –shutting down an investigation to help his son. This is where the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act comes into play, as well as other federal felony statutes such as bribery, extortion, and honest services fraud. The Justice Department would be justified in investigating Biden to determine whether he took any official action involving taxpayer money as Vice President to benefit his son.

    Once again, President Trump had every right to ask Zelensky to assist the U.S. in any existing or prospective investigation. Biden doesn’t enjoy immunity simply because he is running in the Democratic primary for president. There is no amnesty for a prospective political opponent. Lest we forget, the Obama administration launched an investigation into the nominee of the opposing party during a presidential campaign.

    Joe and Hunter Biden are legitimate investigations..

    President Trump's phone call is not..

    It's REALLY that simple...

  443. [443] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [423]

    Um, what's a "JEEP?" I'm a 60 year old Army Vet so I'm not hip to some of the newer slang. The only JEEP I ever heard of was from a buddy who owned one and hated his repair bills. He said JEEP stands for
    Just
    Empty
    Every
    Pocket

  444. [444] 
    Michale wrote:

    Almost right. Schiff couldn't solicit the Ukrainians, but to BE SOLICITED is okay, provided that he calls the FBI afterward.

    That is NOT what you said before!!

    Now you are changing your bullshit..

    You said before that it's illegal to receive "anything of value" which YOU claim includes information from a foreign source..

    You NEVER made ANY distinction on solicited or soliciting.

    What has happened here is once again, YOU got caught in your contradictory bullshit and now you are trying to tab dance your way out of it..

  445. [445] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm a 60 year old Army Vet

    Yea.. Sure you are..

    Stolen valor..

    Have you no shame, you commie scumbag!!??

    The only JEEP I ever heard of was

    Of course.. Because you are LYING when you claim you are a military veteran...

    I was an Army MI Lieutenant.. I was also Air Force OSI, SPI and LEO...

    If you don't know what JEEP is, you are full of shit when you claim to have served..

    Stolen Valor.. The lowest of the low...

  446. [446] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump, on the other hand, was caught SOLICITING the Ukrainians hard for dirt on Biden.

    According to YOUR claim, soliciting or solicited does not matter.

    According to YOUR claim, it's simply ILLEGAL to obtain the info..

    NOW you are back-pedaling and claiming a distinction you didn't claim before..

    In other words.. ONCE AGAIN.. You got caught spewing BULLSHIT and you are trying to WEASEL your way out of it...

    This is the FOURTH TIME i have caught you spewing bullshit..

    THE FOURTH TIME!!!

    IN A SINGLE COMMENTARY!!!

    Yer scroo'ed Blathy.. Your credibility is ZERO...

  447. [447] 
    Michale wrote:

    MtnCaddy

    If you HURRY up and GOOGLE JEEP, you MIGHT be able to recover some SHRED... some IOTA of credibility..

    I doubt it though...

    Yer a lost cause, ya asshole.. :D

  448. [448] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nowhere in the Trump-Zelensky telephone call was there a threat (like Biden’s), pressure, condition, or demand by Trump. Impeachment hysteria, if not insanity, has obscured the facts. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said of Trump’s conversation with his counterpart, “What this shows is repeated, concerted, premeditated, criminal conduct.” Columnist Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post, “For the first time in American history, the president has pleaded guilty to an impeachable offense.” This is effectively what happened…,” he added.

    It is easy to dismiss such obtuse pronouncements as partisan bloviating. In reality, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, international agreements, and federal investigations. The president’s words were neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” If he is aware of potential evidence of lawlessness that resides in the hands of a foreign government, he is duty-bound to ask that such evidence be produced.

    What is driving the impeachment blather is an overwhelming desire by Democrats and the complicit media to destroy Trump’s presidency, undo the 2016 election, and evict him from office. Talk of impeaching Trump began before he was ever sworn in or unpacked his luggage at the White House. Every act by the president has been branded “an impeachable offense.”

    At first, it was emoluments, then it was the firing of James Comey as FBI director, then it was the Trump-Russia “collusion” hoax, then it was Trump’s alleged remark about Gen. Michael Flynn, then it was obstruction of justice. Stormy Daniels was supposed to bring down Trump, then it white-nationalism and neo-Nazism, then it was Michael Cohen’s testimony, then it was Trump’s finances. The list extends ad nauseam.

    At every turn and with every perceived slight, howls of impeachment have reverberated through the halls of Congress and in liberal newsrooms across America. Trump’s demise is always just around the corner, they insist. Except it isn’t. Not if you consider those pesky things called facts.

    Democrats are SOOO TOAST!!!!! :D

  449. [449] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have been battling insomnia the last couple weeks..

    Heart and blood pressure related..

    So I kinda slept in today til 0800...

    Never in my WILDEST dreams would I have known that I was going to slap down and DECIMATE so many Trump/America hating LUSERS today!!! :D

    I wish I could sleep in more often.. :D

  450. [450] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    According to YOUR claim, soliciting or solicited does not matter.

    Oh, but it does matter. If Don Jr. had hung up the phone and called the FBI, you don't think it would matter? Of course it would.

