ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- As The Clown Car Empties

[ Posted Friday, October 11th, 2019 – 17:22 UTC ]

The amusing thing about a circus clown car is, of course, that just when you think that itty-bitty car couldn't possibly vomit forth any more clowns... a few more climb out. That's what this week's news of the arrest of two "clients" of Rudy Giuliani (Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) as they were attempting to flee the country certainly felt like.

As for the label "clowns," it is not actually one we can claim original credit for. Now, we know it's way too soon for our annual awards, but if we had a "Best Prediction Of 2019" award to hand out, we'd have to give it to Ukrainian business tycoon Ihor Kolomoisky, described as "a figure close to [Ukrainian] President Volodymyr Zelensky." Back in May, Kolomoisky was interviewed on Ukrainian television, where he talked about the two clients of Rudy Giuliani who just got arrested fleeing the country. And he absolutely nailed it:


"They wanted to have a meeting with Zelensky and show Giuliani that they had organized everything," Kolomoisky said. "A big scandal may break out, and not only in Ukraine, but in the United States. That is, it may turn out to be a clear conspiracy against Biden."

That was back in May, mind you. At an unspecified date, Kolomoisky also went into much more scathing detail about the two to a Ukrainian news outlet:

"Look, there is Giuliani, and there [are] two clowns, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were milking the bull here. They are Giuliani's clients," Kolomoisky told the Ukrainska Pravda website. "They came here and told us that they would organize a meeting with Zelensky. They allegedly struck a deal with [Prosecutor-general Yuriy] Lutsenko about the fate of this criminal case -- Burisma, Biden, meddling in the U.S. election and so on."

So, to review, the two "clowns" who seem to be at the absolute epicenter of the quid pro quo with Ukraine were just arrested attempting to flee the country -- after having lunch with Rudy hours before, at Trump's Washington hotel (you just can't make this stuff up!). They were arrested for funnelling foreign (Russian) money to American politicians (Republicans, of course), which is illegal. They face severe penalties for doing so. And they most likely were central to the whole Burisma/Biden/Ukraine quid pro quo scheme. Ordinarily, when facing prosecution, guilty people seek to cut a deal if they have knowledge of even-more-serious crimes. So what do you think their next step is going to be?

In other legal bad news for President Trump, at least two federal judges essentially laughed his legal reasoning out of court this week. One judge threw out a lawsuit Trump had brought against New York prosecutors getting copies of his tax returns, while two appeals court judges ruled that the House committee who subpoenaed Trump's financial and business records had every right to legally demand this information, again denying Trump's argument to the contrary. Both of these decisions will likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, hopefully on a very fast track. Yet another federal judge seems to be indicating that House Democrats will be able to get grand jury material from the Mueller probe. All around, a pretty tough legal week for Team Trump.

The New York ruling was the most scathing, as the judge took 75 pages to explain how very wrong Trump's legal reasoning was. What was truly stunning, though, was how critical the judge was of something which has become almost axiomatic -- "sitting presidents cannot be indicted" -- but which in reality is nothing more than an opinion issued long ago by the Justice Department which has never actually be challenged in any court:

In a 75-page ruling on Monday, Judge Victor Marrero, also issued a sharp rejection of longstanding Department of Justice opinions that say a president cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted while in office, calling their conclusions "not warranted" or backed up by the authority of the courts.

Marrero said Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" from criminal proceedings is counter to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, who rejected an executive with the limitless power of a monarch. Marrero described the president's argument as "repugnant to the nation's governmental structure and constitutional values."

. . .

"The notion of... presidential immunity from judicial process that the President here invokes, unqualified and boundless in its reach described above, cuts against the grain of these Constitutional precedents," wrote Marrero, an appointee of President Bill Clinton in 1999.

. . .

"The court is not persuaded that it should accord weight and legal force the president ascribes to the D.O.J. memos," Marrero wrote.

He noted that the argument a sitting president cannot be indicted often relies entirely on these memos, which don't carry the force of law or legal precedent.

"[T]he theory has gained a certain degree of axiomatic acceptance... as though their conclusion were inscribed on constitutional tablets so-etched by the Supreme Court," he said.

Rather, Marrero said a better balance might be struck between protecting legitimate presidential interests and ensuring justice can be served -- either to the president or potential accomplices who would otherwise be shielded from prosecution. He also noted that the D.O.J. memos only speak to federal prosecution -- not state or local.

Marrero's comments on the D.O.J. memos -- which have been a feature of Trump's legal arguments against investigations into him, his company and his associates -- are some of the first made by a federal judge. And he notes that the memos based on hypothetical circumstances and "hyperbolic horrors" conjured by D.O.J. lawyers.

"In fact, not every criminal proceeding to which a President may be subjected would raise the grim specters the D.O.J. memos portray as incapacitation of the president," he argues."

Meanwhile -- and you really can't make this stuff up -- Trump is apparently considering bringing that legal heavyweight [...pause for laughter...] Trey Gowdy on board his personal legal team, mostly so he can rant and rave on television while refraining from outright admitting criminal activity (as Rudy can't seem to help himself from doing). Trey Gowdy. No, really!

Here's how Yahoo News reported the reaction from "Giuliani associate" Victoria Toensing to this news:

"He's not on the team. Trey Gowdy is not on the team. Who told you Trey Gowdy? Not to my knowledge, not to Rudy's knowledge, not Joe's knowledge," said Toensing, who had not heard of the move at the time of her interview with Yahoo News on Wednesday morning. "I have to check that with Rudy because that would be a joke, because we all don't think much of him," she said of Gowdy, adding, "Are you kidding?... Trey is a joke among us."

Got that? Even the clowns are laughing at this move. Just when you think that clown car has got to be empty, another one climbs out into the spotlight.

But while the clowns continue to emerge, at least one person is heading for the exits:

Michael McKinley, a career diplomat and senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has resigned his position amid rising dissatisfaction and plummeting morale inside the State Department over what is seen as Pompeo's failure to support personnel ensnared in the Ukraine controversy.

Now that the impeachment inquiry has gained steam, the news media is uncovering new shocking stories on an almost daily basis. Here are just a few from the past week:

At least four national security officials were so alarmed by the Trump administration's attempts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes that they raised concerns with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after President Trump's July 25 call with that country's president, according to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the matter.

The nature and timing of the previously undisclosed discussions with National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg indicate that officials were delivering warnings through official White House channels earlier than previously understood -- including before the call that precipitated a whistleblower complaint and the impeachment inquiry of the president.

At the time, the officials were unnerved by the removal in May of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, by subsequent efforts by Trump's lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to promote Ukraine-related conspiracies, as well as by signals in meetings at the White House that Trump wanted the new government in Kiev to deliver material that might be politically damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

More details of the withheld aid emerged as well:

Political appointees in the White House budget office intervened to freeze aid to Ukraine despite some career staffers raising concerns that the move was improper, people briefed on the matter said.

Acknowledging some of the concerns, White House budget aides eventually disclosed to other government officials that the money was being frozen outside of the normal "apportionment" process. But they didn't give officials at the State Department or other agencies a reason the money was being withheld, or who had initially made the decision to freeze it, after substantive discussions about whether the move was legal.

And Energy Secretary Rick Perry took a turn on the hot seat, after it was revealed that he was pushing for one of his buddies to be appointed to the board of a Ukrainian gas company -- which is, incidentally, the same thing Hunter Biden did that's got Rudy and Trump in such a tizzy:

Among other changes, Perry pushed for Ukraine's state-owned natural gas company Naftogaz to expand its board to include Americans, two people familiar with the matter said. Two longtime energy executives based in Perry's home state of Texas were among those under consideration for that role, one source familiar with the administration's dealings with the company said.

Then there was the news that then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was also caught up in Trump and Giuliani trying get some favors through Trump's peripatetic foreign policy:

Trump urged Tillerson in an Oval Office meeting to try to craft a diplomatic "deal" to stop the U.S. case against Reza Zarrab on corruption charges in exchange for concessions from Turkey. The request shocked the then-secretary of state, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations involving the president.

At the time, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was personally lobbying Trump to get the charges dropped.

Trump, in turn, repeatedly raised the topic with Tillerson -- including directly in the Oval Office meeting, according to people with knowledge of the episode.

The president was joined in the Oval Office by two of Zarrab's attorneys, Giuliani and Michael Mukasey, a former attorney general under President George W. Bush who proposed swapping the trader for an American pastor in Turkish custody, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

"The president says, 'Guys, give Rex your pitch,' " according to one of the people.

Tillerson was so unsettled by the extraordinary request to intervene in an ongoing criminal investigation that he complained to then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly that he believed it was inappropriate, according to a former administration official. Kelly told him to disregard it, the official said.

Other developments include 17 former members of the Watergate special prosecutor team who signed a public letter baldly stating that we have already heard enough to impeach Trump any old time now:

We, former members of the Watergate special prosecutor force, believe there exists compelling prima facie evidence that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses. This evidence can be accepted as sufficient for impeachment, unless disproved by any contrary evidence that the president may choose to offer.

