ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Attempted Smears Against Whistleblower Are Irrelevant

[ Posted Monday, September 30th, 2019 – 17:23 UTC ]

President Donald Trump and all his coterie of apologists are right now angrily focused on impeaching the credibility of the whistleblower who complained about Trump's call to the new Ukrainian leader. And, yes, "impeaching" is the right word for what they're trying to do. But it's all both meaningless and irrelevant, because the scandal has already moved beyond any questions of bias or credibility of the whistleblower, largely due to the release of both the semi-transcript of the call itself and the whistleblower's complaint. Trump and his minions are, in essence, screaming about how they're going to sue the heck out of the locksmith, while the barn doors hang wide open and all the horses are running willy-nilly across the landscape. At this point, the story is the horses who are running free, not the lock's possible failure.

The efforts to discredit the whistleblower are multifaceted, but none of them is going to amount to a hill of beans in the end. This is not some "he said / she said" accusation, after all. The whistleblower is not telling a story where he or she is the only one with the evidence, and it is not a matter of: "Who do you believe, the whistleblower or the president?" at all. The whistleblower has no exclusive evidence that nobody else can corroborate, as in a sexual harassment claim where there were only two people present. So attacking the whistleblower is, in effect, pointless.

The first smear that appeared was that the whistleblower was only reporting information he or she had learned secondhand. This was later expanded into a possible conspiracy of the "deep state," as claims appeared that the whistleblower complaint form was changed -- mere days before the complaint was filed (gasp!) -- to allow secondhand stories to be told. This is false. Whistleblower complaints have always allowed for hearsay evidence, and the form was not changed to suddenly allow this at all. This story is, in the original and honest meaning of the term, nothing more than fake news.

But back to the original charge that hearsay evidence is simply not allowed in a court of law. This is mostly true, however it's a false analogy. We're not yet in a court of law, or even the congressional equivalent. That will happen (if it does) when the House sends over articles of impeachment to the Senate, and the Senate holds a trial. That's when the question of hearsay evidence would arise, not now. And we're a long way from even getting to that point.

Investigations into all sorts of criminal behavior are launched every day in this country based on nothing more than hearsay evidence -- sometimes even just an anonymous tip. But -- importantly -- the investigation does not end there. It investigates the hearsay to see if it can be proven true or not. That's what the House committees are beginning to do, although several of the hearsay complaints have already been proven true by the semi-transcript of the call, including the most damning of them.

In other words, it is not the whistleblower making some sort of unfounded accusation against Trump which is condemning Trump, it is Trump's own words which are doing that. It does not matter that the whistleblower did not hear the call as it happened, because we now have the call itself to examine. The whistleblower is already completely irrelevant to this discussion, to put it another way. Which is why any attack on his or her credibility is not even an issue anymore. Because, again, we have Trump's own words to examine.

This is also why any attacks on the whistleblower's motivation are also moot. If it was a case of the whistleblower's word against Trump's word for an event which only the two of them witnessed, then his or her motivation might be a factor. But that's simply not true here. Lots of people witnessed that call. And there's a strong likelihood that they'll all be called in to testify about what they observed and heard. Which will give the House (and the public) all the firsthand evidence that is necessary.

In fact, all we really need from the whistleblower at this point are the names of the six people reported to have personally complained about Trump's actions to the whistleblower. That is really the entire extent of the necessary further testimony the House needs from the whistleblower: "Please give us a list of those names, and then you can be excused from all other testimony, because that's all we really need from you." After those six names are given up, the whistleblower's participation in the scandal will be at an end, other than possibly filling in some of the details about the complaint process itself. Whoever they are, they will doubtless get a footnote in history for bringing the whole scandal to light, but that will be the sum total of his or her involvement -- ringing the alarm bell. Because after those names are given to the House committees, then those six White House aides will be directly questioned themselves, and we can all go forward from that point. We've already got the semi-transcript of the call itself, and if the House committees can talk to the people who initially complained to the whistleblower, then the whistleblower will be completely removed from the equation. It matters not whether they were reporting secondhand information, because we'll be able to get that information firsthand. It also matters not whether they whistleblower had any political bias or reason for making the complaint, because we'll all have moved on to the actual facts of what happened, independent of anyone's political leanings.

It's a natural reaction for Trump to lash out at his perceived enemies, and the whistleblower certainly has seen the wrath of Trump already. Both directly and through his surrogates, he's been smearing and sliming the whistleblower in a desperate attempt to distract everyone from the facts of the case. This, however, is only going to be a temporary blip, because sooner or later both Trump and the Republicans are going to have to deal with the facts rather than who initially drew attention to them.

Trump is already taking aim at the six aides who initially complained to the whistleblower, which shows that even he knows that he's only got a limited amount of time when the public is even going to care about the whistleblower at all, before the spotlight moves on to the actual facts of the matter. The six White House aides will doubtlessly be in for a lot more personal abuse from the president and his henchmen in the coming weeks, especially if one of them offers up some bombshell testimony before a congressional committee. At that point, the whistleblower is going to be completely forgotten by the Trumpistas, as they turn their rage elsewhere.

For now, he or she is all they have to focus their rage upon. But their smear jobs are pretty laughable, because in the end none of it is going to matter one iota. The whistleblower could even be someone like Hillary Clinton or George Soros and it wouldn't matter to the facts of the case one tiny bit. Sane people have already moved on from the whistleblower, because we have the semi-transcript of what was said during the call by the president himself. That cannot be spun as some sort of "witch hunt" or "deep state attack" or any of the other feverish complaints being raised by Team Trump. Any other information that is added to the semi-transcript is going to be peripheral to the actual words that Trump has already admitted uttering. And no amount of harassing the whistleblower -- or even the six aides -- is going to change any of that one bit.

 

[Editorial/Grammatical Note: We have been persuaded by the Ukrainian government to cease our use of the phrase "the Ukraine" and henceforth will only be using "Ukraine" in our writings. We had no idea this had negative connotations, and we apologize if we've offended anyone. However, we're not quite to the point of using the new spelling "Kyiv" rather than "Kiev," because we're still waiting to see if this becomes the widely-accepted usage here in this country or not, and so far the jury seems to still be out on this question.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

123 Comments on “Attempted Smears Against Whistleblower Are Irrelevant”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Repubs ALWAYS try to focus on the messenger when facts showing them to be malefactors emerge because they are always malefactors. They can't argue facts so they try to malign the fact-bringers, fact-tellers, fact-finders.

    It often works but it isn't going to work this time.

    Interim President Pelosi becoming a real possibility.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Yes, once the whistle is blown, the whistle blower is on a fast track to being an historical footnote. The whistle blower doesn't fight the fire or corner the crooks. Great imagery in the 1st paragraph I might add.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The Wrath of Trump could just as well be called The Wrath of Con.

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Over time Wrath of Con may morph into Wrath of the Convicted...at least before the convicted are pardoned.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    You mentioned this on the last thread,

    I'm really warming up to the sound of "Interim President Pelosi".

    Is that really possible!? It would be fantastic if she could do that, say, for 2020, right up to the election, for more reasons than one ...

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    Great writeup!

    President Donald Trump and all his coterie of apologists are right now angrily focused on impeaching the credibility of the whistleblower who complained about Trump's call to the new Ukrainian leader.

    I know, right!? Their myriad of conspiracy theory bullshit, outright false statements, and ridiculous spewage coming from all manner of right wingnut directions has resulted in something you don't see very often: A 4-page news release from the administration that contradicts the administration's pathetic attempts at spin.

    Read it and weep certainly applies: I laughed so hard I cried!

    Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence
    Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower
    Complaints

    (September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.
    ...
    In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.

    https://tinyurl.com/y22t7ocp

    It covers all the different conspiracy BS and is rather long as news releases go, but in its defense, there is a lot of bullshit out there it had to set straight.

    In conclusion: All you would-be and/or potential whistleblowers should ignore the Trump administration and right wingnut drivel and "come on down" and take a number and get in line. We're busy because the dam broke!

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    [5] Liz: It's been possible all along (the order of succession is Potus, Vice, Speaker of the House), the question is, is it "probable"?

    It all depends on how entangled Pence is/is discovered to be.

    It's still a longshot but the probability is rising.

  8. [8] 
    dsws wrote:

    Previous thread [505] Balthasar:

    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.

    Yeah, that was Democrats running the trial. Moscow Mitch don't care.

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    So attacking the whistleblower is, in effect, pointless. Yes it's pointless unless it's part of the obvious Repug "distract & delay" strategy. First comes the stonewalling. Next is the whataboutism "...but BIDEN! But HILLARY!" And lastly the namecalling (rather than answering the point/addressing the ISSUE AT HAND.)

    I'm not sure the whistleblower will be forgotten so immediately as there is at least the threat of some o' dat (ultimately futile) "investigating the investigator" action.

    Trump and the Repugs are addressing the 40% of Americans who get all their news from Conservative media who, in effect, don't hear much to the contrary. It looks like a longshot that it'll get them collectively off the hook in 2020, but hey, so was #CorruptDonnieLittleHands getting elected in the first place.
    Stig [3] and [4] you're in rare form, Sir or Madam.

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    BTW I'm 2nd generation Ukrainian-American. Not saying "

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...THE Ukraine" is just right and proper. They deserve the respect.

    However IMO trying to get the rest of the world to spell the capital city of Kiev Kyiv would make us all have to spell Warsaw Warzawa just because that's what the Poles call it.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Last Night On MICHALE KICKS ASS IN WEIGANTIA

    Balthasar got caught four times spewing his bullshit..

    First he claimed that Michale's comments have no links attached to them. Then Blathy claimed that the opinions and facts were all written by Trump supporters.

    Of course, the FACT was that Michale's comments on the facts DID have links and that the MAJORITY of the facts and opinions came from Democrats..

    THEN Balthasar tried this little gem

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

    The FACT is there is a SWORN AFFIDAVIT on file from Shorokin that says he was about to interrogate and investigate Hunter Biden when he was summarily fired..

    So, once again Balthy's spewages were exposed as bullshit..

    But Balthy wasn't done..

    Balthy claimed that it is illegal for an American to solicit, obtain or receive any dirt from foreign sources..

    Then when it was discovered that Schiff-head had eagerly sought to obtain dirt on President Trump, Blathy tried to back-pedal FURIOUSLY and say that it was permitted because Schiff-head didn't solicit the dirt..

    Of course, Blathy's own words put lie to his claim..

    So, Blathy was utterly and totally decimated yesterday.. We'll see how he fares today.. :D

    MtnCaddy was exposed as a liar who claims he served in the military at around the same time that I did, but he didn't know what a JEEP was..

    Stolen Valor, MtnCaddy... Bad form...

    But the most fun was had when DLC Victoria got caught spewing her bullshit.