    His father, however, made it a REQUEST of the United States, which pulled the whole affair into another realm. You gotta see that.

  451. [451] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, once again.. I am a victim of my own success..

    I cleared the battlefield.... Ah well...

  452. [452] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    431

    "I've just collapsed it into about a dozen comments now that I've invoked "HIDDEN" and relegated it to its proper place of invisibility. Be gone! And so it is."

    That's great, Mike! Yes, that is exactly how the TamperMonkey(TM) works, and I encourage you to post it however many times it takes for it to permeate your single brain cell, although you'll not convince very many posters regarding your claim of ignoring my posts. The TamperMonkey(TM) script was invented to block you, and any poster on this forum is indeed free to turn it on and off at their choosing.

    Post it until you learn it, moron. That way everyone will know just how high you rank on the poon scale.

    BITCH IS PWNED!!!! :D

    Give your bisexual bitch our sympathies. I'm sure the posters on the board would prefer not to discuss your wife and family, but you can't seem stop posting their names and sexual preferences and incessantly whining like a little about them, and that's not on me anymore you fucking poon... that's your choice! :D

  453. [453] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, but it does matter.

    That's NOT what you said before..

    You said before it was illegal to solicit, accept or receive..

    NOW you are saying the opposite..

    You are full of shit..

    His father, however, made it a REQUEST of the United States, which pulled the whole affair into another realm.

    You mean, like when Hunter Biden's father said FIRE THE PROSECUTOR WHO IS INVESTIGATING MY SON OR YOU DON'T GET A BILLION DOLLARS!!!

    You mean, like that??

    Balthy.. You are full of shit..

    I have PROVEN you are full of shit many times over..

    Accept the facts gracefully... lick your wounds.. come back fresh tomorrow...

  454. [454] 
    Michale wrote:

    CongressCritter quotes...

    “Outside the Beltway, people want this thing to be over. I think they’ve had enough of it. This is one of my concerns about the continued release of materials even before the inquiry itself has begun. And I think the American people have other things they want their government to take care of other than dwell on this.”

    “It is time we move forward, and not have the Congress and the American people endure a specter of what could be a yearlong focus on a tawdry but not impeachable affair.”

  455. [455] 
    Michale wrote:

    MtnCaddy...

    Did you finish googling JEEP yet??

    Jeesus, yer slow..

    You definitely have NEVER served in the US Military...

  456. [456] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If he is aware of potential evidence of lawlessness that resides in the hands of a foreign government, he is duty-bound to ask that such evidence be produced.

    And he'd know that every single thing that he asked the Ukrainians for was bullshit, and that all that they could do was smile, nod, and try to work around it. What kind of lies could he extract, that fed his hate machine, or exculpated Russia. One wonders.

  457. [457] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woot!!! I think we can hit FIVE HUNDRED before I log off to be with my beautiful wife... :D

  458. [458] 
    Michale wrote:

    And he'd know that every single thing that he asked the Ukrainians for was bullshit, and that all that they could do was smile, nod, and try to work around it. What kind of lies could he extract, that fed his hate machine, or exculpated Russia. One wonders.

    Facts to support??

    Nope???

    Of course not.. You never do...

  459. [459] 
    Kick wrote:

    Subpoena for Rudy Giuliani

    Rudy Giuliani... come on down! You're the next contestant on the "Price is Indict"!

    Popcorn, get your popcorn. Probably ought to get NUTS when they question Rudy. Symbolism! :)

  460. [460] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrats subpoena Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani in impeachment probe
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/house-democrats-subpoena-trump-lawyer-rudy-giuliani-in-impeachment-probe.html

    Yea.. THAT is going to go as well as the McGann subpoena and the Hope Hicks subpoena and the Trump Tax Returns subpoena and the Mueller Report subpoena has gone..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Basically, Dumbocrats are just setting themselves up for ANOTHER court loss!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Until such time as Dumbocrats present the so-called "whistle blower" and the non-existent "whistle blower-ettes"....

    Dim subpoenas are not going ANYWHERE...

    They will be referred to the SCOTUS where the SCOTUS will rule on the admissibility of the Dumbocrats anonymous 3rd person hearsay...

    And Dumbocrats will LOSE...

    AGAIN.....

  461. [461] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the emails are pouring in..

    PLEASE!!! PLEASE!!! Take it easy on the users of the chrisweigant.com forum!! They can't handle your onslaught!! They can't handle your facts!!!

    PLEASE take it easy on them!!! Show mercy!!!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  462. [462] 
    Michale wrote:

    I GOT IT!!!!

    https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/aa94d3b098d04edbb465fc7dc137393e/1000.jpeg

    I look at Schiff-head and I say, "That guy really looks familiar!!

    Then it hit me!!!

    Schiff-head is the weaselly crook, coward and bully, President Charles Logan!!!!!

    Looks like reality is imitating art!!! :D

  463. [463] 
    Paula wrote:

    [459] Kick: Yep - Guliani subpeonaed by 3 congressional committees.

    Separately,

    Kyle Griffin
    @kylegriffin"Breaking via NYT: Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent call to help Attorney General Barr gather information for a Justice Dept. inquiry that Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials."