Andrew Card, President George W. Bush's White House chief of staff, agrees that the House is right to move forward: "I do think that an impeachment inquiry is warranted. Clearly lines have been crossed."

And 90 former national security officials -- including some who served under Donald Trump -- signed a letter supporting both the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.

Meanwhile, a poll showing a majority of Americans not only want Trump impeached but also removed from office (convicted in the Senate, in other words) was released from Fox News. Trump lit into them in his own version of "Et tu, Brute?" (although he likely wouldn't understand that reference).

But all of that (and it's a lot to take in) wasn't even the worst "Trump phone call to foreign leaders" news this week. The one that caused a revolt among Republicans was a call to the leader of Turkey, where Trump just laid down and did Turkey's bidding:

Donald Trump got "rolled" by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a National Security Council source with direct knowledge of the discussions told Newsweek.

In a scheduled phone call on Sunday afternoon between President Trump and President Erdogan, Trump said he would withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria. The phone call was scheduled after Turkey announced it was planning to invade Syria, and hours after Erdogan reinforced his army units at the Syrian-Turkish border and issued his strongest threat to launch a military incursion, according to the National Security Council official to whom Newsweek spoke on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. withdrawal plays into the hands of the Islamic State group, Damascus and Moscow, and the announcement left Trump's own Defense Department "completely stunned," said Pentagon officials. Turkey, like the United States, wants regime change in Syria. Russia and Iran support the Assad regime.

"President Trump was definitely out-negotiated and only endorsed the troop withdraw to make it look like we are getting something -- but we are not getting something," the National Security Council source told Newsweek. "The U.S. national security has entered a state of increased danger for decades to come because the president has no spine and that's the bottom line."

This was a bridge too far for many Republicans, but we're saving their reactions for the talking points.

We know this introduction is already far too long, but there are two stories we have to close on which deserve a lot more attention than they have so far gotten. The first is the fact that there may have been an earlier quid pro quo with Ukraine. After all, the timing does look rather suspicious, in retrospect:

Democrats pursuing an impeachment inquiry of President Trump want to take a fresh look at whether the sale of anti-tank missiles to Kyiv last year was in any way connected to Ukraine's decision to halt investigations into Trump's campaign chairman.

The renewed interest in the circumstances surrounding the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles -- long coveted by Ukraine as a way to fend off Russian aggression in the east -- has been spurred by revelations about the Trump administration's dealings with the newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky. It raises the prospect that the president, or his aides, may have been pressuring the Ukrainian government in exchange for political favors far earlier than previously known.

. . .

Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky -- in which he urged him to investigate his political rival Joe Biden and issues surrounding the 2016 election, all while withholding military assistance aid to Kiev -- and the concurrent pressure placed on Zelensky by U.S. diplomats has led some Democrats to view the Javelin sale in a new light.

The U.S. completed its shipment of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in May 2018, finalizing a sale that was pushed by lawmakers in both parties and reluctantly approved by Trump in November 2017. In April 2018, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko ordered Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko -- who'd been tasked with investigating corruption that occurred under former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych -- to stop cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller, at that point, was investigating former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's work for Yanukovych in Ukraine and his ties to Russia.

The second one is unrelated to foreign policy, and is really breaking news since the book hasn't even hit the shelves yet. Hopefully, the authors' book tour will help shine a light on this situation, because it deserves as much media attention as possible:

For the first time in a century, the nation's richest billionaires are paying a lower tax rate than working-class Americans, according to an analysis in a forthcoming book.

The wealthiest 400 families paid an average effective tax rate of 23% last year -- the second year of President Donald Trump's new tax law -- while the bottom half of all American households paid an average rate of 24.2%, according to the study.

The superwealthy paid a lower rate than any other income group, according to an analysis in the new book "The Triumph of Injustice," by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley. Saez and Zucman both have collaborated with Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on their proposals for taxing wealth.

The tax rate for America's wealthiest in 1950 was 70%. In 1970, the "richest Americans paid, all taxes included, more than 50% of their income in taxes -- twice as much as working-class individuals," the authors wrote in the book. "In 2018, following the Trump tax reform, and for the first time in the last hundred years, billionaires have paid less than steel workers, schoolteachers and retirees."

In other words, it's even worse than you may have imagined. The system is indeed rigged, and Trump and the Republicans are the ones who have rigged it for the wealthiest among us. We fully expect these facts to immediately become part of the stump speeches of both Warren and Sanders.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Elizabeth Warren has had a pretty impressive week all around. She briefly bested Joe Biden in the Real Clear Politics polling averages, and from all accounts she turned in a pretty good performance at an L.G.B.T. town hall last night, including a brilliant answer to a hypothetical person telling her that their faith teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman: "Well, I'm going to assume it's a guy who said that, and I'm going to say: 'Then just marry one woman. I'm cool with that -- assuming you can find one.' "

But instead we're going to give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week to Jane Fonda, who just got herself arrested on the Capitol steps for launching a climate change protest. Fonda said she was inspired by Greta Thunberg and that she'll be protesting in the same place for the next 14 Fridays.

From a HuffPost report:

"We have to be sure that the crisis that is climate change remains front and center like a ticking time bomb," Fonda told the outlet. "We don't have very much time, and it's really urgent."

The Academy Award winner and lifelong activist was apparently inspired by Swedish youth climate activist Greta Thunberg. At 16, Thunberg has already become a major force in raising public awareness about the dangers of climate change and delivered a powerful speech to world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month.

Thunberg's words informed Fonda's decision to move to Washington for four months and spend every Friday attending "Fire Drill Friday," which ABC News reports is "a weekly event featuring scientists, celebrities and activists addressing the various facets and impacts of climate change."

Fonda is 81 years old, which only goes to prove that standing up for climate change is important for all ages to do. For doing so in such a notable fashion, Jane Fonda is this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Jane Fonda on her own contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Once again, we find that no Democrat seriously disappointed us all week long. There was an awkward moment or two during the L.G.B.T. town hall from Joe Biden (who started talking about "gay bathhouses" and "round-the-clock sex"), but it's only really cringeworthy if you take these quotes out of context, since Biden finished up with: "Come on, man. Gay couples are more likely to stay together longer than heterosexual couples" -- the point he was really trying to make. We just don't find that that rises to the level of even a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, when you read his full remarks.

As always when we put the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award back on the shelf until next week, feel free to make your own nominations down in the comments, in case we missed someone obvious.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 546 (10/11/19)

This was a week consumed by not only Donald Trump but by Republican reactions to his brand-new Turkey/Syrian Kurd policy. The blowback was swift and severe, even reaching to one of the bedrocks of Trump's base, evangelicals. Pat Robertson stated this week that Trump "is in great danger of losing the mandate of Heaven" for abandoning the Kurds, which is a pretty brutal thing for him to say about Trump.

Trump tried to counter this opposition with one of the most self-glorifying tweets he's ever written (which, for him, is saying a lot):

As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I've done before!).

Twitter, of course, had a field day over the "great and unmatched wisdom" of Trump.

But the condemnation was indeed notable from Republicans, who up until this point have shied away from such directly confrontational tactics against Trump. Many Republicans are still trying to dodge the question of whether sitting U.S. presidents should be allowed to solicit dirt on their political opponents from foreign governments, as this "profile in waffling" from Cory Gardner shows. But on the Syrian question, they all (well, except for staunch isolationist Rand Paul) overcame their fear of Trump to denounce him in the strongest possible terms. Below are the seven most notable denunciations from the past week (culled from a number of separate media reports).

 

1
   Lindsey's not a happy camper

First up, we have Senator Lindsey Graham, who pulled his head out of Trump's hindquarters to criticize his Dear Leader's decision. As icing on the cake, after saying the following to (of all people) the Fox And Friends morning show, Graham later succinctly tweeted: "Ensures ISIS comeback. Forces Kurds to align with Assad and Iran. Destroys Turkey's relationship with U.S. Congress. Will be a stain on America's honor for abandoning the Kurds." Ouch.

This impulsive decision by the president has undone all the gains we've made -- thrown the region into further chaos. Iran is licking their chops. And if I'm an ISIS fighter, I've got a second lease on life. So to those who think ISIS has been defeated, you will soon see.

And to Turkey: You've destroyed the relationship -- what little you had -- with the U.S. Congress, and I will do everything I can to sanction Turkey's military and their economy if they step one foot into Syria. I hope I'm making myself clear how shortsighted and irresponsible this decision is, in my view.

 

2
   If he's lost Fox And Friends...

Astonishingly, one of the Fox And Friends hosts, Brian Kilmeade, largely agreed with Graham's criticism:

The reason why our casualties were so low is because the Kurds did all the fighting. Now we're saying, "OK, Turks, go wipe them out or force them out." What kind of message is that to the next ally that wants to side with us? ... Again, we're abandoning our most loyal allies. Who did all our fighting? All we did is arm them, and they did all the work. And now we say, "Good luck. Good luck surviving."

 

3
   McCain calls Republicans "feckless, unpatriotic cowards"

Meghan McCain then spoke up on The View, although it's doubtful Trump saw it when it aired.