    Like before, when DLC claimed that the Odessa gun sale was perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate (SPOILER: I totally decimated her with the FACTS that it wasn't) DLC got caught spewing bullshit again..

    First she fawned and swooned over Schiff-head saying how awesome he was for setting up the interview from the so-called "whistle blower"..

    Then DLC got caught spewing this gem..

    No one in Weigantia quoted Schiff or gave any details about the testimony... just that the Whistleblower had agreed to testify before Congress.

    So, DLC got bitch-slapped for bullshit spewage THRICE!! Once for claiming Shiff-head got the interview (he didn't),once for claiming she never gave credit to Schiff-head and the third time for claiming their WAS an interview scheduled. Which their isn't!!! STRIKE ONE, STRIKE TWO, STRIKE THREE... boom boom boom....

    "This chick is TOAST!!!"
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    But the best came at the very end of the evening.. Just as I was signing off for the night, DLC Victoria came up with this ignorance:

    Edward Snowden is not a Whistleblower, and your ignorance is alive and well.

    It turns out that it's DLC Victoria's ignorance is alive and well..

    How do we know this??

    Because in the VERY COMMENTARY that DLC was commenting in, Chris Weigant, Blogger Extraordinaire, STATED SPECIFICALLY that Edward Snowden WAS a whistle-blower...

    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

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So it looks as if Michale totally ruled yesterday...

    Wonder who falls by Michale's onslaught today...

    Let's find out.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Attempted Smears Against Whistleblower Are Irrelevant

    Of course they are..

    The whistle blower doesn't exist.. At least not as TRUE whistle blowers like Snowden and Manning exist...

    This "whistle blower" is nothing but a spy for the Democrat Party..

    We have been persuaded by the Ukrainian government to cease our use of the phrase "the Ukraine" and henceforth will only be using "Ukraine" in our writings. We had no idea this had negative connotations, and we apologize if we've offended anyone.

    REALLY??? I would love to know the details of this.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy

    BTW I'm 2nd generation Ukrainian-American. Not saying "

    Yea, sure.. JUST like you have served in the US Army...

    :eyeroll:

    What a total piece of lying shit you are...

  15. [15] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [5]

    Elizabeth (gosh I like that name, tee hee) the beauty of a Senate Impeachment trial is that-

    (1) The Democrats did their Constitutional duty, rather than making the #Garland Mistake buy assuming that Trump is sure to lose next year, and...

    (2) Senate Repugs will have to each choose with their vote whether they choose Party over Country.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    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?

    You can ignore Russ' spewage on the subject..

    He shows his ignorance daily..

    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 drive in police cars that are identical to their civilian counter-parts.. The respond to crimes in progress.. They perform traffic and AID duties.. Military LEOs have even a bit more training then civilian LEOs..

    In short, Air Force LEs are the "civilian" law enforcement for a military base..

    You see the Jack Reacher movies or read the books??

    Jack Reacher is an Army MP...

    Granted, Reacher is fiction, but the role played is pretty close to his real life counter-parts..

    Further, Russ is totally full of shit when he claims their jurisdiction is SOLELY on a military base.... Military police officers have jurisdiction over military personnel ANYWHERE in the world..

    Now you know the FACTS and now Russ' bullshit spewage...

  17. [17] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [15]

    Either way we Libtards just caint lose!

    Bwahahahaha! (Well, I hadda try that out. Meh, not as satisfying as I'd hoped.)

    Heh. (Say...that was satisfying - woot!)

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    the beauty of a Senate Impeachment trial is that-

    Not factually accurate..

    The "beauty" of a Senate Trial is that the Senate can simply ignore the House.. :D

    In this case, it appears that McConnell WILL take up the House's Articles Of Impeachment... IF the House ever passes them. Which, at THIS stage, is very unlikely...

    But, there is NOTHING that says McConnell can't say, OK I'll take up the Articles Of Impeachment... Hmmmmm.. huh??? ahh... OK.... hmmmmm... OK... Yea right... huh??? OK... OK, I have taken up the Articles Of Impeachment. These are shit.. Totally bogus.. Articles Dismissed"

    And viola...

    The AOI have been taken up and thrown on the garbage heap where they belong..

    What are ya gonna do then??

    Whine and cry and stamp your feet like the impotent bitch you are?? :D

    Be my guest. It would amuse me greatly.. :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either way we Libtards just caint lose!

    Yea.. That's what you Libtards (your word, not mine) said in 2016..

    That's what you Libtards said about the Russia Collusion delusion..

    How'de that work out for ya?? LIBTARD

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And, just because LAMES are the "in" thing around here.. :eyeroll"

    Either way we Libtards just caint lose!

    It's CAN'T not "caint", you ignorant & un-educated Libtard...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy

    Holy Moly! CW I only linked over to you a couple years ago.

    Yea, we know.. Yer a JEEP... :eyeroll:

    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?

    You'll find that the longest FTPs usually occur in during the Weigantia Fundraiser.. That's where I pay ($$$ not quatloos) for every comment I make and donate the VAST majority of the funds to keep Weigantia open all thru the year...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    And, just for the record..

    Civilian Police Officers are NOT "commissioned"... Military officers are..

    Civilian Police officers are "sworn"..

    If you were REALLY married to a cop, you would know this..

    So, apparently, you are full of shit when you claim you are married to a cop..

    Facts would indicate yer nothing but a cop groupie.. A cop slut who fantasizes about being a cop's bitch...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Now that all old business has been dispensed with....

    Let's take a look at current events, eh? :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mukasey Op-ed Should Strike Fear in Democrats

    If I were a Democrat, I would be afraid, I would be very afraid, after reading former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's Monday WSJ oped: "John Durham's Ukrainian Leads." The subtitle is "What the prosecutor has found may be quite different from what the Democrats are looking for."
    https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/mukasey-oped-should-strike-fear-in-democrats/

    Democrats are too stoopid to be afraid..

    But they will soon learn.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mukasey begins:

    Americans often boast that we are a nation of laws, but for the moment laws appear to play a decidedly secondary role in the drama we are living in and—hopefully—through.
    True enough, but the nub of the article, which returns us to the rule of law, comes further on:

    True, much media and political effort has gone into sometimes close and often willful parsing of President Trump’s July 25 conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky —ironic when you consider Mr. Trump’s well-known linguistic promiscuity—not to mention the celebrated whistleblower complaint, which contains no firsthand information. Little notice has been given, however, to another document lying in plain sight: a Justice Department press release issued the day the conversation transcript became public.
    That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”

    Democrats should be shaking in their boots over this...

    Once again, as it was with the Russia Collusion delusion... Dumbocrats try to strike at the king but fail miserably and then it comes back to bite them on the ass.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    The number of countries includes the U.K. and Italy, the latter of which was just visited by one William Barr. So what's going on? More from Mukasey:

    The definitive answer to the obvious question—what’s that about?—is known only to Mr. Durham and his colleagues. But publicly available reports, including by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, “Ball of Collusion,” suggest that during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. When you grope through the miasma of Slavic names and follow the daisy chain of related people and entities, it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

    Reading not so far between the lines here, it's clear that the biggest story of 2019 or maybe 2020 is yet to come — and it won't be impeachment. The Russia Probe is being turned on its head.

    As usual, Democrats will only succeed in decimating themselves, while making President Trump stronger.. :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Seinfeld Impeachment (It’s About Nothing)
    A bogus case propelled by conniving and hysteria.

    In the week since I last wrote about the accusations made against President Trump as a result of his July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a lot has happened. Both the rough transcript of the call and the “whistleblower complaint” that supposedly resulted from it have been released, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has formally commenced impeachment proceedings against the president.

    Both the transcript and the complaint are now required reading for anyone claiming to be politically informed. They raise a number of questions about the conversation and the unidentified “whistleblower,” but they manifestly do not demonstrate that Trump should be impeached.
    https://spectator.org/a-seinfeld-impeachment-its-about-nothing/

    And what's funny?? The majority of Independents and NPAs AGREE with that..

    That President Trump should not be impeached..

    WHO COULD HAVE THUNKED THAT!!??

    Oh.. wait.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember the running gag on Seinfeld that the whole show was about “nothing”? This is going to be a “Seinfeld impeachment”: it, too, is about nothing.

    Rush Limbaugh was precise last week in describing the desperation and hysteria now besetting the Dems because no matter how hard they try, they’ve been unable to reverse the results of the 2016 election.

    Watch this new video to find out more
    Ad By Sponsor
    See More
    First, there was the Obama-CIA-FBI spy-op on Trump’s campaign and him personally, an enormous abuse of power that was comprised of conspiracy and other criminal conduct. That resulted in the two-year Mueller investigation that came up empty.

    Now there’s the “whistleblower complaint” about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky in which Trump is alleged to have suborned Zelensky in an attempt to — in Hillary Clinton’s terms — “buy” yet another government’s interference in a U.S. election.

    Even people who should know better — such as Peggy Noonan and Chris Wallace — are saying that the transcript and the complaint are a sufficient basis to conclude that Trump’s conversation with Zelensky constituted impeachable conduct. It’s unfashionable to do so, but let’s stick to the facts and the law.

    What a concept!! THE FACTS!!! THE LAW!!!!

    It's a shame that Democrats are **ONLY** about 'truth'.. THEIR 'truth'...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the conversation, Trump asked Zelensky to commence (or recommence) two investigations. The first is in aid of the ongoing Barr-Durham investigation into the abuses of power by the CIA and FBI in conducting the spy-op against Trump and his 2016 campaign:

    I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say, Ukraine has it. (Ellipses in original. According to the release, ellipses indicate inaudible content.)

    CrowdStrike is a cloud-based internet security firm that the DNC hired to investigate how hackers — later identified as Russian security agents — had stolen DNC and Clinton emails. Some of the computer servers from which the Russians operated to intercept the emails were (are?) believed to be located in Ukraine.

    This is extremely interesting.. Morons in here have said this is not a true transcript of the call.. The text of the release indicates it is..

    Two other things of interest here..

    First off.. When the "favor" is asked of President Zelensky, it's to help investigate the 2016 election.. President Trump knows that ANY investigation into 2016 will implicate Democrats in crimes and corruption.. But beyond that personal motivation, the American people deserve to know the FACTS of the attempted coup perpetrated by Democrats..

    Secondly, many morons here have made hay with the word "though". These morons claim that THAT "proves" quid pro quo, which it does nothing of the sort..

    This was a variety of "Hay, we're doing you a solid.. Care to return the favor?"

    Note it's a QUESTION (Care to return the favor) not a DEMAND..

    The element of Quid Pro Quo is that something is demanded or expected..

    President Trump didn't DEMAND anything.. He didn't EXPECT anything. President Trump simply asked a favor reminding Zelensky of the favor that the US has done for them..