  464. [464] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also breaking:

    The Wall Street Journal
    @WSJ
    · 22m
    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took part in the Trump phone call with Ukraine's leader, a senior State Department official said https://on.wsj.com/2neDNno

  465. [465] 
    Michale wrote:

    Black Virginia 6th grader who claimed white classmates cut off dreadlocks made story up, family says

    A Virginia sixth grader who claimed three of her white male classmates held her down and cut off her dreadlocks is now saying she made up the entire story.

    Amari Allen, an African-American 12-year-old who attends Immanuel Christian School in Springfield — a private school where second lady Karen Pence teaches art — reported the alleged incident last week. She told several media outlets that three boys at school pinned her down and cut off her hair, and local police opened an investigation.

    "They said my hair was nappy and I was ugly," she told WRC-TV. "They put their hands over my mouth. They put my hands behind my back. And they started cutting my hair and saying it was ugly."

    But on Monday, her family released a statement saying the accusations made by the 12-year-old girl had been fabricated.

    “To those young boys and their parents, we sincerely apologize for the pain and anxiety these allegations have caused,” said a statement from the girl's grandparents obtained by The Washington Post. “To the administrators and families of Immanuel Christian School, we are sorry for the damage this incident has done to trust within the school family and the undue scorn it has brought to the school. To the broader community, who rallied in such passionate support for our daughter, we apologize for betraying your trust.”

    Where ON EARTH did this little girl learn the lesson that all she has to do is make up shit, blame it on white people and she will be a hero!??

    Why, from the Democrat Party, of course..

    I wonder if Democrats have the decency to be ashamed..

    I am guessing...

    NOT... :eyeroll:

  466. [466] 
    Michale wrote:

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took part in the Trump phone call with Ukraine's leader, a senior State Department official said https://on.wsj.com/2neDNno

    So??

    2 times NOTHING is still NOTHING....

    DUH...

  467. [467] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    463

    @kylegriffin "Breaking via NYT: Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent call to help Attorney General Barr gather information for a Justice Dept. inquiry that Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials."

    Cover-Up

  468. [468] 
    Michale wrote:

    Independents torn over Trump impeachment in new poll

    The latest poll on the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump over the Ukrainian controversy reveals that independents are deeply divided on the subject.

    The CBS News survey conducted by YouGuv also indicates that a plurality of independents right now say Trump doesn’t deserve to be impeached over the scandal rocking his White House.

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

    "And by the daggers of their own lies, by the bullets of their own deceit, by the shrapnel of their own dishonesty.... So shall they fall!!!

    Democrats are TOAST in 2020!!! :D

  469. [469] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I have said..

    Independents were divided on whether they support the inquiry now underway in the Democrat-controlled House. Forty-nine percent said they approved of the inquiry, with 51 percent disapproving.

    Majority of Independents and NPAs disapprove of the Democrats actions..

    Democrats are TOAST in 2020!! :D

  470. [470] 
    Michale wrote:

    "And by the daggers of their own lies, by the bullets of their own deceit, by the shrapnel of their own dishonesty.... So shall they fall!!!

    That's quite the poetic turn...

    If I do say so myself..

    And I do!!! :D

    "Mr Tipton.. Would you think it's fair to say that you got a better shot of them going INTO the store and not so much going out??"
    "You could say that."
    "I *DID* say that.. Would YOU say that..."

    -MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  471. [471] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    464

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took part in the Trump phone call with Ukraine's leader, a senior State Department official said.

    A senior State Department official said. Hmmmm. My, oh, my!

    It's not exactly a normal thing to have an employee of the State Department participate on a routine congratulatory conference call to a foreign leader... let alone the United States Secretary of State.

    Have I mentioned federal employees are required to report corruption? Because it's a fact.

    https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Whistleblower.PDF

    Well, now we're going to see the dam break. Hoo boy.

  472. [472] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi suggests that Democrats have to impeach Trump because they desperately want to prevent him from getting re-elected: "He can't win, that is very serious"

    And THAT is what it is all about..

    Like Al Green, Pelosi concedes that President Trump "can't win"..

    And Pelosi knows that President Trump *WILL* win..

    So Pelosi is pushing impeachment..

    Democrats state it in plain english..

  473. [473] 
    Paula wrote:

    [471] Kick: Well, now we're going to see the dam break. Hoo boy.

    Yep!

  474. [474] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have I mentioned federal employees are required to report corruption? Because it's a fact.

    Then why didn't these alleged federal employees REPORT the corruption to their chain of command??

    Why did these alleged federal employees yak to some CIA flunky who is not even in the same department!??

    Why didn't these alleged federal employees actually REPORT the alleged corruption and put their name to it??

    Because these federal employees do not exist...

    They are a creation of the Democrat Party to justify a coup... And you know what happens to people who support a coup against the legal and Constitutional government, right??

    Once again, the HEAD LUSER is slapped down like the BITCH she is!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  475. [475] 
    Paula wrote:

    ABC News Politics
    @ABCPolitics
    · 4m
    Pres. Trump told Ukraine's president at least five times that he would task William Barr with assisting him in investigating former Vice Pres. Joe Biden, according to the call summary released by the White House. https://abcn.ws/2mjEStM

    Barr's got some 'splainin to do...

