ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Collective Republican Amnesia

[ Posted Friday, October 25th, 2019 – 18:18 UTC ]

Remember when Republicans were the party that stood squarely for law and order? Or for that matter, remember when they used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, chock full of deficit hawks? Yeah, those were the days....

This week it was announced the annual deficit scraped the trillion-dollar ceiling last year -- figures not seen since the depths of the Great Recession. Republicans' reaction to this news? Sounds of crickets chirping. In the same week, Republicans "stormed" a secure facility, illegally carrying in and using their cell phones, in an attempt to intimidate both the committees conducting an impeachment inquiry and the witness scheduled to appear. Republicans also had to twist their pretzel logic a few more turns to explain why their previous go-to response ("There was no quid pro quo") is now, as Richard Nixon would have said, "no longer operative." Meanwhile, President Trump played the victim card once again, saying the constitutionally-sanctioned impeachment process was nothing short of a "lynching," in addition to referring to a clause in the Constitution as "phony." Trump also took the time this week to hold his very own "Mission Accomplished" moment, announcing that Syria was now a wonderful paradise, and that everyone should thank him personally for this splendiferous outcome. Nobel committee, please take note.

Sigh. In other words, it was just another week in Trumpland.

Let's take these one by one, starting with the deficit. The official figure is out for the 2019 deficit, and it's a doozy: $984 billion, just $16 billion shy of a round trillion dollars. Trump took office in 2017, but to be fair you can't hold him responsible for the 2017 budget, which had already been set. The 2017 deficit was $665 billion. It has increased every year since then, as the Trump tax cut blew a gigantic hole in the federal budget. In two short years, Trumponomics has increased the deficit by almost 50 percent, and in all that time Republicans have uttered not a single peep about fiscal responsibility. This proves once again (in case anyone still harbored any remaining doubts) that GOP deficit hawks hibernate during Republican presidential administrations, only to re-emerge once again when a Democrat takes the helm. The federal debt is now more than $22 trillion, which is not exactly what Trump had promised would happen while he was campaigning for president. Remember his faux outrage at the debt and the deficit back then? Remember the idea that a businessman would know what to do and solve the problem in the blink of an eye? Republicans don't, because they have a very selective case of amnesia when it comes to Trump's campaign promises -- as well as their party's longstanding policies.

In a tactic normally seen in totalitarian governments or outright dictatorships, a group of the president's supporters used mob tactics to shut down a congressional hearing this week. While accusing Democrats of "Soviet-style" tactics, the Republicans proved once again to be severely irony-impaired. Of the 41 Republicans who "stormed" the meeting, 13 of them were actually supposed to be in the hearing anyway, since all of these hearings to date have included 47 Republican members, roughly one-fourth of the total GOP House membership. So much for all their complaints about being "secret," eh? The Republicans are given equal time to question all the witnesses, another fact that the ironically-challenged Republicans refuse to talk about. The leader of this strongarm tactic was Representative Matt Gaetz, who tweeted during the occupation: "I led over 30 of my colleagues into the SCIF where Adam Schiff is holding secret impeachment depositions. Still inside -- more details to come." This in and of itself is admission of a crime, it should be noted, since bringing electronic devices into a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility is indeed illegal. Again, so much for the "law-n-order" Republican Party. Democrat Eric Swalwell had the best reaction to the phones-in-the-SCIF fiasco: "They not only brought in their unauthorized bodies, they may have brought in the Russians and the Chinese."

The week's biggest story was unquestionably the testimony of the chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, William Taylor. Taylor has been at the heart of the whole Ukrainian quid pro quo, but unlike the others involved, he actively fought back against the entire concept, which is why his testimony was so anticipated. Here's how Politico reported on what happened:

The timeline Taylor laid out during his nearly 10 hours testifying before investigators is at the heart of Democrats' impeachment inquiry into the president. The 50-year veteran of government service systematically dismantled Trump's repeated denials that he sought to leverage American military and diplomatic might to coerce an ally into a coordinated campaign to damage his potential 2020 rival. Trump himself and his congressional allies did not attempt on Tuesday to dispute the substance of Taylor's claims, which were based on copious notes. Instead, the White House attacked Taylor personally, saying he was part of a band of "radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution."