    By definition, that is NOT quid pro quo..

    If you want to TEXT BOOK definition of quid pro quo, we need only look at Joe Biden's actions..

    Not only were Biden's actions "quid pro quo" they went FAR beyond into the realm of EXTORTION.. COERCION...

    No matter how you people want to spin it... You ain't got jack...

    If any prosecutor went to a grand jury with this evidence??

    They would be LAUGHED out of the state...

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

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    Michale tsk, tsk.

    MtnCaddy was exposed as a liar who claims he served in the military at around the same time that I did, but he didn't know what a JEEP was..

    Stolen Valor, MtnCaddy... Bad form... Dude, I served
    america between 1982 and 1985 at Ft. Irwin, California. It was 127 degrees the week I got there. No biggie, as I really enjoyed the Army, especially compared to Detroit. C'mon, everybody in America military AND civilian knows what a Jeep is. I thought it might be some acronym that I'd not yet heard. So I asked, gimme a bleeping break! Your [43] from CW's last FTP uses an acronym, for example, "HHPTDS." For my edification, just what does HHPTDS mean?

    And yes, I call myself a Libtard or, more formally, a Loud and Proud Libtard, Mister. I think I do it for sort of the same reason that blacks sometimes call each other nigga ("Never Ignorant, Getting Goals Accomplished.") By taking ownership of a pejorative name and redefining it, they surmount that pejorative. I think it's deliciously ironic that Libtard was coined by the same rubes who have been voting since Reagan to make the few richer at the expense of the vast majority of the rest of us. And used by some of the minority of America Christofacists (those trying to jam down their religious beliefs down the majority's throat. So, there. Have a nice day, Brother, and don't forget...Jesus loves you!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwwww looks like poor widdle MtnCaddy got his poor widdle feelings hurt and now he has ran away...

    I think I am going to call MtnCaddy "brave Sir Robin" from now on.. :D

    "Brave Sir Robin ran away.
    Bravely ran away away.
    When danger reared it's ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out.
    Swiftly taking to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. #30 was a bit premature.. I hate it when that happens. hehe

    My apoligies, MC.. No brave Sir Robin moniker for you...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    So I asked, gimme a bleeping break!

    OK.. Fair enough.. I will be HAPPY to suspend hostilities if you respond in kind..

    Your [43] from CW's last FTP uses an acronym, for example, "HHPTDS." For my edification, just what does HHPTDS mean?

    HHPTDS is Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    It's a MUCH MORE VIRULENT form of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    And yes, I call myself a Libtard or, more formally, a Loud and Proud Libtard, Mister.

    Self deprecating... I can appreciate that. Once again.. Fair enough..

    Have a nice day, Brother, and don't forget...Jesus loves you!

    Although I am not religious in the LEAST, I understand the concept behind your statement and it's intent to wish unto me LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.

    I accept your graciousness as it was intended..

    Peace Out...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just for the record..

    JEEP is a military acronym for

    Just
    Entered
    Educational
    Processing

    Peace out...

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [31]

    Look man, while we certainly sit on opposite sides of the fence, I do enjoy the gratuitous Sir Robin and Quatloo references.

    Not to worry, my feelings are hard to hurt.

    And what is an NPA?

    Signed-
    Curious in Country-Cali.

    P.S. Oh, caint is Southern for "cannot," y'all heah?

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, after a gracious exchange of civility and brotherhood (you could learn a lesson from that, Balthasar) let's return to the SEINFELD IMPEACHMENT

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look man, while we certainly sit on opposite sides of the fence, I do enjoy the gratuitous Sir Robin and Quatloo references.

    We do... I would wager that, if we got away from politics, we would have a LOT more in common than what separates us..

    Not to worry, my feelings are hard to hurt.

    With one exception, I have a pretty thick skin as well. One is definitely needed to be in Weigantia..

    And what is an NPA?

    No Political Affiliation..

    That's a FLORIDA designation, but I am pretty sure other states use it..

    It denotes a person who has no allegiance to any political Party..

    On the plus side, it allows me to denigrate and castigate either Party at will.. :D

    The only downside is it makes me ineligible to vote in ANY primary...

    P.S. Oh, caint is Southern for "cannot," y'all heah?

    Ahhh You speak 'Redneck'.. Point in your favor.. :D

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I would, Bruh, but I gotta be up at 0800. I'll be happy to take these weighty matters up in the near future.

    Have fun storming the castle!

    I like the HHPTDS. And NPA?

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Duh-Oh! NPA... got it!

    Later.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump went on, but before he did he indicated that he was switching subjects:

    The other thing. 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 Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

    In 2018, Joe Biden bragged publicly that he told the Ukrainian government that unless a prosecutor who was investigating, among other things, the gas company Burisma, was fired, he would have withheld $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine. At the time, Biden’s son, Hunter, was a member of the board of directors of Burisma. Hunter Biden was hired without any expertise in Burisma’s business.

    In the first instance, Trump was asking for Ukrainian help in investigating the background of the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation — the spy-op that the CIA and FBI mounted against his campaign. That investigation is being conducted here by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham. Trump’s request is for Ukrainian help in that investigation.

    That request is not only unimpeachable conduct, but it’s also specifically permitted by a U.S.-Ukraine treaty signed during the Clinton administration.

    It’s called the “Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters,” signed in 1999 and ratified by the Senate in 2000. It requires that when a crime is committed in one country and evidence or witnesses related to the crime are in the other, the nation in which the crime was committed can request the other nation to investigate, find evidence and witnesses, and provide access to them to the nation in which the crime was committed.

    As I’ve written many times, the abuses of power by the CIA and FBI amount to violations of several U.S. criminal statutes, including the false statement statute (18 U.S. Code Section 1001) and the conspiring to act under the color of law to deprive Trump of his legal right to run for president (18 U.S. Code Section 242).

    President Trump was merely doing what the LAW required of him...

    The treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, demanded that President Trump work with Ukraine on criminal matters..

    Joe Biden's bragging (if factually accurate. One never knows with Joe..) is certainly a criminal matter here in the US.. Hunter Biden's actions that were being investigated by General Prosecutor Shorokin in Ukraine is certainly a criminal matter.. ESPECIALLY if GP Shorokin was fired to fade the heat from Hunter Biden to appease Joe Biden... Which the FACTS clearly indicate that Shorokin was fired to protect Hunter Biden...

    The fact that Obama has not spoke out in support of Biden clearly indicates that the afore facts are accurate..

    The ONLY "criminal" matter here is Democrats using this as a flimsy excuse to attempt another coup...

  40. [40] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [36]

    Dude, I would wager that, if we got away from politics, we would have a LOT more in common than what separates us sounds like something one of those damned Libtards would say! Don't worry...I WON'T tell the others, lest they take advantage of you!

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would, Bruh, but I gotta be up at 0800. I'll be happy to take these weighty matters up in the near future.

    Ahhh You get to sleep in.. :D My day's usually start at 0400 during the week and 0100 on the weekends.. :D

    Have fun storming the castle!

    “Fun thing, in the future, this place is a concentration camp.”
    “You have a strange definition of fun, Derek.”

    -SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES

    :D

    I like the HHPTDS. And NPA..

    I'se Aims To Pleeeze :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    sounds like something one of those damned Libtards would say! Don't worry...I WON'T tell the others, lest they take advantage of you!

    Thank you.. I would hate for anyone here to think I am... ACK!!! REASONABLE :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the previous camaraderie and brotherly love has been dedicated to Elizabeth Miller..

    THE WARDEN OF WEIGANTIA..

    To THE WARDEN OF WEIGANTIA!!!!

    :D

  44. [44] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [39]

    I'll be happy to take up this post tomorrow as although "much, I disagree with" (said the Libtard YODA) this is one of your better posts. Goddammit take 15 so I can get to sleep!

  45. [45] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [43]

    Yea, verily!

    Peace out, everybody!

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s so obvious that this request by Trump was legal and appropriate that only political hacks such as Pelosi and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Adam Schiff could miss that fact.

    In the second instance, Trump asked Zelensky to look into Biden’s action in demanding the prosecutor’s firing in exchange for receiving $1 billion in aid. That, too, is a crime for which Biden could still be liable to prosecution. Here again, there’s nothing wrong or inappropriate under the treaty about Trump’s request. Just because someone is your political opponent doesn’t mean he’s exempt from prosecution (at least unless the opponent’s name is Clinton).

    Trump’s request regarding Biden’s admitted misconduct does seem politically aimed. But there’s nothing in the treaty that excludes evidence of a crime because it may be of political benefit to anyone.

    The problem, if there is one, is Trump’s using the names of Barr and Rudy Giuliani, one of his personal lawyers, interchangeably. Then again, there’s no requirement that the president pick a diplomat to perform a diplomatic mission, and there’s no ban on him using his own lawyer to do so.

    EXACTLY...

    There is nothing untoward here... As President, Trump could choose **ANYONE** to spearhead a diplomatic..

    That's what ya'all don't get.. President Trump could choose Rudy Giuliani or Gilbert Gottfried..

    Hell, President Trump could call CW on the phone and say, CW!!! M' man.. I need you to huckley buckley over to Ukraine and get some shit done!!! You game!??"....

    And NO ONE can say DICK about it..

    So, can we can the bullshit that Giuliani is somehow FORBIDDEN to act on the President's behalf ANYWHERE in the world??

    It simply shows ya'all's ignorance when you make stoopid claims like that..

    Just sayin'...

    Further....

    "FurtherTheLess is NOT a word!! Stop using it!!!"
    -Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY

    the treaty between the US and Ukraine **REQUIRED** President Trump to ask about Biden's criminality..

    The treaty makes NO EXCEPTIONS for crimes that might benefit the President politically...

    This impeachment is a sham.. It's a totally illegal grab for power...

    IE.. A coup

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

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll be happy to take up this post tomorrow as although "much, I disagree with" (said the Libtard YODA) this is one of your better posts. Goddammit take 15 so I can get to sleep!

    In deference to your beauty sleep (I am pretty sure ya need it.. heh J/K) I will take a break.. Got to feed the chickens and the animals and check the back 40

    I'll take a break for a bit..

    Peace Out.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    MtnCaddy (9)-
    Gosh that distract and delay, stonewalling, whataboutism and name calling rather than answering the point/addressing the issue at hand sounds very familiar.

    It is not limited to Republicans.

    It is in fact just part of the show put on by both CMPs and is the whole point of the impeachment.

    It enables people like CW to churn out useless articles on the distraction to delay at least and to prevent as a purpose any effort by citizens to do anything to address the real issue at hand- big money infecting and destroying our political process.

    CW should limit articles on impeachment to one day per week and the presidential race to one day a week with both reviewed in FBP (Friday Bullshit Points in case you don't know that).