  476. [476] 
    Michale wrote:
  477. [477] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula

    So yet another Trump shakedown to enlist the Australian PM... using DOJ resources to try to refute the Mueller Report and clear Russia... in service to Putin... to blame Ukraine.

    Appendix D is alive and well and being robustly investigated by the IC. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to refute it, now would there?

    Bill Barr is screwed too.

    Whoever gets to the Intelligence Committee first gets immunity. Y'all don't fall all over yourselves, now, you hear!?

    Hoo Boy!

  478. [478] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pres. Trump told Ukraine's president at least five times that he would task William Barr with assisting him in investigating former Vice Pres. Joe Biden, according to the call summary released by the White House.

    And yet.. There is not a SINGLE fact to support that claim...

    Funny how that ALWAYS is the case, eh??

    'Sides.. You didn't have a problem with Odumbo's DOJ investigating the Trump campaign..

    Why should THIS bother you???

  479. [479] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    Compare and contrast the treatment by Democrats of a REAL whistle blower Edward Snowden..

    Now, compare the actions of the Democrats to this alleged "whistle blower" who is unlikely to even exist!!

    The two different responses are VERY illuminating...

  480. [480] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the BASTION OF LEFT WINGERY....

    What Democrats Could Lose With Their Left Turn

    A survey experiment shows that some independents are already being turned off.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/upshot/democrats-2020-losing-independents.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    The New York Grime.....

    Democrats are going to lose ANY hope of winning ANY election in 2020 that is not, by region, a sure thing...

    In other words...

    Democrats are going to have their asses handed to them.. :D

  481. [481] 
    Michale wrote:

    The embrace of progressivism solidifies support among Democratic survey respondents when thinking about the 2020 general election. But it repels independents, with a negative effect that is stronger and clearer than the signs of enthusiasm generated among Democrats.

    As I have said..

    Democrats are TOAST in the 2020 election!!!

    Even the NY Grime agrees...

  482. [482] 
    Michale wrote:

    When deciding between Mr. Trump and the Democratic nominee, voters in the middle — the independents who could ultimately tilt things in Mr. Trump’s favor — became six percentage points less likely to vote Democratic after reading about the leftward turn compared with the independents who had read the innocuous content.

    The more and more FACTS that are learned...

    The more and more it's obvious that Democrats are gonna get slaughtered.... :D

  483. [483] 
    Michale wrote:

    At the same time, playing to the Democratic base seems to have its limits, with no evidence suggestive of mobilization potential. Democrats who read about the leftward positions did not indicate they were more motivated to vote and campaign for the eventual nominee than those who hadn’t read about them.

    The results suggest a double-edged sword, but with one clearly sharper side: the potential of producing Republican gains among a key swing group.

    Ya'all just have to KNOW how bad ya'all have it when it's the NY GRIME that is sounding the Democrat Party death knell... :D

  484. [484] 
    Michale wrote:

    That may well be the right approach, but the question is, are Democrats giving Republicans a head start and making themselves a juicier target? This experiment suggests the answer might be yes.

    Aren't ya'all all about SCIENCE??? :D

    Hay Blathy.. I seem to have chased you away..

    Notice the LINK?? Notice how it's a LEFT WING rag????

    Notice how, once again, I prove you are completely and utterly full of shit!??? :D

  485. [485] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    In keeping with my theory that Blotus will resign to avoid public shame, Newsweek puts out the first trial balloon: DONALD TRUMP WILL RESIGN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2019 IN EXCHANGE FOR IMMUNITY FOR HIM AND HIS FAMILY, FORMER BUSH ADVISER SAYS

    I’ve thought the same thing ever since he made Barr his AG. Barr has a long history in acquiring Republican criminal’s undeserved “Get Out of Jail FREE” cards that allow them to escape being held accountable for their crimes against this country. I have no doubt that Barr’s work history in this area played a part in his being hired.

  486. [486] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Balthy..

    A bit ago, you made a comment on the VERY tenuous nature of President Trump's lead in battleground states..

    Tell me..

    Democrats’ Campaign Promise: We’ll Destroy America’s Energy Sector … And Economy
    https://issuesinsights.com/2019/09/30/democrats-campaign-promise-well-destroy-americas-energy-sector-and-economy/

    How "tenuous" will President Trump's lead be, now that Democrat Candidates on running on the campaign of destroying the country's Energy Sector and decimating our economy???

    My guess is President Trump's lead will not be "tenuous" at all..

    Matter of fact, the President's lead will likely be described as "LANDSLIDE"..

    It's simply AMAZING to me that **ANYONE** could believe that Democrats.... Running on a BAN FRACKING AND FOSSIL FUELS and DESTROY THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMY could EVER hope to prevail..

    No wonder Democrats are SOOO hysterical about impeachment..

    They KNOW they don't stand a CHANCE at the ballot box...

  487. [487] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    474

    Then why didn't these alleged federal employees REPORT the corruption to their chain of command??

    Well, Mike, the Secretary of State's chain of command is the President of the United States, and I'm fairly certain he already knew since he was on the phone call where crimes were being committed.