In his opening statement, Taylor said Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told him that "everything" -- including military assistance to Ukraine and a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian leader -- was contingent on the Ukrainians publicly announcing investigations into Trump's political opponents. He told impeachment investigators that a White House budget official said on a secure phone call in July that Trump had personally directed that the military aid be withheld.

"It is a rancorous story about whistle-blowers, Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption and interference in elections," Taylor said, referring to Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was deeply involved in the shadow effort.

Taylor also testified that Sondland said Trump personally told him that he wanted Ukraine to "state publicly" that it would open such probes, before the U.S. would release the aid, which is viewed as critical for combating Russia's aggression in the region. Taylor repeatedly underscored the damage that even a temporary hold on the aid had done to the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, at a time when the budding democracy was resisting an advance by Russian forces and fighting corruption at the highest levels of the government.

"Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check," Taylor said, according to his opening statement.

That last bit was amusing, since it is a pretty good dictionary definition of a quid pro quo. Taylor's entire 15-page opening statement is well worth a read, because it is so astonishing and so damning for Trump. Most-quoted reaction was that of freshman Representative Andy Levin: "All I have to say is that in my 10 short months in Congress -- it's not even noon, right? -- and this is the, my most disturbing day in the Congress so far."

Trump, of course, was going ballistic all week long, in various different directions. The tweet that got the most attention was:

So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here -- a lynching. But we will WIN.

Trump also vented his spleen on members of his own party who didn't kowtow to him enough:

The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!

On the Syrian disaster he personally caused, Trump tweeted:

This is a great day for civilization. I am proud of the United States for sticking by me in following a necessary, but somewhat unconventional, path. People have been trying to make this "Deal" for many years. Millions of lives will be saved. Congratulations to ALL!

Trump also tweeted:

"The ceasefire is holding up very nicely. There are some minor skirmishes that have ended quickly. New areas being resettled with Kurds. U.S. soldiers are not in combat or ceasefire zone. We have secured the Oil." Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense. Ending endless wars!

Except that, in his original tweet, he misspelled the name as "Esperanto," because of course he did. Also, he completely made up that quote, since Esper didn't say anything remotely like that.

Other Trump quotes from his "Mission Accomplished" announcement include one that was obviously written by someone else: "Let someone else fight over this long blood-stained sand. How many Americans must die in the Middle East in the midst of these ancient, sectarian and tribal conflicts?" As well as a few choice quotes that could only have come from the brain of Trump himself:

Early this morning, the government of Turkey informed my administration that they would be stopping combat and their offensive in Syria, and making the cease-fire permanent, and it will indeed be permanent. However, you would also define the word "permanent" in that part of the world as somewhat questionable. We all understand that. But I do believe it will be permanent.

. . .

Today's announcement validates our course of action with Turkey, that only a couple of weeks ago was scorned. And now people are saying, "Wow, what a great outcome, congratulations." It's too early, to me, to be congratulated. But we've done a good job. We've saved a lot of lives.

As is usual with any Trump statement beginning with "people are saying," nobody is actually saying that (other than the voices in Trump's own head).

The prize for the most amusing wrapup of the week goes to Anthony Scaramucci, who painted a rather colorful metaphor (as he is often wont to do), in reference to the idea that the "wheels were coming off" the Trump White House: "The wheels are not off the car. The situation is way worse than that. The car has been impounded, and we are now waiting to figure out what the fine is and to see whether or not we're going to get the car back."

Runner-up prize for most amusing description of Trump came from a book excerpt which details Trump's first Pentagon briefing -- the one where he petulantly demanded "a Victory Day" parade with "vehicles and tanks on Main Street, on Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the white House." This report ends with the pithy observation:

For the remainder of the meeting, Trump veered from topic to topic -- Syria, Mexico, a recent Washington Post story he didn't like -- like a squirrel caught in traffic, dashing one way and then another.

The issues were complicated, yet all of the president's answers were simplistic and ad hoc. He was shooting from the hip on issues of global importance.