    This would give CW two days to cover real issues instead of the bullshit advertising (or as they say here shilling for) the show.

    note: When I point out the Dems are doing the same thing as the Republicans it is NOT whataboutism (or even whatabootism).

    Whataboutism is saying it is doesn't natter if my "side" does it because your "side" does it too and/or we have to do it because the other side does it.

    What I am saying is both "sides" do it and they are working together in a good cop/bad cop show to distract and divide and conquer, so citizens should not support either "side" because the two "sides" are just an illusion to keep citizens from organizing against the big money interests they both work for instead of ordinary citizens.

    So what aboot it, CW?

    Isn't it time you stopped pretending to be an information and reality enforcement officer and actually provided real information instead of playing your part in the show?

    The commenters here seem to be pointing out the wrong false claim of being an enforcement officer.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    "Blue, blue windows beyond the stars.
    Yellow moon on the rise.
    Big birds flying across the sky.
    throwing shadows on our eyes.

    Leave us

    Helpless, helpless, helpless, helpless.
    Baby, can you hear me now?
    The chains are locked and tied across the door.
    Baby, won't you sing with me somehow?"
    -Helpless
    Neil Young

    It's time to stop throwing shadows, unlock the chains and sing with me somehow.

    There is no need for us to be helpless.

    Get real.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    The commenters here seem to be pointing out the wrong false claim of being an enforcement officer.

    Not factually accurate..

    A FEW commenters here are falsely claiming that there are false claims of being a sworn police officer..

    As usual, those commenters have NO FACTS to back up their claims... Pretty much par for the course, eh..

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Chickens and animals are fed. Back 40 is secure..

    Where was I.. ;D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, just as an aside to the dunsel...

    Commissioned police officers are basically rent-a-cops who take no oath of office. While sometimes hired on by City and County governments, they owe no allegiance to anyone 'cept the entity that hired them..

    While commissioned police officers sometimes have the same duties and training as REAL police officers, they are for all intents and purposes, nothing but mercenaries.. Paid muscle..

    SWORN police officers, on the other hand, take an oath of office and are sworn to protect and defend society in general and the US Constitution...

    In short, a COMMISSIONED Police Officer is nothing but a rent-a-cop.. Paid muscle.. Mercenary..

    A SWORN police officer is a real police officer who takes an oath of service..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Now, on with the countdown"
    -Kasey Kasem

    :D

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    When we last left the evil coup plotters and treasonous scum, they were trying to claim that it's illegal for Rudy Giuliani to act on President Trump's behalf in an official capacity...

    I know, I know.. It's LAUGHABLE, but that's what they think..

    Now, please, consider the “whistleblower” complaint.

    If you read it you know that it is entirely based on hearsay. The complainant has zero direct knowledge of the facts and repeatedly makes allegations based only on information received from others.

    Get that.. ZERO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of ANY facts...

    Now, CW cites that this is perfectly acceptable for the BEGINNING of the case..

    No word yet on whether CW finds it acceptable to be the ENTIRE CASE....

    But the thing here is it is, at the VERY least, illegitimate (if not downright ILLEGAL) to use this hearsay bullshit as a pretext for a witch hunt or a fishing expedition..

    It would be as if the police kicked down CW's door and started tearing thru CWs things and crawling up his ass with a fine toothed comb..

    "WHY!!!??" CW bellows..

    "Well, we received a tip from an anonymous source that says he had heard from a couple people that you have adult porn on your computer!!"

    Let's count the ways that is wrong..

    1. Anonymous reports is NOT sufficient evidence for SWORN police officers (see what I did there?? :D ) to kick down someone's door.

    2. Even if an anonymous source IS sufficient evidence to kick down a citizen's door, it CERTAINLY would not be legit if the anonymous source says, "Three different people told me that CW has adult porn on his computer!!" That's hearsay and it would NOT justify the actions of the SWORN police officers, even if the anonymous complaint was acceptable evidence.. Which it's not..

    3. Even IF the anonymous source was acceptable evidence and even IF the 3rd person hearsay was acceptable evidence. ***IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE ADULT PORN ON ONE'S COMPUTER!!!!!***

    So, you see how utterly and TOTALLY ridiculous the Democrats are being..

    1. They have no facts, just an anonymous complaint.

    2. The anonymous complaint has not facts, just 3rd person hearsay...

    3. The complaint alleges points (with NO FACTS to support) that aren't even ILLEGAL!!

    That is the ENTIRE faux impeachment in a nutshell..

    This is nothing like an impeachment..

    This is a coup.. Pure and simple...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The whole purpose of the laws protecting whistleblowers in federal agencies is to enable someone who has direct knowledge of facts that constitute a violation of law or regulation — and who doesn’t trust his superiors to do anything about them — to go around the chain of command to the inspector general and possibly Congress to report wrongdoing.

    The fact that Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general (IC-IG), accepted the complaint at all indicates he has a personal bias in favor of action against Trump. The complaint, which alleges actions by people outside the intelligence community — Trump and White House staff — is entirely outside his jurisdiction. Moreover, the IC-IG — shortly before the complaint was lodged — reportedly removed the requirement for personal, direct knowledge from the form on which whistleblower complaints are made.

    It's a planned coup.. All the facts are there that proves it is a planned coup...

    The fact that the IC-IG labeled the complaint “credible and urgent” proves that the IC-IG did so in willful evasion of the law describing his jurisdiction. Atkinson wanted Congress to create, as Pelosi and Schiff have, an uproar when the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel told the acting Director of National Intelligence that, because the president and the White House are not part of the intelligence community, he should not turn the complaint over to Congress because the law did not require him to do so.

    From these facts we have to infer that Atkinson may have either collaborated with the so-called whistleblower or was directed to so by someone higher within the CIA, such as CIA Director Gina Haspel. The IG-IC is supposedly working directly for the Director of National Intelligence. The acting DNI, Vice Admiral Joe Maguire (U.S. Navy, Retired) is someone I know to be entirely trustworthy and not at all political. (He demonstrated that last week in a HPSCI hearing chaired by Schiff.)

    This is a TEXT BOOK example of a coup...

    TEXT BOOK...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Haspel, who is former CIA director John Brennan’s protégé, is comprehensively untrustworthy.

    When you read the complaint — please do — you will see that it reads like a carefully prepared legal brief. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the “whistleblower” (who may have been a CIA employee stationed at the White House) had a lot of help crafting it.

    Remember, please, the help Sen. Dianne Feinstein gave to Christine Blasey-Ford, the person who alleged sexual misconduct by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearings. Feinstein reportedly found lawyers for Blasey-Ford and her staff helped prepare Blasey-Ford’s testimony.

    We don’t know if Schiff and his staff helped the whistleblower prepare his (her? their?) complaint, but it’s entirely likely.

    Yep.. This is another Kavanaugh-style witch hunt where FACTS are non-existent..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    There’s one allegation in the complaint that is based on something other than the facts shown in the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call. It is that the transcript of the call was placed into a standalone computer system managed directly by the National Security Council (NSC) reserved for codeword-level intelligence information.

    That action was, according to the complaint, a possible abuse of the system and not the first time under the Trump administration such transcripts or recordings were placed into that system “solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive — rather than national security sensitive — information.”

    That allegation was enough for Schiff and other Democrats on his committee to insist that it was a “cover-up” to conceal that conversation in the White House system.

    Baloney. As you will see in reading the transcript, Zelensky said some very unkind things (but true) about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron in regard to their failure to give more aid to Ukraine. This is precisely the kind of information that would embarrass Zelensky and cause Ukraine political damage. It’s exactly the kind of information that should be concealed from the public and other governments.

    We don’t know how many presidential conversations former president Obama had that were put into that NSC system or some other such system to ensure they’d be concealed. Trump should find out and tell the world how many there were, when they happened, and who was on the line.

    It's a bona fide and DOCUMENTED fact that Trump/America haters have released private phone calls that President Trump has had with world leaders..

    These traitorous scumbags have done IMMEASURABLE harm to this country by doing so..

    And Dumbocrats wonder WHY subsequent calls were placed in a MORE SECURE ENVIRONMENT!!!????

    How completely and UTTERLY moronic on the part of Democrats...

    I mean, com'on!! You Democrats are outdoing yerselves when it comes to displays of stoopidity!!! :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, com'on!! You Democrats are outdoing yerselves when it comes to displays of stoopidity!!! :D

    For the record and in the spirit of new-found amenity here in Weigantia...

    The "YOU DEMOCRATS" part of referred to Democrats OUTSIDE the borders of Weigantia.. :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    The allegations in the whistleblower complaint and the facts shown by the transcript are nothing. There’s nothing in either document to indicate Trump committed the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the Constitution sets as the criteria for impeachment.

    When this impeachment attempt fails — as it will — the Dems will try something else before the 2020 election. From a few reports in the Washington Post we can infer that they’re preparing to say Trump is complicit in any interference in the 2020 election by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or the Gambino crime family.

    Mark these words: if (WHEN- Michale Correction) Trump is reelected next year, the Dems — and their partisans in the intelligence community and the media — will maintain a steady drumbeat of these sorts of charges against him. Their political hysteria won’t allow them to stop.

    And there it is in a nutshell..

    Demcorats WON'T stop.. Democrats CAN'T stop..

    This is well-documented..

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now for a humorous interlude..

    Husband:"Did you know that having sex is equivalent to running 6 miles??"
    Wife:"Who the fuck can run 6 miles in 30 seconds!!??"

    Baa daaa DING

    :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Trump's Removal Wouldn't Lead to a 'Civil War'
    https://news.yahoo.com/why-trumps-removal-wouldnt-lead-194533639.html

    The author of this commentary assumes the facts that Democrats will be responsible and act within the law..

    Democrats have PROVEN that they don't care about the facts (there all about their "TRUTH") and they certainly don't care about the law...

    It's entirely possible, even LIKELY, that Democrats will ignore the law and rules and attempt to FORCE President from office..

    If Democrats were to attempt this, patriotic Americans WILL DEFINITELY take to the streets..

    Trump supporters are well armed and well trained..

    Trump/America haters are afraid of guns and the only training they have is in protesting and boycotting..

    Trump/America haters will be slaughtered..

    And President Trump remains in office..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wooops!! :D

    ALL HANDS ON DECK
    In two hours of leaked audio, Mark Zuckerberg rallies Facebook employees against critics, competitors, Elizabeth Warren and the US government.

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20756701/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-leak-audio-ftc-antitrust-elizabeth-warren-tiktok-comments

    Looks like Zuck is NOT a Warren fan.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    But inside the company, the mood remained anxious. Several 2020 presidential candidates, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), had called for Facebook to be broken up. Libra, a Facebook-created cryptocurrency, had run into strong resistance from regulators around the world who worried that it could destabilize the global financial system. Employees had questions about Zuckerberg himself — Why had the CEO declined multiple requests to appear at government hearings in Europe? — and worried about Facebook’s increasingly dim reputation among their peers.