    Why did these alleged federal employees yak to some CIA flunky who is not even in the same department!??

    What department do you think the CIA belongs to, Mike? It seems you are woefully misinformed if you believe the ICIG is in a different department. The Whistleblower followed the rules. Full Stop.

    Why didn't these alleged federal employees actually REPORT the alleged corruption and put their name to it??

    How do you know they didn't? News is moving fast.

    Because these federal employees do not exist...

    Whatever you have to tell yourself as you stumble blindly through your ignorant stupor daily.

    Once again, the HEAD LUSER is slapped down like the BITCH she is!!

    Mike confesses his HEAD is a LUSER so his BITCH prefers females or Mike confesses that he's a wife beater... likely both! So Mike has two tiny heads... duly noted. :)

  488. [488] 
    Michale wrote:

    Eight of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates say they want to ban fracking. Eleven others would limit the process or “regulate it better,” says the Washington Post. Could these politicians possibly be that ignorant of how ruinous their prohibition lust would be in the real world?

    First, let’s get it straight why the political left hates hydraulic fracturing. It’s not because it’s an environmental threat. They know it’s clean process and has been both an ecological and economic boom, in no small part due to the increased production of natural gas, a cleaner alternative to coal for producing electricity.

    No, the left loathes fracking because it is so efficient in taking fossil fuel out of the ground.

    Democrats are going to CRIPPLE this country.. Militarily.. Economically... Socially...

    It's NO WONDER Democrats are so hysterically pushing this bullshit faux impeachment coup..

    They KNOW they are going to be WIPED OUT at the ballot box!!! :D

  489. [489] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crude production in the U.S. has spiked since 2008, rising from roughly 5 millions barrels a day to almost 11 million barrels in 2018, 17% higher than 2017, says the government’s Energy Information Administration. In December of last year, the country produced 11.96 million barrels per day, an all-time record.

    The growth, says the EIA, was “driven mainly by production from tight rock formations using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. EIA projects that U.S. crude oil production will continue to grow in 2019 and 2020, averaging 12.3 million b/d and 13.0 million b/d, respectively.”

    Meanwhile, natural gas production has soared from 18.05 trillion cubic feet in 2005 to 30.44 trillion cubic feet in 2018. The increase has nearly eliminated the need for imports. According to the EIA, the U.S. consumed 29.97 trillion cubic feet in 2018. Again, “most of the production increases since 2005 were the result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques.”

    America is now the fossil fuel king. We are more energy independent, more energy secure, thanks to fracking.

    This is what Dumbocrats want to throw away...

    They want this country back into the dark ages of Democrat Rule..

    So, they cooked up this faux impeachment coup...

    But Independents and NPAs see thru the Democrat BS.. They are coming down DECISIVELY for President Trump.. :D

    Once again.. The Dumbocrat Party will lose.. :D

  490. [490] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet the Democrats want to turn the energy production clock back decades if not centuries. A comment made by a campaign spokesman for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who not long ago tweeted that “fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused” — that someone who holds such a childish view can be elected to any office in this country is alarming — epitomizes the Democratic field’s closed-minded view on fracking.

    “No amount of regulation can make it safe,” the aide aide told the Washington Post. “When (Sanders) is in the White House, he is going to ban fracking nationwide and rapidly move to 100% clean, sustainable energy.”

    How will Sanders, or any other Democrat elected president, replace the lost energy? Windmills? Sunshine? Those “sustainable” sources are not up to the task, and likely won’t be for some time, no matter how much their supporters fantasize about renewable prices competing with conventional fuels.

    Once again.. Democrats want to return us to the Dark Ages...

    They have STATED as such...

  491. [491] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    479

    Compare and contrast the treatment by Democrats of a REAL whistle blower Edward Snowden..

    Edward Snowden is not a Whistleblower, and your ignorance is alive and well.

    Now, compare the actions of the Democrats to this alleged "whistle blower" who is unlikely to even exist!!

    Enjoy your delusions. Your ignorance and your delusions combine nicely to create a special kind of stupid that's one in a moron!

    The two different responses are VERY illuminating...

  492. [492] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet the Democrats want to turn the energy production clock back decades if not centuries. A comment made by a campaign spokesman for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who not long ago tweeted that “fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused” — that someone who holds such a childish view can be elected to any office in this country is alarming — epitomizes the Democratic field’s closed-minded view on fracking.

    “No amount of regulation can make it safe,” the aide aide told the Washington Post. “When (Sanders) is in the White House, he is going to ban fracking nationwide and rapidly move to 100% clean, sustainable energy.”

    How will Sanders, or any other Democrat elected president, replace the lost energy? Windmills? Sunshine? Those “sustainable” sources are not up to the task, and likely won’t be for some time, no matter how much their supporters fantasize about renewable prices competing with conventional fuels.

    The Democrat ignorance is ASTOUNDING..

    Anyone who VOTES Democrat... THEIR ignorance is astounding!!!

    It's no wonder that Democrats are trying this faux impeachment coup..

    They have no other play....

  493. [493] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    485

    Yep!