I'm going a little bit rogue. But I've been so mad this morning and so upset about this news that we are abandoning our Kurdish allies in the Middle East. These are allies of ours that American soldiers are still continuing to fight alongside. All we did was arm them, and they fought for America.

Right now we're just saying we're just going to leave them and abandon them, and to everyone in the White House and every Republican who was mad President Obama pulled out of Iraq: you feckless, unpatriotic cowards. I cannot believe this is where we're at diplomatic-wise, and I cannot -- what message is this sending to our allies and to our American troops who have fought and died for this, and I cannot believe I'm waking up in the morning seeing this kind of news.

 

4
   Mitt chimes in

Mitt Romney joined the dogpile on Twitter:

The President's decision to abandon our Kurd allies in the face of an assault by Turkey is a betrayal. It says that America is an unreliable ally; it facilitates ISIS resurgence; and it presages another humanitarian disaster.

 

5
   Marco Rubio predicts regional war

Marco Rubio wasn't happy, either, and also vented both on Twitter and in interviews.

It would confirm #Iran's view of this administration & embolden then to escalate hostile attacks which in turn could trigger much broader & more dangerous regional war.

[The Syrian Kurds] actually fought on the ground. They had people dying. To just abandon them like that so the Turks can come in and slaughter them is not just immoral, it taints our reputation all over the world. It's a terrible mistake. We'll have to think of what options there are. I'm sure the Senate will, potentially, take some vote to disagree with that decision.

 

6
   Liz Cheney also calls on Senate to act

Not to be outdone by the McCain offspring, Liz Cheney joined in the fray:

President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria is having sickening and predictable consequences. [Congress] must and will act to limit the catastrophic impact of this decision.

 

7
   Envoy who quit has the final word

Brett McGurk used to be the American envoy to the global coalition fighting the Islamic State (before he resigned in disgust last year), and he blasted Trump for (among other things) having "a complete lack of understanding of anything happening on the ground."

Trump made a similarly impulsive decision when I was managing the policy. Trump tonight after one call with a foreign leader provided a gift to Russia, Iran, and ISIS.

Donald Trump is not a Commander-in-Chief. He makes impulsive decisions with no knowledge or deliberation. He sends military personnel into harm's way with no backing. He blusters and then leaves our allies exposed when adversaries call his bluff or he confronts a hard phone call.

There's a similar defect at the core of US foreign policies across the board: maximalist objectives for a minimalist president combined with no process to assess facts, develop options, or prepare contingencies. Our personnel are left exposed at the slightest moment of friction.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

115 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- As The Clown Car Empties”

  1. [1] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    CW-

    Have you ever/will you ever comment upon my impression that the MSM so often fails to bring up some of the "not oft spoke of" points that is this blog's founding premise.

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I mean, some of them seem sooo obvious.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MDDOTW blather … seriously?

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you even know the context of the Biden quotes you mentioned in the MDDOTW section?

    We just don't find that that rises to the level of even a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, when you read his full remarks.

    Oh, really.

    Obviously, you didn't see or hear his biggest applause line of the ENTIRE night. Hmmmph. Make that HMMMPH

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Chris!

    Do you want to know what is really cringeworthy?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is the very kink (sic) of thing that Biden has had to put up with throughout his decades of outstanding service to the American people.

    Sometimes, you know, I hope Trump beats the Democratic nominee, assuming analyses like the one above prevent Biden from being the nominee.

    After a while, of course, I think better of it 'cause I'm not the type to cut off my nose to spite my face. But, STILL ...

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done, in more ways than one.

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [5]

    Do tell, Elizabeth

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Look it up.

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    Yay Jane Fonda!

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    How many days until Rudy's home and office are raided by the Feds?

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If you have not read the US former ambassador to Ukraine’s prepared statement to the House committees that she spent 9 hours providing testimony to today, I encourage you to hit the link below.

    Marie Yovanovitch is a 30 year veteran of the State Department who chose to testify before Congress even after her boss tried to get her to ignore the subpoena she had been served with. She is a true public servant! She was forced out of her job when Rudy and Trump dreamed up this plan to get Ukraine’s government to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and she is not someone who will break the law for Trump or anyone else!

    Her insight into how devastating this administration has been on our State Department personnel and how they serve our citizens all over the world is well worth the read!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-marie-yovanovitch-s-prepared-deposition-statement/dffbf543-a373-46e0-a957-bc12a9371af4/

  13. [13] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig,

    How many days until Rudy's home and office are raided by the Feds?

    A week...tops! It’ll be the day they serve him with his own arrest warrant.

    I hope they search his car, too. Rudy just seems like the type of person who keeps everything on the dashboard and front seat of his car. He claims to know exactly where everything is and has a filing system that only makes sense to him. I see him driving an older Crown Vic or TownCar (or hearse) that he can barely see over the steering wheel when he drives it, his backseat filled with Donald’s discarded McDonalds bags and cups and an old whiteboard he uses to brainstorm conspiracy theories he’ll pitch to Trump, and jammed under the passenger seat is an evidence bag with the missing murder weapon from a case he was prosecuting that has been there for the past 30 years.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Deputy Sheriff Matt Jones
    Falls County Sheriff's Office, Texas
    End of Watch: Friday, October 11, 2019

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

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

  15. [15] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, this was an outstanding column about the Republican rebellion against Trump's Kurd abandonment. It doesn't really qualify as a list of talking points for Democrats though.

    I am scratching my head about why the Republicans are vociferously defending the Kurds. Certainly this is disastrous in all the ways that you and the Republicans cite. But IMO this is no more disastrous than being Putin's puppet. Nor in handing over nuclear technology to the Saudis - after they chopped to tiny bits a resident of the United States. And the long list of other decisions the repercussions of which we'll be 'cleaning up' for decades.

    Is it possible that the Republicans are searching for a justification to impeach Trump OTHER THAN the Ukraine quid pro quo? After all, Ukraine is too close (both geographically and politically) to Russia. If the Republican Senators join with the Democrats to remove Trump from office for Ukraine, they will provide an implicit seal of approval to the entire Mueller report. And the Trumpsters have been digesting FOX talking points for 2 1/2 years, so the Republicans can't reverse course and betray the beliefs of their voting base.

    Sadly, Republican Senators have stomached Trump's shredding of the U S Constitution in silence. Instead they may remove Trump from office for hanging out to dry a small band of feisty 'freedom fighters' in Syria.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's time to rename the MIDOTW to the Clown Car Award.

    Just when you think that the award could not vomit forth any more nonsensical bullshit, two more clowns emerge.

    How is Warren's answer brilliant?

    A brilliant answer would be "The definition of faith is believing that something is true without any evidence. Your faith and how you believe your deity wants people to behave is a personal belief that you can choose to live your life by voluntarily.

    If you think that others should be forced to live by your religious beliefs then you are denying others the right to decide for themselves what they believe and the constitutional right to live their lives according to those beliefs.

    If you want to make a law forcing others to live by your religious beliefs there is a different standard that applies as your religious belief is now a political belief.

    Now you have to prove the existence of your deity, prove that your religious text (your Torah, Bible, Koran, Dianetics, etc.) is the word of your deity, prove your interpretation of the text is the correct interpretation according to your deity and that your deity doesn't want people to be able to choose for themselves whether or not to follow your deity's instructions and have to deal with the ramifications from your deity as a result of that choice.

    Get back to me when you have the proof."

    And Jane Fonda? Really?

    What difference will it make if she protests on climate change? None.

    The major obstacle to action on climate change is not the lack of protests- it is big money corrupting our political process.

    Reducing and eliminating the influence of big money is the first step in addressing climate change and a plethora of other issues.

    If Fonda was protesting big money in our political process and informing citizens aboot One Demand so citizens could do something aboot it that would be impressive.

    This pointless protest that is a substitute for tangible action and prevents people from taking action now belongs in MDDOTW along with you and the rest of the media for perpetuating this nonsense as something worth an award for being impressive.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Trooper Peter Stephan
    Indiana State Police, Indiana
    End of Watch: Friday, October 11, 2019

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

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

  18. [18] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'We, former members of the Watergate special prosecutor force, believe there exists compelling prima facie evidence that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses. This evidence can be accepted as sufficient for impeachment, unless disproved by any contrary evidence that the president may choose to offer.'

    Folks, it realy does boil down to this, the most salient point...'unless disproved by any contrary evidence that the president may choose to offer.'
    It can't be clearer, it's time for Trump and his merry band to either shit or get off the pot.
    Simple denial, bluster and howls of persecution aren't cutting it for the majority of people who have even a passing acquaintance with the issues. There's simply too much greasy behaviour to explain away to simply say, "it's not me it's them".

    We all know what's coming next...Giuliani will start in with, "the still crooked FBI deep-state were spying on me and your president"
    Then enter Trump with a few dangles, "I've been hearing people saying the deep-state were spy on my lawyer, maybe they were, maybe they were trying to bring him down, to get to me...maybe, I dunno."
    Then the Hannity's of the world climb out of Beech-bark, "This tonight coming from sources close to the president (That's president Baron, for those of you still wondering who these 'sources' are) officials are now looking into widespread partisanship within the FBI, DOJ and everyone involved in trying to oust president Trump"

    A coup d'état, my left bollock.