    Yea, looks like Democrats aren't going to have the friend in Zuckerberg they might think.. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You have someone like Elizabeth Warren who thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies ... if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge. And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. ... But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight."
    -Mark Zuckerberg, CEO FACEBOOK

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It's why Twitter can't do as good of a job as we can. I mean, they face, qualitatively, the same types of issues. But they can't put in the investment. Our investment on safety is bigger than the whole revenue of their company." [laughter]
    -Zuckerberg

    Oh snap!!! :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jesse Ventura Says He Is Considering Independent Presidential Run
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/01/jesse_ventura_says_he_is_considering_independent_presidential_run.html

    :D That would be AWESOME!! :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I will not listen to the children

    We live in a world that tells young people anything they feel or believe must be validated
    https://spectator.us/listen-children-climate-change/

    And doing so is completely and utterly ridiculous..

    Who, in their right mind, would give a 16 yr old more credit and credibility than someone like Judith Curry??

    Global warming is a POLITICAL issue.

    Nothing more..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again..

    Democrats spew the bullshit..

    Trump Scandals vs. Obama Scandals: What the Numbers Show

    In the closing days of the Obama administration, the press lauded a presidency they asserted had been largely free of scandal. When the White House itself argued it had escaped major scandal over its eight years, the Washington Post’s fact-checker stayed neutral, declining to refute its claims. In contrast, the word “scandal” has become a common refrain in media descriptions of the Trump presidency. Yet a closer look shows that during Barack Obama’s second term, the media used “scandal” to refer to his administration almost as often as they have the Trump administration.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/01/trump_scandals_vs_obama_scandals_what_the_numbers_show_141375.html

    And Michale has the facts.. :D

    Note the link, Balthasar...

    REAL CLEAR POLITICS...

    A source that even the vaunted Grand Poobah has designated as reliable. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    The timeline below shows the number of times that “scandal” or “scandals” or “scandalous” appeared within 15 seconds of a mention of “Obama” or “Trump” on the combined airtime of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News from July 2009 through September 29, 2019, using data from the Internet Archive’s Television News Archive processed by the GDELT Project.

    Click on the chart for a larger image.

    Immediately clear is that while Obama’s first term was largely free of scandal references, his second term was defined by a steady stream of them.
    https://assets.realclear.com/images/48/489842_5_.png

    Once again.. FACTS don't lie..

    Democrats claim that Odumbo's administration was "scandal free" is so much bullshit..

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:


    Trump Scandals vs. Obama Scandals: What the Numbers Show
    .By Kalev LeetaruOctober 01, 2019
    Trump Scandals vs. Obama Scandals: What the Numbers ShowAP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
    In the closing days of the Obama administration, the press lauded a presidency they asserted had been largely free of scandal. When the White House itself argued it had escaped major scandal over its eight years, the Washington Post’s fact-checker stayed neutral, declining to refute its claims. In contrast, the word “scandal” has become a common refrain in media descriptions of the Trump presidency. Yet a closer look shows that during Barack Obama’s second term, the media used “scandal” to refer to his administration almost as often as they have the Trump administration.

    The timeline below shows the number of times that “scandal” or “scandals” or “scandalous” appeared within 15 seconds of a mention of “Obama” or “Trump” on the combined airtime of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News from July 2009 through September 29, 2019, using data from the Internet Archive’s Television News Archive processed by the GDELT Project.

    Click on the chart for a larger image.

    Immediately clear is that while Obama’s first term was largely free of scandal references, his second term was defined by a steady stream of them.

    In late 2011, Operation Fast & Furious captured headlines, followed in April 2012 by the behavior of Secret Service personnel on an overseas trip. The June 2013 Edward Snowden disclosures led to almost twice as many mentions of scandal as any point in the Trump presidency. The May 2014 breaking of the VA health care story saw more mentions of Obama scandal than all but one month of the Trump presidency.

    In all, over the past decade, Obama has been mentioned in the context of scandal a total of 6,520 times on the three news channels, compared with 5,103 times for Trump. Though that comparison includes nearly eight years of Obama’s presidency vs. less than three years for Trump, the numbers make clear that the former’s tenure was not “scandal free.” Comparing the first three years of Obama’s second term to the first three years of Trump’s presidency, Obama received 69% as many scandal mentions as Trump.

    Of course, few would argue that Fox News was a fan of the Obama presidency, much as few would argue that CNN and MSNBC have cheered the Trump presidency. Yet, even looking only at coverage on CNN and MSNBC, Obama received 2,500 mentions of scandal over the past decade compared with Trump’s 3,722, giving the 44th president 67% of the mentions Trump earned, while comparing Obama’s second term at this point to Trump’s first term to date, Obama still received almost a third as many scandal mentions on those channels, a reminder that even CNN and MSNBC still framed many of the stories of his administration as “scandals.”

    Obama Administration??? Scandal Free???

    Shirley, you jest....

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    O carp!! :(

    CW, begging for an EDIT function. :D

    In late 2011, Operation Fast & Furious captured headlines, followed in April 2012 by the behavior of Secret Service personnel on an overseas trip. The June 2013 Edward Snowden disclosures led to almost twice as many mentions of scandal as any point in the Trump presidency. The May 2014 breaking of the VA health care story saw more mentions of Obama scandal than all but one month of the Trump presidency.

    In all, over the past decade, Obama has been mentioned in the context of scandal a total of 6,520 times on the three news channels, compared with 5,103 times for Trump. Though that comparison includes nearly eight years of Obama’s presidency vs. less than three years for Trump, the numbers make clear that the former’s tenure was not “scandal free.” Comparing the first three years of Obama’s second term to the first three years of Trump’s presidency, Obama received 69% as many scandal mentions as Trump.

    Of course, few would argue that Fox News was a fan of the Obama presidency, much as few would argue that CNN and MSNBC have cheered the Trump presidency. Yet, even looking only at coverage on CNN and MSNBC, Obama received 2,500 mentions of scandal over the past decade compared with Trump’s 3,722, giving the 44th president 67% of the mentions Trump earned, while comparing Obama’s second term at this point to Trump’s first term to date, Obama still received almost a third as many scandal mentions on those channels, a reminder that even CNN and MSNBC still framed many of the stories of his administration as “scandals.”

    Obama Administration??? Scandal Free???

    Shirley, you jest....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    In June 2013, at the peak of Obama-era scandal mentions, a guest on CNN’s Erin Burnett show offered that “we are a very polarized country,” where a portion of the population “will disapprove of President Obama practically unless he comes up with a cure for cancer” while the other portion “will approve of him almost under any circumstances.” The guest conceded that “it’s been a barrage of scandal after scandal, the Baskin-Robbins of scandals … one for each day of the month.” In contrast, another guest dismissed criticisms of Obama, offering that “Republicans have done very well at making issues seem much bigger and more conspiratorial than they are.” Such language could have been ripped almost verbatim from today’s headlines, reminding us that for all of the talk of Trump dividing our nation or the White House’s opponents fixating on conspiracy theories, it seems we are simply witnessing the same storylines regarding political partisanship.

    In the end, while in hindsight the press may look back fondly on Obama’s presidency, at the time news outlets were nearly as quick to use the word “scandal” to refer to his administration as they do today with Trump’s.

    In short.. Nothing new with Presidential scandals..

    It only SEEMS like there are more under President Trump because Democrats have re-defined "scandal" to mean Everything President Trump does or doesn't do that the Trump America haters don't like."

    When Democrats re-define the term to fit their own Trump/America hating agenda, it stands to reason that it would APPEAR that there are more scandals under President Trump..

    But, of course, as is ALWAYS the case here in Weigantia......

    The FACTS say something completely different.. :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Take Note..

    Half-Staff Early Alert
    National Fallen Firefighters Memorial
    Sunday, Oct. 6, 2019, Sunrise to Sunset

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bring On the Biggest Nothingburger of Them All

    The Democrats have no believable scandal; they can only impeach him once. This will be the biggest and bitterest nothingburger of all. Bring it on.

    There has not in modern American history been such a preposterous excuse for a threat to the presidency as the Ukraine affair. The “favor” the president sought from President Zelinsky of Ukraine was that he reopen his inquiry into corruption so there would be more support in Washington for aid to Ukraine’s self-defense against Russian territorial intrusion.

    About 500 words later in the transcript, President Trump asked that the question of the Bidens’ involvement in Ukraine be scrutinized too, without indicating a desired response, (though he said, correctly, that it looked “horrible”). If, as they claim, the Bidens are innocent of any wrongdoing or impropriety, the Ukrainians presumably will say so and the Bidens should then thank President Trump for eliciting that answer. If the Bidens, or at least Hunter Biden, were taking bribes, the United States, and the Democratic Party first of all, should wish to know that also.

    In either case, President Trump was right to raise it with his Ukrainian analogue. To say otherwise is to assert that the Democrats, and the whole country, don’t want to know if the Bidens committed improprieties in Ukraine, and to add that Trump’s question was only inappropriate because Joe Biden may be running against him for president. If Biden had dropped out of the race before the whistle-blower intervened, or had only entered the race after the call with the Ukrainian president, there would have been no problem. The Democrats raced desperately for the recording studios of the Trumpophobic television echo chamber before they could even be precisely sure of why they were falsely screaming there are grounds for “Impeachment!”
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/30/bring-on-the-biggest-nothingburger-of-them-all/

    That Democrats would bring this bullshit Ukraine nonsense to light in the form of IMPEACHMENT!!!????

    Hilariously ridiculous...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    The same Democratic candidates had shrieked for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh ten days before in the brief window between the New York Times publishing its story alleging Kavanaugh committed sexual assault 30 years before and the revelation that the alleged victim herself did not believe such an incident happened. The Times then admitted that the story was unfounded. It is scurrilous group-hypocrisy. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates, including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (D.-Vt.), accused Trump of conducting a “shakedown” on Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election, while simultaneously going into transports of thinly veiled glee at the likely elimination of Biden’s presidential candidacy.

    This will open the way for the Democrats to make the final Gadarene charge to “progressive” electoral destruction without the irritating presence of a serious contender espousing relative moderation. Trump, they shouted, should be removed from office for the constitutional “high crime” of asking a completely legitimate question of a foreign leader, who assured the media in New York last week that there was no “push” (pressure) from Trump. This is the Democratic win-double: saddle Trump with six months of relentless propaganda as a crook in the moronically partisan national media, and get rid of Biden, the party’s last faltering connection to reason.