  494. [494] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. Lovely wife is home and now I am all hers... :D

    MtnCaddy...

    I am leaving now.. You can slink back, what with yer bullshit claims that you actually served in the military..

    Asshole...

    See ya'all in the AM... :D

    Help me out and push this commentary pass 500... eh?? :D

  495. [495] 
    Michale wrote:

    Glad I caught this one before I signed off.. :D

    Edward Snowden is not a Whistleblower, and your ignorance is alive and well.

    And ONCE AGAIN, the HEAD LUSER get's caught in a bullshit lie!!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Did you EVEN READ this commentary, you MORON..

    When previous whistleblowers have leaked sensitive information, such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, everyone said that they 'should have gone through official channels.'
    -Chris Weigant

    So, tell me.. LUSER....

    WHOSE "IGNORANCE" IS ALIVE AND WELL!!????

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

    Apparently, it's YOUR'S!!!! BITCH!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Once again, Michale bitch slaps DLC Victoria to hell..

    DLC VICTORIA attacks my children and grandchildren in 3.... 2.... 1....

    What an IGNORANT LUSER you are Victoria...

    OK.. NOW I am good ta go.. :D

  496. [496] 
    Michale wrote:

    See ya'all in the Morning...

    I can't see how tomorrow could POSSIBLY be as good as today!!!

    :D :D

  497. [497] 
    Paula wrote:

    [485] Listen: Yep!

  498. [498] 
    Paula wrote:

    So Barr's been running around the world trying to get other countries to try to discredit Mueller and our Intelligence agencies.

    Impeachment is too good for Barr. Should be impeached, disbarred and jailed.

  499. [499] 
    Paula wrote:

    Senator Chris Murphy, CT:

    It’s not that they all didn’t know about the corruption.

    It’s not that they knew about it did nothing.

    They knew about it - came to the conclusion it was cool to use the the power of the presidency to destroy a political rival - and facilitated it.

  500. [500] 
    Paula wrote:

    Charles Pierce:

    It's become plain at this point that the ongoing "review" of the origins of the investigation into the Russian ratfcking of the 2016 election has as one of its primary purposes developing an alternative narrative to the plain fact that the Russians wanted to help the president* become president*, and that he accepted their help, and that this alternative narrative then will be used to discredit the revelations in the whistleblower's complaint, and that this project now commands the attention of, at the very least, the office of the president*, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice. The line for the rollercoaster at Depositionland is getting longer by the minute.

    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29310410/william-barr-and-mike-pompeo-are-now-fully-implicated-in-trumps-trainwreck/

  501. [501] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike

    And ONCE AGAIN, the HEAD LUSER get's caught in a bullshit lie!!!!

    You've already explained your tiny HEAD, and I agree you're a liar. Be that as it may, Edward Snowden does not meet the definition of a "whistleblower" because he stole thousands of pages of government owned documents and gave them to the Russian cutout known as WikiLeaks rather than follow the official procedures outlined in federal whistleblower law. Ditto for Manning. They don't generally file charges of espionage and toss you in prison if you're a whistleblower as that term is defined by statute.

    When previous whistleblowers have leaked sensitive information, such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, everyone said that they 'should have gone through official channels.'
    -Chris Weigant

    While Manning and Snowden are frequently referred to using the colloquial term "whistleblower" and they both certainly insist to this day that that's what they are, the fact that neither of them chose to go through official channels and rather leaked thousands of pages of documents through WikiLeaks is exactly why neither of them are considered to be whistleblowers as that term is defined by the Whistleblower Protection Act.

    So to recap: Manning was incarcerated for espionage and Snowden is likely to eventually follow. While colloquially referred to as "whistleblowers," they do not meet that definition as defined statute.

    Mike, you've claimed a bona fide whistleblower doesn't meet the definition because you're hysterical that he didn't march in lockstep with the GOP-Putin Party and followed federal procedure to report the wrongdoing of Your Lickspittle Worship President Dumbfuckery Putin's Whore, and then you turned around and insisted Manning and Snowden who didn't follow procedure are actually whistleblowers... and that right there is why no one has to take your regular bullspew seriously.

  502. [502] 
    Paula wrote:

    I'm really warming up to the sound of "Interim President Pelosi".

  503. [503] 
    dsws wrote:

    [394] Balthasar
    dsws: And I was saying that before we knew that Hunter Biden was going to be on trial in the Senate for most of next year.

    Not happening. Nothing to charge him with, for starters.

    I thought it was clear that "on trial" here is figurative. Defense lawyers are routinely described as putting the victim or a witness on trial, when they change the focus of the trial from guilt of the accused to the credibility of the victim or other witness.

    The Senate is run by Moscow Mitch. If the House votes articles of impeachment, the entire spectacle of the trial phase in the Senate will be focused on digging up dirt about the Bidens. There will be no one from the House functioning as prosecutor. Because the trial part of impeachment is a Senate proceeding, and as I said, the Senate is run by Moscow Mitch.

  504. [504] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “Well-documented” in that you chose to lie to everyone here for years about your LEO/Military/Security “experience”?

    And your FACTS to support this???

    You have never provided any FACTS to demonstrate that you were a commissioned LEO. None!