Some footnotes along the impeachment path: the New York Times eviscerated the theory that "Ukraine didn't know about the military aid holdup," and the Trump administration has been proposing budgets which slash -- by billions -- federal money spent on fighting corruption in foreign countries, including Ukraine. Both severely undercut two of Trump's flimsy defenses, of course. And in a late-breaking development, a federal judge has now ruled that the House Judiciary Committee is fully entitled to see the grand jury materials from the Mueller Report, which could happen as early as next week.

And one more "law and order" moment, from a court fight over Trump's taxes. Trump's attorney actually argued in court in support of one of Trump's more chilling campaign moments, when Trump bragged: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters." When asked about this, Trump's attorney argued that Trump could not be arrested, or even investigated, even if he were to start a shooting spree in the middle of an American city, while he was still president. "Nothing could be done, that's your position?" the judge asked, to which Trump's lawyer responded: "That's correct."

Trump's not the only one facing legal trouble, as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was found in contempt of court this week. Seems about right -- we've always found her to be pretty contemptible, personally. And New Jersey is seeking to revoke the liquor license at one of Trump's golf courses, after a patron killed someone after drinking too much and driving away.

Oh, and remember Trump complaining about rats infesting Baltimore? Well, it turns out there's a reason for that, and his name is Jared Kushner. Kushner owns a real estate company who is being investigated in Baltimore for "hundreds of thousands" of violations, including -- you guessed it -- rat-infested apartment buildings. So Trump need look no further than his son-in-law to solve this particular problem, it turns out.

Let's see, what else is going on? The Democratic presidential race is down to only (!) 18 candidates now, as Tim Ryan formally withdrew from the race. Also, Tulsi Gabbard will not be running for re-election to her House seat (a race she might have lost in the primaries). And the rules for the sixth debate (to be held by PBS in December) were released, incrementally stepping up the criteria to candidates who score at least four percent in four approved national polls or six percent in two polls held in the early-voting states. This should winnow the field a bit more.

We close this week on the stupidest thing Trump said (which is always a challenge to figure out, because there usually are so many of them -- including naming his defense secretary "Esperanto"...). He later tried to say he was joking ("Kiddingly") but in a speech Trump very seriously and with no attempt at humor whatsoever promised to build: "a beautiful wall -- a big one that really works, that you can't get over, you can't get under" in (wait for it)... Colorado. Yep, Trump's going to build a wall in Colorado. No word yet on whether he's got a plan to make New Mexico pay for it....

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Today was a day for remembering a very impressive Democrat, as Elijah Cummings was laid to rest with two former presidents extolling his service, as well as plenty of other politicians from both sides of the aisle. Cummings was, in a word, righteous. He was a moral force within the Democratic ranks, and he will be missed in the coming days.

Among the living, the Democrats who questioned Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook's stated policy of allowing politicians to lie in ads all deserve an Honorable Mention for holding his feet to the fire. Especially notable were Maxine Waters and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week was none other than Bernie Sanders. As with all weeks with Trump at the wheel, it seems almost a lifetime ago, but last weekend Bernie held a rally in Queens, New York, where he pulled in the largest crowd yet of any Democratic candidate. Kamala Harris launched her bid in front of a crowd of 20,000 and Elizabeth Warren gave a rally in Washington Square Park which drew more than 20,000, but Bernie topped them both with an estimated crowd of 26,000 people.

That's impressive, even in New York City. What was more impressive was that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez appeared alongside him to give Bernie her official endorsement.

This was the first time Sanders had held a rally since his heart attack, but in his own words, Bernie's still ready to go:

I am more than ready to take on the greed and corruption of the corporate elite and their apologists. And I am more ready than ever to create a government based on the principles of justice. To put it bluntly, I am back.

To round out a pretty good week, Bernie just released (at 4:20 P.M., naturally) his plan to legalize marijuana. It has everything you'd expect (Bernie ran on this four years ago, so he's no latecomer to this issue). Bernie would totally deschedule marijuana at the federal level, he'd prohibit tobacco companies from becoming weed companies, and he'd shovel a whole bunch of money into righting some of the wrongs done over the course of the idiotic War On Weed. All in all it's an impressively comprehensive plan. Again, when he ran four years ago this was fairly radical stuff but these days every other major Democratic candidate is also on board with fully legalizing marijuana at the federal level in some way or another (there are competing plans to do so), except for Joe Biden who would only move weed from Schedule I to Schedule II.