    I am not sure that the powers that be actually PLANNED for Biden to be knee-capped..

    They probably HONESTLY thought that the American people would flock the HATE TRUMP side of the story and ignore how Joe Biden has been utterly destroyed...

    In short, Democrats assumed that their Trump/America hating base is all that is relevant and they won't NEED any Independents, NPAs or Trump voters..

    As usually what happens when you make an assumption... You make an ASS out of YOU.... And umption...

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    The administration wisely took the lead in releasing the transcript and the whistle-blower report, full cooperation while opening fire on the irregularities that soon surfaced. This Ukraine allegation has all the earmarks of a Democratic hit-job, and the whistleblower’s chances of retaining anonymity for the hearsay-based complaint that was lodged, are, and deserve to be, zero. The idea that a U.S. president can be shaken in his legitimacy by anonymous unsubstantiated charges that, even if true, don’t add up to a real impropriety, is the destruction of constitutional democracy.

    Acting National Intelligence director Joseph Maguire took 30 minutes to spike a Washington Post report that he had threatened to resign. Whistleblower claims that the administration had tried to hide the transcript and suggestions that the transcript was inaccurate were blown apart. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claims of “a cover-up of a cover-up” were vaporized as soon as she uttered them, like exhaled breath in the frosty air. High security storage of presidential conversations was reasonable after the president’s conversations early in the administration with the prime minister of Australia and the president of Mexico had been extensively leaked by partisan Democratic holdovers in the White House. If these conversations are not assured of security, no foreign leaders will speak with the U.S. president.

    So, WaPoop claimed that Director Maguire had threatened to quote..

    Maguire totally shot that down as utter and complete bullshit!!

    Bullshit from WaPoop!!!??? Say it ain't so!!!

    And, of course, there is the Democrat bullshit claim of the cover up of a cover up..

    OF COURSE phone conversations between President Trump and world leaders were moved to more secure locations.

    Given the Democrats and Trump/America haters (I know, I know.. REDUNDANT) proclivity for leaking confidential information that harms the country, why SHOULDN'T President Trump move that confidential information to a more secure location??

    I mean, Com'ON!! DUH.......

  77. [77] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale [67]

    Re "Global warming is a POLITICAL issue"

    It for damn certain IS a politicla issue, but it's NOT an imaginary political issue.

    As a near lifelong (65 - 70 yrs) hobby gardner in the midst of the Rocky Mtns, I have seen our growing season (which ends with the first frost) extended by about 4 wks. When I was growing up, it was a sure thing that you could kiss your wonderful home-grown, vine ripened tomatoes goodby somewhere in the period 9/1 - 9/10.
    Nowadays, we normally have tomatoes thru mid oct.

    Bottom line here is, a very modest degree of "global warming" appears to have occured- the 'political" part is whether or not it's "man-made".

    But regardless of who gets the crredit/blame, I LOVE IT. I'm perfectly willing to endure 'the terrible burden'' of an xtra 4 wks of home-grown, vine-ripened tomatoes on my BLT's, in place of those fake round red thing they call tomatoes in the produce depts.

    HOORAY FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!! In fact, send us Rocky Mtn folks even more of it !

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Global warming as a political issue? Yes that's definitely a real thing

    Global warming as a science issue or as a threat to humanity or the planet?

    Complete and utter bullshit

  79. [79] 
    Paula wrote:

    Pompeo, naturally, stonewalls.

    HRC testified for 11 hours in front of Repub Congressional moron/attack-dogs because she's not a coward and because she wasn't guilty.

    Blotus and all his slimy associates won't testify because they ARE cowards and ARE guilty.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pompeo, naturally, stonewalls.

    Pompeo naturally, tells Dumbocrats to go pound sand..

    Blotus and all his slimy associates won't testify because they ARE cowards and ARE guilty.

    Not at all.. President Trump and his associates will testify..

    When Democrats bring some FACTS to the table.

    Not before..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reporters scramble after rat falls from White House ceiling
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/463815-reporters-scramble-after-mouse-falls-from-white-house-ceiling

    The rat was later identified as CNN telegenic star Jim Acosta...

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Let's get back to the biggest NOTHING BURGER in political history..

    Everyone got into the act: Departed Arizona NeverTrump Republican Jeff Flake, who couldn’t face the primaries and was shouted down in a capitol elevator by a gaggle of anti-Kavanaugh demonstrators, said that 30 Republican senators would vote to remove Trump if they could remain anonymous, thus calling his former colleagues both cowards and closet renegades. Given the discredited source, it wasn’t reinforcement for the anti-Trumpers of either party.

    Hillary Clinton took her share of public attention by denouncing this president’s moral turpitude, a bit rich coming from the person who commissioned the Steele Dossier, accused Trump of treason with Russia, lied to federal officials, and had 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena bleached off her hard-drive and her cell-phones smashed. Poor old Joe Biden was reduced to publicly lecturing the media not to allow Rudolph Giuliani, one of the president’s lawyers, to appear on television

    Dumbocrat "leadership" was on parade, whining and crying that President Trump is kicking their asses left and right...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have had the lunatic Democrat members of Congress Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.) and Al Green (D.-Texas) calling for impeachment of Trump since 2016, saying they would get the precise reasons later. As with these Kavanaugh accusations, we have gone beyond “high crimes” to a concept of parliamentary non-confidence to the Robespierre phase of the French Revolution: on anonymous denunciations, people were simply condemned and executed.

    This is but another attempted coup d’etat by the Democrats, even before the hour of reckoning sounds for the authors of the Russian collusion outrage. There is no due process; impeachment is an end in itself meant to immobilize the government and gain a pre-electoral advantage. The system is corrupted and the media are deeply complicit in it. But where Richard Nixon—a traditional patriot who had a brilliant term and never has been proved to be guilty (though some of his entourage were guilty of some crimes)—spared the country a Senate trial; and Reagan was forgetful and his national security adviser (John Poindexter) took the bullet on what was a questionable transgression anyway; and Clinton fought and won in the Senate, Trump is putting on the war-paint.

    Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump even BEFORE he took office.

    This is well documented as fact..

    Both Al Green and Nancy Pelosi are ON THE RECORD as saying that this faux impeachment, this coup has been put into motion SOLELY because Democrats know that President Trump will win re-election and that, according to Pelosi, he must not be allowed to win...

    Although I am not one to complain about CW's topics (this is HIS house after all.. We're just guests) I *DO* find it somewhat annoying that there is very rarely the comeuppance that Democrats so richly deserved..

    The Weigantia of a decade ago, before the onset of HHPTDS, would NEVER have let Democrats get away with the actions and statements that are encourage and downright APPLAUDED today...

    I'm just sayin'...

    Irregardless of all that, it's clear that Democrats don't have a single solitary FACT to rest their case on..

    If Democrats cannot produce the so-called "whistle blower" and the "whistle blower-ettes" to be publicly questioned, then their ENTIRE case is illegitimate...

    It's really THAT simple.. And Weigantia circa 2009 would have completely and totally agreed with me...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Paula

    Blotus and all his slimy associates won't testify because they ARE cowards and ARE guilty.

    Of course, that means YOU believe that the so-called "whistle blower" and his alleged "whistle blower-ettes" are ALSO cowards and are ALSO guilty...

    Right???

    Of course, in American jurisprudence, President Trump and his associates are NOT required to PROVE their innocence...

    Democrats and the so-called "whistle blower" and his alleged "whistle blower-ettes" ***ARE*** required to prove President Trump's guilt...

    So, where are your FACTS that prove President Trump's guilt???

    "Anyone??? Anyone Beehler??"
    -Teacher, FERRIS BEUHLER'S DAY OFF

    {{{ccchhhhhiiirrrrrppppp}}} {{{ccchhhiiirrrppp}}}

    Yea.. That's about par for the course here.. :eyeroll:

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    This isn’t an amorphous mass of shady allegations cooked up and promoted by the CIA and FBI as the Russian collusion fraud was. It is essentially one conversation. And instead of a self-emasculated attorney general as we had in Jeff Sessions, there is an uncompromised Justice Department.

    The atmosphere was made more urgent by media personalities looking with furrowed brows and saying “This is a stinker,” or “this is a very serious problem,” and self-righteous NeverTrump Senators Ben Sasse (R.-Neb.) and Mitt Romney (R.-Utah) saying they were “troubled.” It is reminiscent of Democratic media commentators trying to make a smoking gun on the eve of the 2000 election out of George W. Bush’s failing a breathalyzer in 1976. (By 2000, he had not had a drop of alcohol for many years.)

    Much of the problem is the shocking and disgraceful unprofessionalism and dishonesty of most national political media, but some of it also is the fact that the media love an impeachment crisis. It is constant news and high drama, confected or otherwise.

    Once again, Democrats simply have NO CASE..

    They have not a single solitary FACT to support a case.. They don't even have anything to justify the witch hunt or fishing expedition they are demanding.

    Until such time as Democrats produce the "whistle blower" and the "whistle blower-ettes", President Trump associates should flip Democrats the bird and tell them to go frak themselves..

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    After three days, the divided Democratic leadership was edging away from pre-announcing an effort to impeach and remove and waffling about “an official impeachment inquiry.” The egregious Democratic House judiciary and intelligence committee chairmen, Jerry Nadler (D.-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), are pawing the ground but they have nothing to work with and nowhere to go. They have tried to follow Saul Alinsky’s playbook by accusing their opponents of what they themselves are doing, but Alinsky’s most assiduous current executant, fellow-Chicagoan David Axelrod, immediately warned his fellow Democrats of the dangers they were courting.

    The Democrats have no believable scandal; they can only impeach him once. This will be the biggest and bitterest nothingburger of all. Bring it on.

    "BRING IT ON!!!"
    President George Bush

    Com'on, Democrats.. Produce your "whistle blower"... Produce the supporting "whistle blower-ettes"....

    I DOUBLE DOG DARE YA!!! :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I guess ya'all are still licking your wounds from the utter shellacking the Alpha Dog gave ya'all yesterday.. :D

    "It's ok, I understand.."
    -J Geils Band, MY ANGEL IS A CENTERFOLD

    :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pompeo accuses Democrats of bullying in impeachment probe
    Rejects Subpoena

    https://apnews.com/d98be4ffbaa4462b9454cca0a8a7e88a

    Hmmmmm Who would have THUNKED that Pompeo would tell Democrats to take their subpoena and shove it up their asses!!???

    Oh.. Wait... :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Screwed Up the Democrat Plan by Releasing the Transcript

    RUSH: Here’s a little theory I have. You know, they’re running the same playbook with just different people. This whistleblower complaint may as well be the Steele dossier, its version of the Steele dossier, lies, made up, bunch of anonymous sources, we don’t know who it is. And just like the Steele dossier, it was put together by opponents of Donald Trump and being made to look like it’s legitimate intelligence.