    I think now that old Pat Robertson seems to be looking for the door, Trump is on the thinnest of ice.

    This is Judeo-Christian code for 'time to hitch our ride to another wagon, fellow followers'..."

    “To say he is an ally of America is nonsense. He is in it for himself. The president that allowed [Jamal] Khashoggi to be cut in pieces without repercussions whatsoever is now allowing the Christians and the Kurds to be massacred by the Turks,” Robertson added. “I believe and I want to say this with great salinity, the president of the United States is losing the mandate of Heaven if he permits this to happen.”

    After years of suffering Pat's drivelling nonsense, I was floored by this throat punch of reality for it's clarity and straightforwardness, neither of which I usually ascribe to the religious types. If any one thing rang Trump's bell this week, this would be it. You can bet your last shekel this statement caught every conservative ear, for without the Evilgelicals, Trump couldn't get elected shop steward at a chocolate fire-guard factory.

    Go Pat Go.

    Beto was MDDOTW this week and the last. He's sacrificing sane and doable initiatives for pie in the sky promises no one really thinks he would keep, much less, get done. In doing so, Beto's utterances can be used almost verbatim for GOP scare adds and robo-calling throughout rural America.

    Beto O'Rourke, the Democrats even ganglier version of 'Jonah Ryan', should just gracefully lurch aside to make way for the adults in the race.

    LL&P

  19. [19] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    James T Canuck [18]

    Great post!

    I agree with your assessment of the Watergate prosecutors letter. The other thing that stood out for me was that they were claiming that the prima facie evidence was enough to remove Trump from office — basically stating that Trump has provided us all the rope needed for him to hang himself with.

    With the court’s rulings making the likelihood that his tax returns will be made public all but assured before the 2020 election, now it comes down to how quickly will Trump try to get Pence to give him a Stay-out-of-jail Pardon before resigning to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US.

    If Trump makes receiving a pardon a stipulation to his stepping down, could that invalidate the pardon? My memory of Ford pardoning Nixon is fuzzy, as I was 3, but I have grown up hearing it was done in the hopes of helping America put that ugly partisan-time behind us and allow the country to heal. Even at that young age, I called “caa-caa-doodie”on that excuse! It was done to lessen the damage to the GOP for having allowed the corruption to thrive as long as it did.

    I am sorry, but in today’s socioeconomic climate where the wealthy enjoy a very different justice system than the average American does, pardoning Trump would be the worst way to try to “heal America”! It would be the ultimate “affluenza” case to end all cases; and it would be the final straw for those who think the rich can buy their way out of any jam to avoid being held accountable. I would guess you would see wide spread rioting, and I cannot say that it wouldn’t be warranted!

  20. [20] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    DH

    If Fonda was protesting big money in our political process and informing citizens aboot One Demand so citizens could do something aboot it that would be impressive.

    It truly would have been impressive, because it would mean that YOU had finally gotten off of your butt and had worked on making OneDemand into an actual non-profit that had a mission people could get behind. Fonda is constantly being hit up by charities and social justice groups hoping to score an endorsement from her, so you actually scoring one from her would mean that you had completely revamped how OneDemand worked.

    If she endorsed OneDemand as you present it on that website you spend so much of your day ignoring, it would completely destroy the reputation of Jane Fonda — she would lose all credibility.

    Do you truly hate Jane that much?

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I don't think Jane's rep as a world class actor or as a hare brained activist would be in any jeopardy.

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Superb job of missing the point.

    But that is the point of your comment.

    A pointless protest does not translate in to credibility.

    Tangible action taken now does.

    It is not me that needs to get off my ass. The work to get One Demand started is done. Citizens can sign up right now.

    It is CW that needs to take his head out of his ass and inform citizens aboot One Demand instead of promoting the false reality of the big money Democrats and Republicans being opposition parties.

    And it wouldn't hurt if you would stop being an ass with your feeble attempts to marginalize One Demand with your childish and ridiculous assertions that bear no resembalance to reality.

    If you had a real argument against One Demand you would make it instead of commenting aboot piddilly bullshit that avoids addressing any real concern or issue.

    And until Jane Fonda and anyone else hears aboot One Demand as it is and comes up with actual reasons to change it and/or ideas to improve it there is no need to revamp anything other than the lack of citizens knowing the opportunity exists.

    We won't know if Fonda or anyone else will want to participate or what changes they might propose until they are informed aboot it.

    And commenting here to get CW to address reality and inform citizens aboot the opportunity is one way that I am working on getting the media, of which CW is a part, to do their job of providing citizens with information aboot all options so citizens can make up their own minds.

    There is a scene in the Mark Felt movie where he talks aboot how you can take down a building with a small constant tapping that will eventually build enough reverberations to take down the building.

    I am hoping it can also work on a figurative wall of big money that keeps ordinary citizens from accessing democracy.

    CW just happens to be one of the bricks where I keep tapping. And the solution to end the tapping is for CW to stop being another brick in the wall.

  23. [23] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Listen...

    I'm record here presaging Trump's eventual resignation and re-entry into obscurity. I still believe he will throw his hands up, blame everyone else for his latest own goal, and disappearing, secure in the knowledge that America somehow let him down...

    Pence would tickle Trump's nuts with a feather to get a chance at the pardon> president> crusader for god- route the oval office-

    The GOP hierarchy must be wondering when it's time to cut their losses?

    The 'Trumpian era' will be over as quickly as it started. Gone will be the pyretic posturing, the boasting baffoonery and the tyrannical twutterances...And my main source of amusement, truth be told.

    :)

    LL&P

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @jtc,
    I don't see that happening. Donald will have to be dragged out of office kicking and cursing - even in January 2025, which is when it's most likely to happen.
    JL

  25. [25] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    DH

    We won't know if Fonda or anyone else will want to participate or what changes they might propose until they are informed aboot it.

    So why haven’t you attempted to contact her? How many political candidates have decided to join up with OneDemand? If no candidates are on board with you, what motivation would anyone have for signing up? YOU are why OneDemand is a failure! Your unwillingness to do any actual work to promote your game-changing political movement is why no one knows of it.

    And you might want to become an actual non-profit prior to lining up any donors or volunteers, you know, so you aren’t running an illegal organization.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    - even in January 2025, which is when it's most likely to happen.

    As I said.

    The majority of Weigantians (who have expressed an opinion on the subject) feel the same way... :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

    Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) revealed in a new interview that House Democrats have discussed jailing allies of the president who do not comply with congressional subpoenas, an escalation of the House's efforts to force White House compliance with an impeachment inquiry.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/465551-tlaib-says-democrats-have-discussed-detaining-white-house-officials-who-dont

    And so the 2nd US Civil War begins..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jailing opposition Party members..

    That's what dictators in banana republics do...

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (and CW)-
    More recycled and debunked nonsense.

    No candidates have signed on yet.

    That is the motivation for citizens to sign up- to solve the problem of having no small donor candidates.

    That is how it is designed to work. Citizens sign up first to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates.

    This is what provides the motivation for the candidates to sign up- to get the votes and money of the participants.

    Basic democracy.

    But you know that and can't make a rational argument against it so you argue that it should be done backwards which is part of the cause of the problem.

    But that is just part of the price to be paid for doing the work to get this idea into the public discourse which is why I comment here.

    I have to suffer through the trolls like you spewing bullshit until CW mans up and addresses One Demand.

    If you, CW, have a real argument against One Demand then let's hear it. If not, then why are you not informing citizens aboot the opportunity?

  30. [30] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, I hope in the near future you dedicate a FTP to crafting the winning message for the Democratic presidential candidate, whoever that may be. I hope you'll note the Democratic Party is alone in addressing climate change.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/climate/climate-change-republicans.html

  31. [31] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [24] I just don't see Trump wanting to see an inevitable STAGGERING AND COMPLETE loss on his CV as a politician. He has many such failures on his business and private-life list, but a thumping, like the one all sane people are predicting at the polls, will be unbearable.

    [28] 'Jailing opposition Party members..
    That's what dictators in banana republics do...'

    Three words..."LOCK HER UP"

    Moron.

    LL&P

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @jtc,
    Donald is not a tin pot dictator, he just likes to play one on tv. Who really knows whether the show will have a full 8 season run or be cut short by scandal.
    JL

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And speaking of shows, when will cw stop catering to big cake? He needs to stop pushing pie in the sky ideas and support pie in the voting booth! We have nothing to lose and a tasty dessert to gain.

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    Of course, if the predictive power of Matt groening is again prescient, Donald will serve an extra term and a half (an all trump supreme court will interpret a divine exception the 22nd amendment), and he will be succeeded in 2030 by lisa Simpson. https://thebaffler.com/latest/president-lisa-simpson

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's funny because it's true?

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    [28] 'Jailing opposition Party members..
    That's what dictators in banana republics do...'

    Three words..."LOCK HER UP"

    Moron.

    Says the moron who whined and screamed with the "LOCK HER UP" mantra...