    Or “well-documented” in that you lied to me when you admitted that you had never actually worked in law enforcement, but had been an MP when you were in the military?

    Facts to support??

    Hey, Capt. Whorely, I remember when you found comments I made on another website using Disqus. You complimented me for a comment I had made regarding the investigations of police involved shootings. You added your own thoughts, only they were so far from how our laws require actual departments to investigate officer involved shootings that it was clear you did not have the basic understanding of our legal system any police officer would have to know to pass the law enforcement academy. You explained your lack of knowledge of policing protocols on the fact that you’d never been a commissioned LEO in any state, but had been an MP in the military.

    You claimed to still know all about how officer involved shootings are handled because you had been involved in one as an MP. You told me that you were forced to shoot a woman who had come at you with a knife while you were on a DV call. You claimed that you killed her in self-defense, which was what the investigation determined and thus you did not face charges in her death. Do you remember all of this or are you gonna claim that I am just making ALL of this up?

    Here’s a question for you...do you remember if we had this discussion on Disqus or did we have it here? And before you answer, let me just say that I know which platform we used.

    You chose to attack my husband’s work history in law enforcement for asking you a simple question regarding policing — and, shockingly, you never bothered to provide an actual answer.

    Only after you claimed he made most stoopidest of comments that no real LEO would EVER MAKE..

    You stated that your guns ensure your family’s safety. Devon asked if guns ensure your safety, why did he have to wear Kevlar at work. You chose to attack his honor to deflect from your own stupidity being exposed even further!

    So why not tell us all the truth instead of continuing to steal the honor of everyone who does risk their lives by serving their communities and country? Seriously, you can put this all to rest just by telling us which is the truth. Why does that scare you so?

    I have done so much better than tell you the truth..

    I have told you the FACTS..

    The FACTS are better than the truth in your world, because they allow you to ignore the truth.

    For the rest of us, the FACTS and the truth are generally the same things — not opposing forces!

    So let me give you the opportunity to salvage what little self respect you might hope to save with everyone here by admitting which of us is telling the truth. One shot.

  505. [505] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There will be no one from the House functioning as prosecutor.

    During the Clinton Impeachment, the House designated prosecutors, who presented the House's case in the Senate. Then-representative Lindsay Graham was one of them.

  506. [506] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    i admit complete ignorance on the subject, but i don't really see why there is or ought to be such a dramatic distinction in experience and respect between military and civilian policing. i don't mean this (or any) specific case, but why wouldn't MP's merit the same consideration as civilian police?

    JL

  507. [507] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Holy Moly! CW I only linked over to you a couple years ago. Is this the longest comment harvest for this fine blog? If not, which one? Was it a FTP or a post-11/9/2016 blog?

  508. [508] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    Fair question. One of the biggest and most important differences is that MP’s work solely with enlisted personnel and their families on military bases....people who have limited rights compared to non-military personnel. They are policing individuals who know that they must obey their orders. Their focus tends to be much more on asset protection and security than crime prevention.

    Civilians have a much broader set of rights that must not be violated by LEO’s. Each state commissions the law enforcement officers that will serve in that state. The commissioned officers must be familiar with all the state’s laws, codes, and judicial systems. Thus the education requirements and training is much more thorough than that given to MP’s.

    The risks associated with the day-to-day job are also much greater for commissioned LEO’s. There are plenty of other differences, but these are probably the most significant differences.

    MP’s are enlisted members of the military whose service to our country is honorable. But they are basic grunts with no real specialized training.

    For an MP to say they were a commissioned law enforcement officer is as dishonorable as a LEO falsely claiming to be veteran. Both serve their country and communities, but in very different ways.

    Michael chose to lie about his service as a LEO...either to the group as a whole or to me when he claimed to have only been an MP in the service. His lack of understanding of the basics and protocols in law enforcement and how our legal system works were clear indicators that he’d never been a commissioned LEO. That he claims to be an expert on the subject is an insult to those that truly serve.

  509. [509] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cockholster,

    You have never provided any FACTS to demonstrate that you were a commissioned LEO. None!

    First off.. Get your terminology straight..

    Police officers are NOT "commissioned".. Military officers are..

    Police officers are SWORN.... If you were really married to a cop, you would KNOW that.

    Secondly, I am NOT REQUIRED to prove ANYTHING.. You made the claim I am lying.. It's up to YOU to prove YOUR claim..

    But you and I and everyone here knows you WON'T prove your case because you are full of shit..

    Michael chose to lie about his service as a LEO...either to the group as a whole or to me when he claimed to have only been an MP in the service.

    And yet, you CAN'T PROVE that I ever told you any such thing..

    Why is that, cockholster?? Because you KNOW you are full of shit..

    MP’s are enlisted members of the military whose service to our country is honorable. But they are basic grunts with no real specialized training.

    Spoken like a true moron who is completely and utterly ignorant of the military AND Law Enforcement..

    Aside to JL, if you really want the FACTS and not Russ's bullshit, google AFSC 81152-A. It's Law Enforcement Specialist with a K-9 designator. Air Force LEOs do everything that a civilian LEO does. They simply do it on a military base.. Military LEOs have even a bit more training then civilian LEOs..