All told, that's a pretty good and pretty impressive week. We're glad to see Bernie back on the campaign trail once again, and because he's had such a great week we're also going to award him this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

One presidential candidate made a seriously disappointing announcement this week. Joe Biden's campaign let it be known that they are now open to having a super PAC collect and spend unlimited amounts of money on Joe's behalf. This is a serious flip-flop since up until this point Biden has kept to a pledge not to accept help from a PAC. From the initial report in the Washington Post:

The decision is also bound to trigger accusations of flip-flopping, given that Biden has long said he would reject such outside help. His campaign advisers were aggressively opposed to the idea as recently as three weeks ago, pushing back against a Washington Post report stating that the campaign "has publicly discouraged" outside help because they felt it was not worded strongly enough.

Biden will be appearing on 60 Minutes this week, so we'll see whether he gets asked about it or not -- the only teaser clip we've yet seen shows Biden questioning the involvement of Trump's children and close family with his administration, which is something we've actually been encouraging other Democrats to do as well. But the interview may have been taped before the super PAC bombshell, so we'll have to wait and see.

By making this move, Biden shows his weakness. While other candidates had rather stellar quarterly fundraising numbers to report last quarter (including Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren), Biden's numbers were pretty modest. He also doesn't have nearly as much cash on hand as his competitors either.

Bernie Sanders pioneered the concept that a presidential candidate can indeed run a competitive campaign by just relying on small donors, and many Democrats running have followed the path Bernie carved out. This is praiseworthy indeed. Not holding high-dollar fundraisers sends a very clear message that such a campaign simply cannot be bought by the fatcat donors. In the last election, this was a stark contrast to how Hillary Clinton raised her campaign war chest.

Biden has now signaled that he cannot adequately compete with just small donors, and has opened the floodgates to dark money backing his campaign. This is more than just a little disappointing, and it's why Joe Biden is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Joe Biden is a private citizen and it is our standing policy not to link to campaign webpages, so you'll have to search his contact information out yourself if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 548 (10/25/19)

A mixed bag this week, as we've got some points to make on the impeachment front as well as a few positives coming from the Democratic side of the aisle. And, as usual, we're going to end with a conservative ripping into Trump and all the Republican whiners who seem to be suffering from a severe case of selective amnesia.

 

1
   Quid pro quo

Bill Taylor's damning testimony should be the biggest talking point for Democrats for some time to come -- unless, of course, even more damning testimony surpasses it next week.

"Bill Taylor clearly laid out the quid pro quo that Trump was offering the new Ukrainian president, in no uncertain terms. At first, Trump dangled the offer of a White House meeting in an attempt to get the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on Democrats, but later on 'everything' was tied to this quid pro quo offer, up to and including withholding the military aid Congress had already approved. The Ukrainians knew this full well, in fact. This proves false several of the defenses the Trump White House has offered up to date, in stunning fashion. One Democrat (and I apologize in advance for his profanity) even summed up the reaction in the room as a 'holy shit' moment. I fully expect in the coming days to hear other witnesses corroborate the revelations Taylor shared with the committees. No wonder the Republicans are trying strongman tactics to shut these hearings down, because each new witness has more and more detail about Trump's blatant abuse of power."

 

2
   The polls show it, too

Taunt Trump on this one, because it is completely his fault -- he has reportedly resisted setting up a "war room" to deal with his impeachment defense, which is already costing him in the court of public opinion.

"Trump's abuses of his high office are already so blatant and so obvious that each new poll I see puts the public's approval of the impeachment inquiry higher and higher. The latest poll from Quinnipiac put it at 55 percent, with only 43 percent opposed. As each new revelation comes out and each excuse or rationalization from Trump is proven false, I fully expect that number to go even higher. I wonder how high it'll get before his own party starts to turn on him?"

 

3
   Or maybe it already has?

This needs pointing out, fast.