    Incidentally, that was just a bunch of yahoos blowing off steam at a rally..

    YOUR'S is the Democrat Congress ACTUALLY CONSIDERING doing it in real live..

    Funny how you MORONs complained about a bunch of yahoos blowing off steam, but are silent when CONGRESS morons actually seriously consider it..

    MORON..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny because it's true?

    No..

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

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    [24] I just don't see Trump wanting to see an inevitable STAGGERING AND COMPLETE loss on his CV as a politician. He has many such failures on his business and private-life list, but a thumping, like the one all sane people are predicting at the polls, will be unbearable.

    Yea.. The problem with you is that you MORONS have been predicting that same failure for YEARS!!

    And you have ALWAYS been WRONG... ALWAYS..

    Remember all your predictions during yer Russia Collusion delusion phase??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You people have **ALWAYS** been wrong, yet you think you have a SHRED of credibility.. :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Of course, if the predictive power of Matt groening is again prescient, Donald will serve an extra term and a half (an all trump supreme court will interpret a divine exception the 22nd amendment), and he will be succeeded in 2030 by lisa Simpson.

    I am happy with the predictive power of the majority of Weigantians who have expressed an opinion...

    President Trump will be elected for 4 more years..

    After that?? Ample precedent exist for a third term.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rose McGowan rips Hillary Clinton over ties to 'predators' Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-calls-out-hillary-clinton-over-harvey-weinstein-guess-predators-are-her-style

    Strange how this McGowan bimbo rips into Hillary right when Hillary is contemplating another POTUS run...

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I can’t believe I used to support {Hillary Clinton}. I guess predators are her style.”
    -Rose McGowan

    Oh.... SNAP...

    How ANYONE could have supported Hillary Clinton simply boggles the mind..

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Incidentally, that was just a bunch of yahoos blowing off steam at a rally..

    So you think former National Security Advisor General Flynn is a “Yahoo!”?

    Furthermore, Hillary was cleared of all criminal charges as the FBI determined her actions did not rise to the level that would justify charges being filed.

    YOUR'S is the Democrat Congress ACTUALLY CONSIDERING doing it in real live..

    The Democrats are looking to jail individuals that are obstructing justice by ignoring subpoenas ordering them to testify before Congress.

    Leave it to the guy who lies about his work in law enforcement to make such a ridiculous comparison!

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    That is how it is designed to work. Citizens sign up first to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates.

    But the polls have already clearly shown that most citizens would love to get Big Money out of our politics! You have cited that fact countless times on here. So why would they need to sign up with you when the polls clearly show that the demand already exists?

    You are literally asking people to promise to throw away their votes until a candidate running in their district signs up with OneDemand. If someone signed up when you first introduced this genius plan, that means they have voted for themselves for how many years, now? Meanwhile, you are not seeking candidates to sign up, because you believe that will happen on its own.

    Seriously? Again, why would anyone need to sign up with you other than to increase the likelihood that their ID gets stolen?

    (Side note of legal importance to you: your site does not clearly state who will be granted access to the personal information you are requesting from interested citizens. You might want to get on that prior to anyone signing up with the group.)

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Just a reminder: Trump ordered the State Department to retro-classify emails that had been determined to hold no importance to national security to now be considered classified so that he could have employees who served under Hillary investigated further. They couldn’t find any criminal intent with the actual classified material, so let’s see what they find if they change the rules entirely!

    Three years later and Trump still has to scream about Hillary to keep his people from looking too closely at his criminal actions!

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/29/20889646/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-investigation-trump-administration

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I will admit that my predictions for what the Mueller Investigation would result in failed to come true.

    I believed that the seriousness of the counterintelligence threat Trump posed would cause the DOJ to re-examine its policy that sitting presidents could not be indicted on federal charges. I don’t think that anyone believed the Attorney General would insist that the policy be read that not only could a sitting president not be indicted on criminal charges while in office, they could not be directly investigated for criminal activities. This is why Mueller’s report only found Trump acting in questionable ways when it was investigating others around him for crimes. This also explains why the Mueller report did not review Trump’s tax returns or cover any counter-intelligence aspects in its findings — major red flags that went ignored!

    Since he won the Republican nomination, the national press has completely ignored the most blatantly obvious truth about Trump — he has been what our intelligence agencies define as a “compromised asset” from the very start!

    Trump being compromised is not up for debate. That is because to be “compromised” does not mean that Trump IS being blackmailed to assist Russia, it only means that Trump’s dishonesty is so obvious that we know he could easily be blackmailed. Our government does not trust “compromised” assets. Therefore, if you could be blackmailed; it is assumed that you have been blackmailed!

    When Trump parroted Putin’s views of our NATO allies; when the only input Trump had in creating the GOP’s platform was to change it to say we would NOT help stop Russian interference and aggression in Ukraine; when Trump sided with Putin and discredited our own intelligence agencies findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections... these are all clearly actions you would expect someone considered a “compromised asset” to commit! Yet, journalists did not make the connection for their audience for fear of being accused as being “biased” in their reporting. Personally, I find their negligence to be much more offensive than if they were “biased”.

    Trump is the counter-intelligence nightmare that we never believed could actually exist outside of worst-case scenarios. Worst of all, there were no legal options available to our intelligence agencies to deal with such a threat. The Electoral College was designed, in part, to prevent the election of unfit candidates — but it clearly failed to function as it was intended.

    Trump is compromised. He should never have been allowed to become president. Trump’s actions following his conversations with Putin and Erdogan demonstrate the harm having a compromised president can have on our foreign policies!

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    Here's a thumb in your eye: the Pope picked new Orleans over the Jaguars, in case you were wondering why they lost this week ;D
    JL

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a thumb in your eye: the Pope picked new Orleans over the Jaguars, in case you were wondering why they lost this week ;D

    Well, hell.. who can face up to THAT kind of clout! hehehe

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats are looking to jail individuals that are obstructing justice by ignoring subpoenas ordering them to testify before Congress.

    Was there ever talk by Republicans of jailing Holder and other Odumbo minions when THEY ignored subpoenas??

    Of course not.

    Because Republicans are banana republic type of leaders..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because Republicans are banana republic type of leaders..

    DOH!!!! OK OK, have fun with that typo.. :^/

    Because Republicans are NOT banana republic type of leaders..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're in a permanent coup

    Americans might soon wish they just waited to vote their way out of the Trump era

    When the KGB in 1991 tried to reassume control of the crumbling Soviet Union by placing Mikhail Gorbachev under arrest and attempting to seize Moscow, logistics ruled. Boris Yeltsin’s crew drove to the Russian White House in ordinary cars, beating KGB coup plotters who were trying to reach the seat of Russian government in armored vehicles. A key moment came when one of Yeltsin’s men, Alexander Rutskoi – who two years later would himself lead a coup against Yeltsin – prevailed upon a Major in a tank unit to defy KGB orders and turn on the “criminals.”

    We have long been spared this madness in America. Our head-counting ceremony was Election Day. We did it once every four years.

    That’s all over, in the Trump era.
    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

    Once again, it's like CW said..

    The hysteria with which Democrats pursue their coup is directly inversely proportional to the confidence that Democrats have in winning at the ballot box..

    Apparently, Democrats are scared to death of facing President Trump at the ballot box..

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don’t believe most Americans have thought through what a successful campaign to oust Donald Trump would look like. Most casual news consumers can only think of it in terms of Mike Pence becoming president. The real problem would be the precedent of a de facto intelligence community veto over elections, using the lunatic spookworld brand of politics that has dominated the last three years of anti-Trump agitation.

    CIA/FBI-backed impeachment could also be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Donald Trump thinks he’s going to be jailed upon leaving office, he’ll sooner or later figure out that his only real move is to start acting like the “dictator” MSNBC and CNN keep insisting he is. Why give up the White House and wait to be arrested, when he still has theoretical authority to send Special Forces troops rappelling through the windows of every last Russiagate/Ukrainegate leaker? That would be the endgame in a third world country, and it’s where we’re headed, unless someone calls off this craziness. Welcome to the Permanent Power Struggle.

    Think about it.. You people (NEN) are perfectly happy with the INTELLIGENCE services of our country to have veto over a freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States..

    Those same intelligence agencies who the Left demonized and condemned during the War On Terror and all other incidents in the past.

    THOSE people you now trust implicitly to perform a coup against the freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States..

    As I have said... The Weigantia of a decade ago would NEVER have supported this Democrat coup...

    Never in a million years.. :^/

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    One of the pleasures of the old Pre-HHPTDS Weigantia was discussions that had nothing to do with politics..

    Discussions in which those who common ground is easy to accomplish..

    Here is one..

    3 reasons to investigate the US Navy UFO incidents
    https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/465475-3-reasons-to-investigate-the-us-navy-ufo-incidents

    Comments??

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    To let you know just how far ya'all have gone down the rabbit hole??

    You are attacking and demonizing and ridiculing President Trump for pulling Americans out of a war torn theater and out of a war on foreign soil..

    Get that???

    Ya'all WANT the US to remain in a war zone!!?? Ya'all WANT more Americans to die fighting a war over there..