    Further, Russ is totally full of shit when he claims their jurisdiction.. Military police officers have jurisdiction over military personnel ANYWHERE in the world..

    Now you know the FACTS and now Russ' bullshit spewage...

  510. [510] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    509

    First off.. Get your terminology straight..

    Police officers are NOT "commissioned".. Military officers are..

    Police officers are SWORN.... If you were really married to a cop, you would KNOW that. ~ Mike

    Uh, Russ... you thinking what I'm thinking?

    First off, it is highly likely that just about any "officer" who serves the public in virtually any jurisdiction you can name is "SWORN," but if they are a "law enforcement officer" of a certain caliber, they are generally commissioned by their state of residence upon completion of curriculum and required training as ascertained by applicable state statute(s), and they are sure shit not "SWORN" unless and until they've earned said commission by meeting and/or exceeding a program of predefined standards.

    Secondly, Russ, how do suppose someone who claims "law enforcement bona fides" and lives in Florida doesn't know that the majority of law enforcement officers are certified via commission training and the name of the Commissioner of the State of Florida Department of Law Enforcement is Rick Swearingen?

    http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/CJSTC/Curriculum/Active-Courses

    It's mind boggling and truly defies all logic that an LEO in the State of Florida wouldn't know those basic facts, but here we are.

    Now is the part where Mike resorts to name calling because I've provided the facts of which he seems so frequently blissfully unaware.

    Narrator: Now do Texas, Kick!

    Oh, okay, don't mind if I do.

    continued...

  511. [511] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... continued

    The majority of law enforcement officers in Texas are certified via commission training by The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

    http://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Rules%20Handbook%2011_1_2018_0.pdf

    Say, Russ: Have you ever heard of a "law enforcement officer" who didn't know what it meant to be a commissioned law enforcement officer?

    Because I haven't. :)

  512. [512] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Aside to JL, if you really want the FACTS and not Russ's bullshit, google AFSC 81152-A. It's Law Enforcement Specialist with a K-9 designator. Air Force LEOs do everything that a civilian LEO does. They simply do it on a military base.. Military LEOs have even a bit more training then civilian LEOs.. ~ Mike

    Nope. That code is an obsolete designator used from 1954 through October 1993 and hasn't been used in over 25 years. Being as that is the case, we're talking about pretty primitive training compared to LEO training required of today's technological LEOs.

    As I said, it's an ancient designator, and as such, I was required to "dig deep" to find the list of requisite duties performed in largely primary order. A quick perusal demonstrates a job that would be referred to in the vernacular as having the primary duties of gate guard, security guard, and paper pusher.

    Pardon the all caps, but it's an obsolete designator.

    81132/
    81152
    (N=1,251)

    TASKS

    F313 STAND GUARDMOUNT 65
    F305 PREPARE AND ISSUE TRAFFIC TICKETS OR VIOLATION NOTICES 63
    F240 CONDUCT BUILDING SECURITY CHECKS 60
    F308 PROVIDE DIRECTIONS OR INFORMATION TO VISITORS 59
    F261 DEPLOY IN RESPONSE TO DURESS OR ALARM ACTIVATIONS 56
    F283 ISSUE VISITOR PASSES 56
    E199 MAKE ENTRIES ON C FORMS 75 (VISITOR/VEHICLE PASS) 55
    F297 PERFORM ON-BASE MOBILE PATROLS, OTHER THAN WITH PATROL DOGS 55

    B78 SUPERVISE LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS (81152) 20
    E227 TYPE CORRESPONDENCE IN DRAFT FORM 19
    D136 CONDUCT ON-THE-JOB TRAINING (OJT) 24
    F246 CONDUCT INSPECTIONS OF ASSIGNED POSTS 23
    D155 MAINTAIN TRAINING RECORDS, CHARTS, OR GRAPHS 13
    F276 EVALUATE SITUATIONS AT INCIDENT SCENES 35
    F245 CONDUCT GUARDMOUNT 16

    A20 ESTABLISH ORGANIZATIONAL POLICIES, OFFICE INSTRUCTIONS (01), OR STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) 7
    C87 ANALYZE INSPECTION REPORTS 6
    Al ADVISE STAFF PERSONNEL ON TRAINING MATTERS 11
    C129 WRITE STAFF STUDIES, SURVEYS, OR SPECIAL REPORTS 4
    C119 INDORSE AIRMAN PERFORMANCE REPORTS 9
    C89 ANALYZE WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS 4
    B37 CONDUCT STAFF MEETINGS 3

    [Page] 56

    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a149220.pdf

    And there you have it. :)

  513. [513] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Hi ;)

  514. [514] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Thanks for stepping and correcting the coward. You are the best! He does everything in his power to avoid answering the direct question:

    Did you lie to the group when you claimed to have been a commissioned LEO or were you lying to me when you claimed not to have been a LEO, but had been a MP in the military?

    I’m giving him all rope he needs to hang himself and his credibility if he continues to lie, or he can tell the truth and be less humiliated. He’s just too stupid to realize this.

Comments for this article are closed.