"After Trump petulantly complained about Republicans not supporting his abuses of power strongly enough, House Republicans staged a comical sit-in, and Senator Lindsey Graham quickly produced a bill denouncing the House's inquiry. I guess they didn't want to be called 'human scum,' the term Trump charmingly used earlier in the week about members of his own party. Funny thing, though, if a vote were held today on Graham's bill, it probably wouldn't even pass the Republican Senate. He reportedly had to water down the language in the bill to even get as many of his fellow Republicans to support it as he did, but so far this adds up to only 44 of them. Nine Republican senators have not signed on yet: Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Mike Enzi, Cory Gardner, Johnny Isakson, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, and Dan Sullivan. Even if Trump is impeached and they all voted to remove him, that'd still only be 56 senators, which is 11 shy of what is necessary. Still, it's notable that this early in the process so many Republicans are already shying away from fully supporting Trump."

 

4
   Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

Oh how the worm turns, at times.

"All the Republicans who are now loudly whining about secret committee hearings must have very selective amnesia. Because not too long ago, multiple investigations into the tragedy in Benghazi were held, back when Republicans were still in charge of the House. One of those investigations was run by Trey Gowdy, who wrote in his final report on his investigation, and I quote:"

The committee's preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized -- usually for five minutes -- a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

"Got that? Strange how, back then, none of the Republicans were screaming about 'Soviet-style tactics' while they raked Hillary Clinton over the coals. Either they have highly selective amnesia or they're the world's biggest hypocrites -- you decide."

 

5
   GOP votes for foreign interference in elections

Kudos to Nancy Pelosi for continuing to walk and chew gum at the same time.

"Few noticed one important development this week, but later on many more will -- when Democrats begin to use this vote in campaign ads, that is. The House voted this week along party lines, 227-181, on a bill which would require political campaigns to report illicit offers of political assistance from foreign governments. Think about that for a moment, if you will. Republicans just essentially voted to allow foreign governments to interfere in our elections, after ample evidence that Donald Trump has done so in the past, was attempting to do so as recently as last month, and is actively planning on doing so in the future. Democratic House member Dean Phillips summed it up the best, in language that vulnerable Republicans will soon see in campaign ads in their districts: '[Republicans] can start to work together with us Democrats to honor our sacred oath to the Constitution and keep our country safe, or they can bow down to foreign influence.'"

 

6
   One more thing...

Some more good news most everyone missed.

"For the second year in a row, premiums for Obamacare health insurance plans will drop -- this time by four percent -- next year. Several states will see declines in the double digits, in fact. The Obamacare marketplace -- even with all the attacks against it by Trump and the Republicans -- is stabilizing exactly as it was always predicted to do. This is good news for consumers across the country, and bad news for the Republicans who still seek to destroy Obamacare and leave nothing in its place."

 

7
   And who enacted them?

This one is precisely as satisfying as you might expect. Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is a very conservative legal expert on Fox News, explained this week to the dim bulbs who host Fox And Friends (reportedly Trump's favorite show) how the House Democrats are actually following House rules and historical precedents. This absolutely demolished every Republican talking point uttered all week long on how the big, bad Democrats were being so mean and unfair in their hearings. No, explained Napolitano, Nancy Pelosi is not just making up all the rules as she goes along. Here's how Napolitano schooled Brian Kilmeade and his pals (the hosts' questions have been edited out, because they don't add anything to what Napolitano had to say in the least):

[The Democrats] can't change the rules. They follow the rules. When were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority.

The rules say this level of inquiry, this initial level of inquiry can be done in secret. What happened in the Nixon impeachment? My former boss. I was his page in the House of Representatives. Peter Rodino, instead of holding the hearings in secret, interviewed the witnesses in secret. Congressman Henry Hyde in the Clinton impeachment, witnesses interviewed in secret and presented in public. Congressman Schiff, with a different set of rules, chooses to do initial set of interviews in secret.

Secret doesn't work in this world. Eventually there will be a public presentation of this. At which point lawyers for the president can cross-examine these people and challenge them. This is like presenting a case to a grand jury, which is never done in public.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

325 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Collective Republican Amnesia”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was right, Michale.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, I was looking for some deeper analysis and the all important context.

    There are valid arguments to be made for and against and that's the discussion I was hoping for.

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [6] Last thread

    Elizabeth...

    MtnCaddy,

    How's about using GOP or Republicans or the longer congressional republicans instead of your juvenile term?