    Everything about it, it’s right out of the Christine Blasey Ford playbook as well. She has this letter. She sends this letter to her member of Congress, who then gives it to Dianne Feinstein, and they supposedly hold it, they’re really worried, they don’t want embarrass Blasey Ford by going public with this, it’s so humiliating for a woman to have been abused and so forth.

    But then it looked like Kavanaugh was gonna sail through, so they had to release the letter, and they embarrass Blasey Ford and they had to bring Blasey Ford up to testify. She didn’t want to do it, but they made her do it. She didn’t like flying, they put her on a private jet. You know the drill on this.

    This is the same thing. This whistleblower is Christopher Steele. We don’t know who it is. He doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of anything by his own admission. We don’t know who it was that fed him whatever it is he knows. Now Democrats are going crazy like, “Oh, my God. Oh, my God. We’ve got treason here, oh, my God.”

    Trump blows it sky-high by releasing the transcript of the call and thereby blows the whistleblower out of the water. The moment Trump released that transcript, we knew more than the whistleblower knew. It effectively took the whistleblower out of the game.
    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/09/30/trump-screwed-up-the-democrat-plan-by-releasing-the-transcript/

    Sounds about right to me..

    Democrats thought that President Trump would cede the field of battle to them..

    President Trump responded with a DEVASTATING Left hook that caught the Democrats napping.. :D

    Now Democrats are punch drunk and don't know which way is up.. :D

    "I tried ta hit 'im 'oward but he seemed to move away from me..."
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate GOP Should Give Democrats A Dose Of Their Own Medicine

    The subpoenas are flying like feces in the monkey cage. If you’ve ever had your picture taken with President Donald Trump, anyone named Trump, or walked past a Trump property, there’s a better than even chance House Democrats will demand answers and documents from you in the coming weeks. Maybe it’s time to turn the tables.

    Democrats are searching, desperately, for anything to validate their push for impeachment.

    They’re only missing any evidence to justify the foregone conclusion they’re gearing everything toward. It’s amazing what a political party will do when they lack a candidate with charisma and an agenda with support.

    With that in mind, Democrats have embraced the ancient art of “making shit up.”
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2019/10/01/senate-gop-should-give-democrats-a-dose-of-their-own-medicine-n2553917

    So dead on ballz accurate, it's SCARY!!

  91. [91] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Pompeo said his department would respond to a Foreign Affairs Committee subpoena by Friday. Pompeo said proposed dates for the depositions do not provide adequate time for preparation and that the officials may not attend any depositions without executive branch counsel present to control disclosure of confidential information.

    He said records that have been requested are subject to restrictions relating to classified information and other executive branch privileges. Pompeo added that there is no legal basis for the committee’s assertion that a failure to appear would constitute evidence of obstruction.

    So Pompeo stalls for a few days while lining up his ducks and minder-ducks.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hearings with no questions asked to elicit any information, just political speeches delivered one soundbite at a time. Flat-out lies and fantasy portrayed as “parody” broadcast across the country with no “journalistic” pushback. It’s been a joke everyone whose job it is to know better has been ignoring. But there is one thing Republicans could do that couldn’t be ignored – put a few of these Democrats under oath.

    The idea of mutually assured destruction is used to keep order, not only in the Cold War but in politics in general. Dirty tricks and lies have always had their place, but they’re now the currency and the language of the left. Making them pay up, even a little, might be the only way to restore some semblance of sanity.

    Witnesses before congressional committees must be sworn in, must swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Members of Congress who ask the questions take no such oath; they’re free to lie and lie freely.

    While Democrats are dragging anyone they can think of in front of nearly every committee in the House, desperately looking for anything to justify their political “hail Mary,” maybe the Senate should involve itself in the “hunt for truth.”

    There’s nothing stopping Republicans in the Senate from calling someone like Congressman Adam Schiff to testify before some relevant committee, perhaps the Judiciary Committee.

    Oh, I would pay good many to see Schiff-head brought before the Senate...

    That would be a Pay Per View event that would sell out in SECONDS!!!

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Pompeo stalls for a few days while lining up his ducks and minder-ducks.

    Of course, you would spin it that way..

    But the FACTS say different..

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Taking a defiant stance in the impeachment inquiry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday declared that House Democrats are trying to “intimidate, bully and treat improperly” five current and former career officials in seeking information in the Ukraine investigation.

    Pompeo said in a letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as part of the chamber’s impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, that the requested dates for the officials to voluntarily appear for depositions were “not feasible.”

    “I am concerned with aspects of your request,” Pompeo wrote to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., chairman of the panel. “I will not tolerate such tactics, and I will use all means at my disposal to prevent and expose any attempts to intimidate the dedicated professionals.”

    The muscular response from Pompeo came one day after it was disclosed that he was among those listening in on Trump’s July phone call with the Ukraine president that helped trigger the impeachment inquiry. The pushback signals a stiffening in the confrontation between the executive and legislative branches over impeachment, and could both slow the probe and expose Trump to charges that he is obstructing Congress.

    Bring the whistle blower and his alleged witnesses into the light of day..

    Let them be questioned and cross-examined..

    What are Democrats afraid of??

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the flip side, I am glad to see you still alive, Balthy..

    I thought I might have inflicted some serious health-threatening damage to you, what with all the times you got caught in bullshit..

    Yunno.. You made a comment about civility yesterday..

    Would you like to duplicate MtnCaddy's gracious actions and call for a cease fire??

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle190928c20190928122043.jpg

    "Why do you want to impeach the witch?"
    "HE MADE A PHONE CALL!!!!!"
    "And he turned me into a newt"

    heheheheheheehehehehehehehe

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:
  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle190925c20190925125302.jpg

    Cop: "WHY DID YOUR ENTIRE 7th GRADE CLASS JUST JUMP OFF THE BRIDGE!!!???"
    Teacher: "I have NO idea..."

    :D

  98. [98] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    the FACTS say different..

    No, minus the hyped-up language, it says exactly that.

    I am glad to see you still alive, Balthy

    Hoping that I dropped of the planet so that I would stop living in your head? I do this for a little while every day. You apparently do this full time. Even CW doesn't do it full time.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, minus the hyped-up language, it says exactly that.

    Yea, that's your claim...

    The funny thing is.. I always post FACTS to support my claims..

    You?? Not so much??

    Hoping that I dropped of the planet so that I would stop living in your head?

    Oh HELL no!!! Your floundering around and your bullshit makes me look AWESOME by comparison.. :D

    You apparently do this full time.

    And yet I have a thriving business and a beautiful family I spend a LOT of time with... :D You should be so lucky.. :D

    Even CW doesn't do it full time.

    I wouldn't know.. I won't presume to speak for CW...

  100. [100] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There's the link. You'll find the paragraphs I lifted about halfway down.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mike-pompeo-ukraine_n_5d936b25e4b0e9e7605365ed

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huffpoop..

    'nuff said..

    At least I quoted a non-biased source..

    Well, at least as unbiased as any MSM source can be..

    Suffice it to say, I hope Pompeo sticks to his guns and uses the Democrat subpoena for toilet paper until this so-called "whistle blower" and the alleged whistle blower-ettes publicly testify.

    What are Democrats afraid of??

    Why won't they establish the FACTS of the case before continuing??

    I'll tell you why..

    Because there ARE NO FACTS to support the Democrat case.

    It really is THAT simple...

  102. [102] 
    dsws wrote:

    I've said somewhere that the only way forward I see is a resurgence of the religious left. The loudest voices in political discourse have told us for decades that you can't be a Christian unless you're a partisan Republican who's on board with minimizing the top-bracket marginal income tax rate, cutting anything that might use tax money in any way that could help the poor, going all in on mass incarceration, keeping the medical system focused on profit maximization, and so on. (The biblical Jesus, of course, said that how you treat sick people and those who are in prison is how you have treated Him, that if a rich man wants to get into Heaven he has to sell all he has and give the money to the poor, and so on. But who cares about that? They're confident that no one is listening to Him.). But outside of a small category of weirdos like all of us here, no one wants to be a political anything. Normal people want politics to go away and leave them alone, except maybe on brief occasions when they can feel a surge of patriotism, take a token action and congratulate themselves on their civic virtue. So for the past two or three decades, an increasing number of Americans have taken the loudmouths at their word and stopped identifying as Christian. At some point, it seems reasonable to expect, actual Christians will have had enough of this situation, and start to push back against the loudmouths who have been defaming their religion by identifying it with Republican extremism.

    Now I see a less pleasant, and thus more plausible, way forward.

    We know with a reasonable level of certainty that Biden will be the nominee, that his trial in the Senate by Moscow Mitch (instead of the guy that the House will have told the Senate to try) will be politically damaging to him, and that the ra*ist-in-chief will win a second term.

    He's old and not very healthy, but he's still quite likely to survive for five years. That gives him plenty of time to make mistakes. Among those mistakes may be an overly effective incitement of his followers to politically motivated violence. A couple of murders of Republicans, unambiguously incited by the president on camera and credited to him by the perpetrators, could split the Party.

    The president thinks of incitement in terms of kayfabe and ratings, not in terms of anyone actually doing what he says. He's not going to intentionally have his followers murder some Republican he sees as disloyal. But it would be easy for him to do unintentionally, and he's got five years to do it in.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    But outside of a small category of weirdos like all of us here,

    Hay!!! I resemble that remark!!! :D

    We know with a reasonable level of certainty that Biden will be the nominee,

    A couple weeks ago, I would have totally agreed with that.. Hell.. A couple weeks ago I *WAS* agreeing with that...

    But, between the resurgence of Party Purity and the the Ukraine mess thrown in..

    It's doubtful Biden will survive...

    With the utmostest (AND sincerest) respect.. I disagree with you...

    Plus I will never live it down if I have to vote Biden in 2020.. :D

    A couple of murders of Republicans, unambiguously incited by the president on camera and credited to him by the perpetrators, could split the Party.

    Abso-tively...

    But it would be easy for him to do unintentionally, and he's got five years to do it in.

    There is no evidence to suggest that President Trump favors serious and life ending violence.

    President Trump doesn't mind seeing his haters roughed up..

    Just as Democrats don't mind seeing a couple Republicans gunned down (but not killed) at a baseball practice...

    The ironic part is that Lefties used to be associated with peace at any cost mentality that they would answer violence with love and tenderness and understanding..

    Those are the Democrats I grew up with..

    Today's Democrats are all about AntiFa and doing it to Republicans before Republicans do it to them..

    The Democrat LIVE AND LET LIVE philosophy has devolved into MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY...

    Excellent read, DSWS

    One of your best ones...

  104. [104] 
    dsws wrote:

    There is no evidence to suggest that President Trump favors serious and life ending violence.