    YA'ALL!!

    People who whined and cried and stamped your feet over Bush's war..

    Ya'all are now condemning a President for taking Americans OUT of a war..

    Who would have EVER thunked it..

    Weigantia-2019 is a PRO WAR forum....

    If that doesn't make ya'all see how far gone ya'all are with HHPTDS..

    Nothing will..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Strassel
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/impeachment-intelligence-committee-adam-schiff-strassel

    What about it, Weigantians..

    Don't ya'all favor complete and utter transparency??

    Apparently NOT under the influence of HHPTDS..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the discord.. All of the divisive-ness.. ALL of the hate and bigotry...

    It ALL can be distilled down to one single cause..

    The hysterical NeverTrumpers, the Democrats and the Trump/America haters refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election...

    That's it.. That is what all else flows from..

    The simple yet psychotic refusal of the NeverTrumpers, the Democrats and the Trump/America haters to accept the results of a free, fair, legal, democratic and Constitutional election that did not go their way..

    Future historians will point to this event, this refusal to accept the results as one of the largest, if not the ONLY turning point in this country's descent into partisan madness and zealotry...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Defends Due Process From Congressional Usurpation

    October 8, 2019, like July 4, 1776, should be long remembered as a crucial date when Americans stood up for their freedom after being subjected to what Thomas Jefferson called "a long train of abuses and usurpations.”

    In 1776, it was the British crown that had violated morality, law and decency to oppress the will of the American people, making necessary the Declaration of Independence, which was signed on July 4.

    In 2019, it is the Democratic Party and its allies in the media and the Deep State that have violated morality, law and decency to oppress the will of the American people by seeking to overturn a free election and overthrow a legitimate president.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/14/trump_defends_due_process_from_congressional_usurpation_141476.html

    It's amazing how the actions of the Democrat Party today mirrors the actions of the "bad guys" in the run-up to the US declaration of sovereignty from the UK....

    "Fascinating"
    -Commander Spock

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    It ALL can be distilled down to one single cause..

    The hysterical NeverTrumpers, the Democrats and the Trump/America haters refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election...

    That's it.. That is what all else flows from..

    Which is rather ironic when ya think about it..

    Ironic that it was HILLARY and the DEMOCRATS who claimed during the election that it would be DONALD TRUMP who would not accept the results..

    Howz THAT for irony, eh? :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

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

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

    You wrote this over 2 weeks ago...

    And we STILL haven't heard any relevant facts from this "whistle blower" or any other relevant facts for that matter..

    EVERYTHING is still hearsay.. Third person hearsay..

    Do you still believe "SO WHAT??" Or do you acknowledge that "due process" is NOT supposed to work this way..

    You may say, "Well, it's like a grand jury.. Everything done in secret.."

    Yes, but a GRAND JURY deals in FACTS... Not third person hearsay.. If a DA went to a grand jury with nothing but third person hearsay, they would be laughed out of the state...

    Why are Democrats so afraid to give President Trump all the benefits and privileges that the Republican House gave President Clinton??

    Why are Democrats so afraid of the FACTS getting out??

    Because Democrats know that the FACTS will simply expose this faux impeachment for what it is..

    A coup...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    ACK!!! My mistake..

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

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

    THIS is the one I meant to quote rather than the other one..

    My mistake..

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    [56] Michale wrote:

    "In 2019, it is the Democratic Party and its allies in the media and the Deep State that have violated morality, law and decency to oppress the will of the American people by seeking to overturn a free election and overthrow a legitimate president."

    So when Nixon and Clinton were impeached, I guess those were also instances of Overturning free elections and legitimate presidents too? Wouldn't you agree?

  61. [61] 
    John M wrote:

    57] Michale wrote:

    "The hysterical NeverTrumpers, the Democrats and the Trump/America haters refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election...

    That's it.. That is what all else flows from..

    Which is rather ironic when ya think about it.."

    Actually it's not. We did accept the results. You seem to be the one who is denying that our constitution itself provides the means for removing a duly elected president who has engaged in criminal activity.

    Or are you saying our constitution is wrong itself for allowing this to be done?

  62. [62] 
    John M wrote:

    [53] Michale wrote:

    "You are attacking and demonizing and ridiculing President Trump for pulling Americans out of a war torn theater and out of a war on foreign soil..

    Get that???

    Ya'all WANT the US to remain in a war zone!!?? Ya'all WANT more Americans to die fighting a war over there.."

    FUNNY. Now YOU are the one cheering on Assad and the Russians taking over ALL of Syria. Assad's troops with Russian backing just moved back into the Kurdish area left behind by American troops.

    Trump just DESTROYED the past FIVE years of American policy and military action.

    Get that???

  63. [63] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    No, I presume he (Michale) is mot saying that.

    The question is, Who gets to define "criminal activity"??

    If "criminal actitity" is seeking "dirt" with which to besmirch your opponent, then thare's really nothing in politics that's NOT "criminal activity", right?

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    So when Nixon and Clinton were impeached, I guess those were also instances of Overturning free elections and legitimate presidents too? Wouldn't you agree?

    No... In Nixon's case, there were legitimate crimes committed by Nixon and staff..

    In Clinton's, he was more than halfway thru his second term..

    Plus, in BOTH of your examples, there was NOTHING like the hysterical screams of impeachment even BEFORE Clinton & Nixon took office..

    Let's face reality.. Hysterical Trump/America haters wanted to impeach Donald Trump on 10 Nov 2016..

    They just shopped around for a reason later..

    "I really hate her..
    I'll think of a reason later
    "
    -Lee Ann Womack

    . We did accept the results.

    Moose poop!!!! Moose poop!!! Pure unadulterated MOOSE POOP!!!

    You seem to be the one who is denying that our constitution itself provides the means for removing a duly elected president who has engaged in criminal activity.

    Except you have NO FACTS to support the claim..

    All you have is hysterical 3rd person hearsay from a girl who Democrats are DESPERATE to keep hidden..

    Or are you saying our constitution is wrong itself for allowing this to be done?

    I am saying that the way Democrats are going about it is wrong and unconstitutional..

    The Constitution says that it's the **HOUSE** who process impeachment proceedings..

    It DOESN'T say, Only the majority Party in the House can process impeachments

    Hay.. Don't argue with me..

    "In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice."

    "It is our constitutional duty to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the facts"

    Argue with Joe Biden...

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Actually I gave no opinion on President Trump''s Syria decision.

    I simply commented on ya'all blatant hypocrisy..

    If President had announced he was keeping troops in the Syria TOP, ya'all would have attacked and demonized him for THAT.

    No matter what Trump does, ya'all attack him. It

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    If President had announced he was keeping troops in the Syria TOP, ya'all would have attacked and demonized him for THAT.

    No matter what Trump does, ya'all attack him.

    There was a PERFECT example of this recently..

    President Trump was going to strike at Iran in retaliation for some such incident.

    Many here demonized and attacked President Trump for being aggressive, being a war monger etc etc etc..

    Then President Trump changed his mind and THEN many here attacked him for being a pussy and not doing ANYTHING to Iran..

    With Trump/America haters, no matter WHAT Trump does, ya'all are going to attack him and demonize him.

    So, I have to ask.. WHY would ya'all think you have ANY credibility with your attacks and such??

    Because it's ALL solely and completely based on the FACT that ya'all can't accept that President Trump is the freely, fairly, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States..

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Your quotes of Biden on impeachment are worthy of repetition here.

    In most cases of impeachment, giving the president the benefit of the doubt is quite reasonable. I would even say that for the case of Trump. Except for the fact that this president has essentially indicted himself with his almost daily proclamations.

    Once again, not surprisingly, context matters.

    Including president Trump's constant lies about the actions of his potential running mate and former vice president.

    Trump is not going to railroad Biden - either one - because the Biden name stands for integrity and honesty.

    So, go ahead and quote Biden's wise words. God know, this place could use a Biden quote, ad Bidenitum, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Potential running mate!!!! YIKES!!!! PERISH THE THOUGHT!!!!

    I must be … well, I am!

    I think everyone knows what to replace that with … :)

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to show ya'all how utterly hysterically desperate Trump/America haters are..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tccx-5OTK0

    A "horrific" Turkish attack on Syrian Kurd civilians in Syria!!

    OH MY GODS!!!!! THE INHUMANITY!! THE HORROR!!!! PRESIDENT TRUMP IS HITLER!!!! OH MY GODS!!!!

    Except, of course, it WASN'T a Turkish attack on Syrian Kurd civilians..

    It was a military gun show at Knob Creek in West Point,
    Kentucky...

    You people are completely and utterly WHACKED, ya know that??? :eyeroll:

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Your quotes of Biden on impeachment are worthy of repetition here.

    Thank you.. I completely agree with you.. Funny how they seem to shut people up, eh? :D

    In most cases of impeachment, giving the president the benefit of the doubt is quite reasonable. I would even say that for the case of Trump. Except for the fact that this president has essentially indicted himself with his almost daily proclamations.

    According to the SPIN of the Trump haters, I would agree...

    But their all of their spin is far FAR from the facts..

    So, go ahead and quote Biden's wise words.

    You can COUNT on it.. :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So you would agree with Joe Biden that, if Democrats don't get ANY relevant bipartisan support, that their impeachment is unfair and illegitimate??

    You would agree with that??

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Relevant Bi-partisan Support" being the kind of bi-partisan support that was present in the Nixon incident..

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You have long lost the right to even utter the word 'fact' and you have no one but yourself to blame for that distinction.

    I also resent being called an America hater because I am the opposite.

    I am soon finished with this entire site because you keep spreading lies about Biden and because of unwarranted cheap shots in the space above the comments.

    I can't and won't be any part of that.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I predict there will be enough Republicans who care about the fundamentals of America and who will support the hopefully many articles of impeachment … if enough Republican voters do the same.

    Now, I know that's not saying much for congressional Republicans and their leadership but, I'll take what I can get.

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "But it was reported that you said..."
    "That was incorrect. My agent will supply you with a transcript."
    Ken siegmann - the second coming

    There's nothing wrong with the quotes themselves. However, the levels of polarized partisanship right now are pretty extreme, to the point where there's no telling whether any Congress critters are left on either side who will do what's right regardless of the cost to their party.

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A little false equivalence there, Joshua, no?

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have long lost the right to even utter the word 'fact' and you have no one but yourself to blame for that distinction.

    And yet, I HAVE all the facts.. :D Like Biden's quotes. :D

    I predict there will be enough Republicans who care about the fundamentals of America and who will support the hopefully many articles of impeachment … if enough Republican voters do the same.

    But that's not the question I asked you..

    Would you view the Democrats' attempt at impeachment as legitimate if it was SOLELY Democrats with no relevant GOP support??

    Joe Biden says that such an impeachment would unfair and illegitimate..

    I am simply asking if you agree with Biden or not..

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That said, given nancy's prior reluctance i can't imagine she would have gone forward with the inquiry unless she had seen some very compelling evidence.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's nothing wrong with the quotes themselves.

    Agreed..

    However, the levels of polarized partisanship right now are pretty extreme, to the point where there's no telling whether any Congress critters are left on either side who will do what's right regardless of the cost to their party.

    OK.. I'll ask the same question of you that I asked of Liz...

    Would a Democrat impeachment that has no relevant bipartisan support (as it is defined above) be, in your eyes, fair and legitimate??

    Joe Biden says it wouldn't..

    What do you say??

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on! Take a Sherman!

    It won't kill ya!!! :D

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No liz. There are some areas where the two parties are clearly unequal, but after the last two scotus appointments the left seems to have followed the right into the abyss.

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I say bipartisanship would be good, but it doesn't seem likely on any high stakes political struggle right now, no matter what the facts of the case might be.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    I say bipartisanship would be good, but it doesn't seem likely on any high stakes political struggle right now, no matter what the facts of the case might be.

    OK< so you are saying that it will be highly unlikely that Democrats can muster any relevant bi-partisan support..

    Assuming you are factually accurate (which you are) would you then view the Democrat's impeachment that is solely partisan as legitimate and fair??

    I am just trying to see if ya'all agree with Biden or not..

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    he may have been right based on the political climate at the time he said it, but at the present moment such is no longer the case. given the extent to which he and his family have been dragged into the present scandal, i'd wager even he no longer agrees with his prior assessment.

    JL

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    given the extent to which he and his family have been dragged into the present scandal, i'd wager even he no longer agrees with his prior assessment.

    Oh puulleeesseee...

    President Trump's family has been dragged thru scandal after scandal and no one here shed any tears..

    Hunter is an adult and so is Joe Biden. He AND JOE had to have known that the Ukrainians don't give $50,000 a month pay to the VP's kid who has NO EXPERIENCE in the region or the type of business it was, unless they are paying for access...

    Joe and Hunter are not fools.. They knew that the Ukrainians were buying access and they went right along with it..

    Spare me the old "Oh the poor poor Bidens" innocence routine.... It stinks as much as the original quid pro quo routine stunk...

    The fact is Biden felt that a partisan impeachment push was unfair and illegitimate when it was a Democrat POTUS being impeached..

    Now that it's a GOP POTUS, I am sure Biden feels the EXACT opposite...

    Thereby proving beyond all doubt that it's ONLY the -D/-R that matters..

    If Democrats want to convince people that this is NOT a coup, they need to open up the hearings to transparency and give President Trump every courtesy that the GOP House extended to President Clinton...

    But Democrats won't do that because they KNOW it will expose their entire coup...

    And here we are...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing

    Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., an ardent supporter of President Trump, got the boot on Monday when he tried to sit in on the testimony of a former top National Security Council expert on Russia who was appearing on Capitol Hill as part of the House impeachment inquiry into the president.

    Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, attempted to attend the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, but was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee that he had to leave. The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

    A frustrated Gaetz aired his disappointment to reporters after being told he was not allowed to sit in on the hearing, venting his anger over what he says are “selective leaks” by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and questioning why he was not allowed to be present during Hill’s testimony. Gaetz added that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was involved in the impeachment inquiry.

    “It’s not like I’m on agriculture,” Gaetz said. “What are the Democrats so afraid of?”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-rep-matt-gaetz-kicked-out-of-impeachment-inquiry-hearing

    Yes... What ARE Democrats afraid of???

    Seems that Democrats are afraid the ACTUAL facts will come out..

    Why would that frighten Democrats so much???

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    That said, given nancy's prior reluctance i can't imagine she would have gone forward with the inquiry unless she had seen some very compelling evidence.

    Oh Nancy had evidence all right..

    She had evidence that the soon to be released Horowitz report was going to be DEVASTATING and DECIMATING to the Democrat Party even more than the Mueller report was..

    THAT was the "evidence" that propelled Nancy to take action..

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how ya'all are about transparency... When it's a GOP who is POTUS...

    When it's a DEM who is POTUS, ya'all don't give a single lick about transparency...

    Once again, it's the -D/-R that is at the heart of every thing ya'all say, think and do...

    NEN of course...

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I've met matt gaetz. First class jackass, that guy. After the fair districts amendments passed, he toured the state and went ahead gerrymandering right in everyone's face.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jackass though he may be, he raises a valid question...

    What are Democrats afraid of that they won't be transparent about their action???

    Why are Dems afraid to let the FACTS be known???

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    President Trump's family has been dragged thru scandal after scandal and no one here shed any tears..
    I can't speak for anyone else here, but i don't see any equivalency between the two. What passes for a scandal with Joe biden has been quaint and mostly fabricated out of nothingness, while most of donald's scandals are egregious and self inflicted.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    What passes for a scandal with Joe biden has been quaint and mostly fabricated out of nothingness, while most of donald's scandals are egregious and self inflicted.

    No..The "scandals" have been bullshit and widely the construct of Trump America haters..

    The Russia Collusion delusion??

    Remember that???

    The Steele dossier?? Remember that???

    All the "scandals" you refer to is nothing but hate and bigotry from Left Wingers and Never Trumpers with any real factual basis whatsoever....

    As for "quaint"??? It's funny how Obama hasn't spoken up to defend Joe Biden's extortion and quid pro quo in Ukraine..

    It's funny how Hunter Biden is in hiding in a non-extradition country...

    So much for the "quaint" Biden scandals, eh??

    Biden is just as corrupt as ya'all claim Trump is.. Biden just has better PR and a large gullible audience..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer Thomas Bomba
    Montgomery County Police Department, Maryland
    End of Watch: Monday, October 14, 2019

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

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

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC apologizes for mistaking Kentucky gun range video for Turkish bombing of Syria
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-news-error-gun-video-syria-turkey

    And you people wonder why Democrats and their news media lap dogs are held in such contempt by patriotic Americans..

    :eyeroll:

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I expect that we will learn that Rudy got caught — by one of our intelligence agencies that was listening in on foreign phone calls — making criminal statements. That is about the only way I can imagine the Southern District of NY announcing that they have opened a criminal investigation on Rudy is if they had the evidence dropped in their laps where they could not just ignore it!

    The former head of the SDNY being under criminal investigation is a first... and you can only guess at how incriminating the evidence they already have must be if Barr was not able to make it go away.

  96. [96] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Claiming that anyone who agrees with you is “patriotic”, and anyone who disagrees is an “American hater” is just one of the many lessons you learn in Nazi Propaganda for Dummies by H.Göring — one of the many elective courses offered at Trump University!

    "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in every country." -- Herman Göring at the Nuremberg trials

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Claiming that anyone who agrees with you is “patriotic”, and anyone who disagrees is an “American hater” is just one of the many lessons you learn in Nazi Propaganda for Dummies by H.Göring — one of the many elective courses offered at Trump University!

    Of course, you have no FACTS to support your claims.. As usual..

    But the fact is, impeachment is THE most divisive thing that can happen to this country..

    FACT...

    The Democrats are pushing an illegitimate impeachment based on NOTHING but hearsay and "anonymous" claims..

    FACT...

    Such a faux impeachment is exactly the kind of divisive act that Putin's LOVES to see....