    Agreed. It's all bluster and ratings and feelings to him. The people affected aren't real to him.

    Unconsciously, emotionally, a million unnamed strangers aren't real to anyone. A merely-human being can engage with these issues only intellectually.

    He doesn't. It's all kayfabe to him. That means he doesn't favor it, but neither does he oppose it. The world is full of serious, life-ending violence, on all scales from an individual suicide to the still-present threat of omnicidal nuclear ear. A POTUS must take it seriously, and the current one doesn't.

  105. [105] 
    dsws wrote:

    Nuclear "ear"? Good grief, tiny phone keyboards are annoying.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agreed. It's all bluster and ratings and feelings to him. The people affected aren't real to him.

    To be perfectly honest, the "affected" people are overblown hysteria and have little basis in reality..

    President Trump could no more cause an El Paso than Elizabeth Warren could cause a Dayton or Bernie Sanders could cause a GOP baseball practice....

    . That means he doesn't favor it, but neither does he oppose it.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    It's more likely he doesn't buy into the Cause And Effect bullshit spewing from the Hysterical Trump/America haters.

    What sane and rational person would??

    The world is full of serious, life-ending violence, on all scales from an individual suicide to the still-present threat of omnicidal nuclear ear.

    It is...

    And to think that ONE man could be the cause of it is ridiculous bordering on insane...

    A POTUS must take it seriously, and the current one doesn't.

    Again, with the utmost respect.. President Trump DOES take it seriously..

    He simply refuses to take responsibility for it because he is NOT responsible for it..

    Any more than Elizabeth Warren is responsible for Dayton...

    Any more than Bernie Sanders is responsible for GOP Baseball Practice...

    Mass murderers who do things like that are insane..

    To point to ONE single periphery thing and say, "THAT!!!! THAT is what is responsible for this insane act!!!" is simply hysterical Partisan based scapegoating..

    It's a vain and hysterical attempt to explain the unexplainable with a buttload of partisan bigotry thrown in for good measure..

    It's utterly contemptible and ridiculous and no one with a modicum of intelligence and rational thought would take it seriously..

    Nuclear "ear"? Good grief, tiny phone keyboards are annoying.

    I am always amazed when I learn people do this stuff on PHONES!! I would be a fruitcake within a week if I tried!!!

    I am trying to cajole some creative person into adding a few verses to THE SAGA BEGINS (a Star Wars parody of AMERICAN PIE by Weird Al).. I hooked up with some lady in NC who said she could help.. I asked to send her an XLSX spreadsheet of the two songs.. She said she is on her phone and can't read EXCEL..

    ACK!!!! :D

    I bow to the superiority of people who can do stuff like this on a PHONE...

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Good talk.."
    -Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    107 Comments..

    See what happens when the haters are not around??

    We sacrifice quantity, but we sure as hell get quality.. :D

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:
  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is it Thanksgiving already or what!?

  111. [111] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Capt. Whorely knows shit about law enforcement! Officers are commissioned by the agency they are hired by. They must be certified by the state criminal justice commission. “Sworn”? The oath does not grant you any authority or police powers.

    Here’s the most obvious thing that you keep avoiding...directly answer the damn question as to which time you lied on here! By all means, tell us which state you worked in law enforcement. Your criminal history seems to be at odds with the possibility that you worked in law enforcement, so by all means prove this wrong.

    If not, you are announcing to the world that you are nothing but a honor-stealing coward.

    WAC 139-05-200

    Requirement of basic law enforcement training for general authority peace officers.

    (1) Unless certification eligibility has been reinstated, a peace officer or tribal police officer whose certification, commission and/or licensing has been revoked, sanctioned, suspended, or is under review by this state or any other state or territory, is not eligible for a basic law enforcement academy certificate, regardless of the officer's prior years of law enforcement service.
    (2) All fully commissioned law enforcement officers of a city, county, or political subdivision of the state of Washington, and officers of the Washington state patrol, unless otherwise exempted by the commission must, as a condition of continued employment, successfully complete a basic law enforcement academy or an equivalent basic academy sponsored or conducted by the commission. Basic law enforcement training must be commenced within the initial six-month period of law enforcement employment, unless otherwise extended by the commission.
    (3) Law enforcement personnel exempted from the requirement of subsection (2) of this section include:
    (a) Individuals holding the office of sheriff of any county on September 1, 1979; and
    (b) Commissioned personnel:
    (i) Whose initial date of full-time, regular and commissioned law enforcement employment within the state of Washington precedes January 1, 1978;
    (ii) Who have received a certificate of completion in accordance with the requirement of subsection (2) of this section, and thereafter have engaged in regular and commissioned law enforcement employment without break or interruption in excess of twenty-four months duration; or
    (iii) Who are employed as tribal police officers in Washington state, natural resource investigators employed by the Washington department of natural resources, special agents employed by the Washington state gambling commission, and liquor enforcement officers employed by the Washington state liquor control board who have received a certificate of successful completion from the basic law enforcement academy or the basic law enforcement equivalency and thereafter engage in regular and commissioned law enforcement employment with that agency without break or interruption in excess of twenty-four months duration.
    (4) Each law enforcement agency of the state of Washington, or any political subdivision thereof, must immediately notify the commission by approved form of each instance where a commissioned officer begins continuing and regular employment with that agency.
    (5) Failure to comply with any of the above requirements of basic law enforcement training will result in notification of noncompliance by the commission to:
    (a) The individual in noncompliance;
    (b) The head of his/her agency; and
    (c) Any other agency or individual, as determined by the commission.

    You can also check out WA State RCW 10.93.020 for the laws that corresponds to this WAC.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrat says she was 'under enormous amount of pressure' to support impeachment inquiry
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrat-dingell-impeachment-pressure

    THIS is the **ONLY** reason many Democrats are saying they support this faux impeachment coup..

    You can bet when it comes down to an ACTUAL vote....

    Democrats don't have enough to pass Articles Of Impeachment...

    Democrats are going to lose and lose big..

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And the hater show his ugly face..

    I am not going to dignify this hysterical and bullshit personal attack that is TOTALLY without fact with a response..

    Other than to say.. Russ.. I pity you..

    Too bad you couldn't go the mature and adult route that MtnCaddy went... :^/

    It's sad...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Is it Thanksgiving already or what!?

    It was.. Until a few moments ago.. :^(

    I hope you caught comments 31 thru 45... ESPECIALLY 43 and 45.. :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, it's quitting time..

    As usual at this time, my heart (and my fingers) belong to my beautiful trophy wife of 40 years.. :D

    Awww Who am I kidding! She's smarter than I am!! :D

    See ya'all in the morning, bright eyed and bushy tailed.. :D

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, I did read those particular comments. Mostly because they were short, relatively speaking.

    And yes, they made me smile.

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    16

    You can ignore Russ' spewage on the subject..

    You spelled "Mike" wrong.

    He shows his ignorance daily..

    Yes, you certainly do, and I cannot fathom why. The more words you post and the more you prattle on and on incessantly about topics as if you know what you're talking about simply will not turn your prattling into facts.

    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 drive in police cars that are identical to their civilian counter-parts.. The respond to crimes in progress.. They perform traffic and AID duties.. Military LEOs have even a bit more training then civilian LEOs..

    Nope. Only somebody with the requisite resources is going to be able to find that designator you're spouting off as if it's currently relevant because it's an obsolete designator that hasn't been used since before October 1993... over 25 years ago!

    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, and keep in mind we're talking over 25 years ago!

    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

    In short, Air Force LEs are the "civilian" law enforcement for a military base..

    Military Police are either enlisted or commissioned officers and aren't "the civilian" anything because they're not civilians if they're employed by the United States. MP's are generally most visible manning the gates and security checkpoints and enforcing basic traffic laws and basic military base regulations with a whole lot of paperwork because that's how the government rolls. See above.

    You see the Jack Reacher movies or read the books??

    Jack Reacher is an Army MP...

    That you would describe an MP's primary duties using a fictional movie character pretty much says it all.

    Granted, Reacher is fiction, but the role played is pretty close to his real life counter-parts..

    Your delusions are again duly noted.

    Further, Russ is totally full of shit when he claims their jurisdiction is SOLELY on a military base.... Military police officers have jurisdiction over military personnel ANYWHERE in the world..

    Let me put this as simply as I can. Your portrayal of a Military Police officer as some kind of international super cop with worldwide jurisdiction is gaslighting at it's comical finest.

    Now you know the FACTS and now Russ' bullshit spewage...

    Now you know that in Mike's delusions, an MP who primarily performs gate guarding, traffic patrolling, ticket writing, and the routine filing of loads of paperwork is an international man of mystery with worldwide jurisdiction EXACTLY like a movie character.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    21

    Civilian Police Officers are NOT "commissioned"... Military officers are..

    Wrong. Allow me to introduce you to the commissioner of your home state: Rick Swearingen, Commissioner of the State of Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

    http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/CJSTC/Curriculum/Active-Courses

    Civilian Police officers are "sworn"..

    Are you unable to grasp the fact that they are generally "commissioned" and then "sworn"?

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    111

    Capt. Whorely knows shit about law enforcement! Officers are commissioned by the agency they are hired by. They must be certified by the state criminal justice commission. “Sworn”? The oath does not grant you any authority or police powers.

    Correct. The State Commissioner grants the authority, and Mike lives in a state with a State Commissioner who certifies law enforcement who are "commissioned" and "sworn."

    Here’s the most obvious thing that you keep avoiding...directly answer the damn question as to which time you lied on here! By all means, tell us which state you worked in law enforcement. Your criminal history seems to be at odds with the possibility that you worked in law enforcement, so by all means prove this wrong.

    But, Russ... Jack Reacher! And he provided an important sounding Air Force designator for JL to look up that is obsolete and hasn't been used in over a quarter century!

  120. [120] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [77] CRS

    HOORAY FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!!

    https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/climate-change-linked-declining-bird-populations-idaho-and-across-great-basin

    I hope your progeny and theirs in turn will pass along the instructive tale of Proud Grandpa Crustucky and what he traded away for a few dozen magic tomatoes.

  121. [121] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Chaszzz-

    Southern Ohio used to produce glorious tomatoes that actually tasted tomato-y. No more. We have dropped a few climate zones. I can still grow the plants, but cutworms and fungus kill the fruits. It is a maddening curse.

    Cheers for your trollblocker!

  122. [122] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-EQstuff? Long & winding trail on that one! Civil, not criminal. Nothing on the interweb goes away. Including really angry E-mails. Oh what a tangled web etc.

    Gotta paint before the heat builds ....mid 90s in October! Who''d a thunk it?

  123. [123] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-how compatable is a civil criminal record with a law enforcement career?

Comments for this article are closed.