    Ergo, anyone who supports this faux illegitimate impeachment (By Joe Biden's OWN standards) is a traitor to this country...

    SO, yes.. ANYONE who DOESN'T support this faux impeachment is a patriot...

    Has nothing to do with agreement with me or not..

    Has everything to do with supporting and loving this country (Me) and hating this country and trying to divide this country (Trump/America haters)..

    As I said.. Simple..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record, it's been Democrats who have been following the teachings of Goebbels...

    Democrats tell a bullshit lie often enough, they actually begin to believe it..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    I expect that we will learn that Rudy got caught — by one of our intelligence agencies that was listening in on foreign phone calls — making criminal statements.

    Yea.. But you ALSO "expected" that President Trump would be frog-marched from the Oval Office after Mueller turned in his report..

    And how did it turn out???

    President Trump was exonerated on EVERYTHING and ya'all had nothing but yer dicks in yer hand.. : D

    Given these FACTS I think it's cute that you believe you have even a SHRED of credibility here.. :D

  100. [100] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The fact is Biden felt that a partisan impeachment push was unfair and illegitimate when it was a Democrat POTUS being impeached..

    Now that it's a GOP POTUS, I am sure Biden feels the EXACT opposite...

    It is comical how you keep trying to focus only on the act of impeaching the President while ignoring what the articles of impeachment contained/will contain.

    Clinton lied about sexual relations with his mistress.

    Trump has abused his position in an attempt to get foreign countries to dig up dirt on his political opponents to help him get re-elected. He is a compromised foreign asset who has been selling our government to the highest bidders. He has obstructed justice countless times in his attempt to hinder investigations into his corruption. He was the un-indicted co-conspirator in the criminal case that landed his former personal attorney in prison.

    I hope you stretch before attempting the mental gymnastics necessary to convince yourself that Trump and Clinton are identical cases!

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Voters weary of more investigations as impeachment ramps up
    https://apnews.com/cb9a197eecc3404a9be201d86afa67f1

    What are Democrats going to have to show for their efforts come Nov 2020???

    2 failed coups and not a damn thing to help the American middle class..

    President Trump is GUARANTEED re-election...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is comical how you keep trying to focus only on the act of impeaching the President while ignoring what the articles of impeachment contained/will contain.

    There are no articles of impeachment..

    Democrats don't have any because they don't have any facts..

    Trump has abused his position in an attempt to get foreign countries to dig up dirt on his political opponents to help him get re-elected.

    Not factually accurate..

    He is a compromised foreign asset who has been selling our government to the highest bidders

    Not a single solitary fact to support the claim..

    He has obstructed justice countless times in his attempt to hinder investigations into his corruption.

    The AG has already exonerated President Trump on those baseless and factless claims..

    He was the un-indicted co-conspirator in the criminal case that landed his former personal attorney in prison.

    Not a single solitary fact to support..

    I hope you stretch before attempting the mental gymnastics necessary to convince yourself that Trump and Clinton are identical cases!

    They are identical cases.. GOP overreached and tried to impeach when they had no relevant Democrat support even though the GOP DID have facts to support the impeachment .. The GOP gambled and lost.. Big time..

    This time around, it's the Dims who are overreaching and trying to push a faux impeachment coup with no facts to support and no GOP support..

    And the Dims will pay the price for totally ignoring everything except their hysterical Trump/America hatred...

    And Dims will

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Democrats tell a bullshit lie often enough, they actually begin to believe it..

    President Trump was exonerated on EVERYTHING

    So you are a Democrat now?

    Given these FACTS I think it's cute that you believe you have even a SHRED of credibility here

    Given that your FACTS have no basis in truth or that you believe your opinion concerning someone else’s credibility carries any weight after you confessed to lying about having worked as a commissioned law enforcement officer on this site is nothing short of hysterical!

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump was exonerated on EVERYTHING

    That is a factual statement..

    Mueller exonerated President Trump on Russia Collusion and left the question of Obstruction to AG Barr..

    AG Barr exonerated President Trump on Obstruction..

    So PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS EXONERATED ON EVERYTHING is a factual statement..

    Given that your FACTS have no basis in truth or that you believe your opinion concerning someone else’s credibility carries any weight after you confessed to lying about having worked as a commissioned law enforcement officer on this site is nothing short of hysterical!

    And, once again, the cockholster has absolutely NO FACTS to support any of his claims..

    My LEO and Military bona fides were well established long before you made this forum a hellhole of hate and bigotry..

    Once again.. Just the FACTS...

  105. [105] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Of course, you have no FACTS to support your claims.. As usual..

    Other than your countless posts claiming only Trump supporters are “patriotic” and anyone who disagrees with you is an “America hater”!

    Funny that you cannot defend the charges being made against Trump, so you just attack the process for holding him accountable.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Other than your countless posts claiming only Trump supporters are “patriotic” and anyone who disagrees with you is an “America hater”!

    Nope, that's not what I said.. That's what you heard, but you have well established that you only hear what you WANT to hear, not what was said..

    Funny that you cannot defend the charges being made against Trump, so you just attack the process for holding him accountable.

    There ARE no charges being made against President Trump.. THAT's the point.

    All you have is 3rd person HEARSAY with not a single solitary FACT to support the bullshit claims..

    And, for the record, it's not ME attacking the process..

    It's Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler attacking the process...

    I simply point out the facts of their quotes..

    You want to bitch about that, bitch to them..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    And keep in mind one FACT..

    When all is said and done, it's virtually GUARANTEED that President Trump will remain in office..

    This is the consensus of Weigantia...

    So, no matter what.. Ya'all still lose.. :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is simply MIND-BOGGLING...

    ABC News Broadcasts Fake Syria Bombing Video That's Actually From a Kentucky Military Show in 2017
    https://gizmodo.com/abc-news-broadcasts-fake-syria-bombing-video-thats-actu-1839028685

    THIS is the media outlets that Democrats support and defend???

    MIND-BOGGLING...

  109. [109] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    My LEO and Military bona fides were well established long before you made this forum a hellhole of hate and bigotry..

    Please, share with the group how you established your “bona fides”? By tricking everyone on here into believing that you had worked in law enforcement?

    Here is the question you so cowardly avoid at all costs:

    Did you admit to me that you had never actually worked as a commissioned LEO for any police department, but claimed that you had been an MP when you were supposedly in the service, OR am I lying and that conversation never happened???

    It is one or the other! Why won’t you just put an end to this by answering it? You refuse to answer it because you know that your credibility is done for regardless of which one you say is true — that is the FACT you are so desperately trying to avoid!

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please, share with the group how you established your “bona fides”? By tricking everyone on here into believing that you had worked in law enforcement?

    Once again.. You have absolutely NO FACTS to support anything you claim..

    Did you admit to me that you had never actually worked as a commissioned LEO for any police department, but claimed that you had been an MP when you were supposedly in the service, OR am I lying and that conversation never happened???

    You have absolutely NO FACTS to support your claim..

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record..

    Commissioned officers are military..

    Commissioned police officers are rent-a-cops..

    Police officers are sworn, not commissioned...

    Seems strange, you supposedly married to a cop and don't know this...

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how Russ always dodges the FACTS and tries to turn everything so it's about me, personally...

    Russ can't address the FACT that it's virtually guaranteed that President Trump will remain in office.

    Russ can't address the FACT of ABC's fake news trying to fake a Turkish "attack" on Kurd civilians..

    Russ can't address the FACT that the majority of Weigantians who have expressed an opinion know that Trump is going to win re-election..

    Russ has to concentrate on me, personally because I am whuppin' his ass on his Trump/America hatred and bigotry... :D

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    12

    If you have not read the US former ambassador to Ukraine’s prepared statement to the House committees that she spent 9 hours providing testimony to today, I encourage you to hit the link below.

    Well, it was awesome. :)

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    26

    As I said.

    You said "the majority."

    The majority of Weigantians (who have expressed an opinion on the subject) feel the same way... :D

    Now you've simply moved the goal posts, proven my point, and identified yourself as a liar in one fell swoop. Good form. :)

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    111

    Police officers are sworn, not commissioned...

    In the majority of states in the United States, they are both.

    Your demonstrable ignorance on this subject is again duly noted and go a long way to proving Russ's point. You seem blissfully unaware that the state you live in has a Law Enforcement Commissioner and the requirement by law that police officers be certified by that commission.

    https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/CJSTC/Commission/CJSTC-Home.aspx

    One cannot generally become a sworn officer in the United States without the certification of said commission, and that's what is meant by "commissioned officer." It's not complicated unless you're an idiot.

    Seems strange, you supposedly married to a cop and don't know this...

    Seems infinitely normal for you to claim you're a law enforcement officer, and yet you haven't the first clue about how to become one... including in the state you reside. Russ is correct, and you're woefully misinformed and haven't got a clue, and for some reason I cannot fathom you belong to that special group of rubes who believe that repeating a lie over and over makes it magically become a fact when it doesn't... it just makes gullible rubes out of anyone daft enough to believe your oft repeated bullshit. :)

Comments for this article are closed.