    Of course you're right -- I'm a Liberal so I should be better than that. It's just that that the GOP has been trying to dismantle the New Deal since Reagan and have concentrated wealth in the the top 10% of our country. I find this to be repugnant, hence my phraseology "Repug."

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How about the repugnant congressional Republicans or the repugnant GOP...this way you actually sully the GOP and congressional Republicans instead of not using their name at all.

    Does that make any sense?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know, I know … like 'no quid pro quo', they don't exactly roll of your tongue. But, pretty easy to tap out. :)

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Bernie would totally deschedule marijuana at the federal level, he'd prohibit tobacco companies from becoming weed companies …

    Is that latter bit constitutional?

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    While other candidates had rather stellar quarterly fundraising numbers to report last quarter (including Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren), Biden's numbers were pretty modest. He also doesn't have nearly as much cash on hand as his competitors either.

    Will the Democrats, collectively, come anywhere near the funds Trump will have for the 2020 campaign?

  8. [8] 
    dsws wrote:

    Cast six tie-breaking votes...

    And how many of those were against what Mitch McConnell wanted?

    This "words have no meaning" and/or can be "interpreted however" argument I'm seeing a lot lately is some fairly weak tea.

    Are you seriously denying that stuff can be interpreted in ways that have no discernible relation to what they say? Have you tried to carry on a conversation with Michale lately? Now imagine a quasi-trial proceeding with 53 of him, only better at it, working under rules that let any one of them demand that evidentiary questions be submitted to majority vote.

    The gods themselves do not have enough power to get even one Republican to do the right thing, on anything, ever. Four is beyond impossible.

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    The above was, of course, in response to the previous thread. The quotes are from [90] and [95].

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, what do you have to say about THIS thread?

  11. [11] 
    dsws wrote:

    Re [6] (of this thread), the commerce power is pretty broad. I don't see any reason why the federal government couldn't say that a firm from being in both the tobacco business and the marijuana business at the same time. Congress mostly can't pass laws about a specific individual, under the bill of attainder clause. (Strictly speaking, the Constitution only unambiguously prohibits them from passing actual bills of attainder, which declare a person guilty of some crime. My understanding, though, is that precedent takes it more broadly: "The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, 'no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to in?ict punishment on them without a judicial trial.'") But a restriction like that on a category of companies shouldn't be a problem.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was right, Michale.

    As was I.. CW ignored the fact that Democrats are getting totally demolished in the money for the General Election campaign..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Of course you're right -- I'm a Liberal so I should be better than that. It's just that that the GOP has been trying to dismantle the New Deal since Reagan and have concentrated wealth in the the top 10% of our country. I find this to be repugnant, hence my phraseology "Repug."

    And I find that Democrats are so utterly moronic for always letting President Trump maneuver them into LOSE LOSE situations.. Hence the term "Dumbocrat"...

    The fact that we have, in our minds, good reasons for the terms does not make the name-calling any less childish and immature.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    Now imagine a quasi-trial proceeding with 53 of him, only better at it,

    Hay now.. No need to be insulting.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will the Democrats, collectively, come anywhere near the funds Trump will have for the 2020 campaign?

    Probably not..

    We saw in 2016 how utterly inept Democrats were at fundraising.. Which is why they turned control of the DNC over to Hillary..

    With disastrous results, I might add..

    There is zero indication that Democrats have learned from their mistakes..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, President Trump played the victim card once again, saying the constitutionally-sanctioned impeachment process was nothing short of a "lynching,"

    Of course, Biden used the same term in a similar context before.

    But, again of course, that's perfectly acceptable.. :smirk:

    :D

    But yunno, it's funny.. In a sad sort of way..

    Today's Democrats treat Trump supporters in the EXACT same way that Democrats of a bygone era treated black people..

    I guess you can take the Democrat out of the racist, but you can't take the racist out of the Democrat.. Democrats will always find a way to hate an entire group of people.

    I'm just sayin'...

  17. [17] 
    dsws wrote:

    From this column:
    One presidential candidate made a seriously disappointing announcement this week. Joe Biden's campaign let it be known that they are now open to having a super PAC collect and spend unlimited amounts of money on Joe's behalf.

    It's not clear to me what these things mean. Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose that Sergey Brin, in an effort to push new frontiers in political discourse, offers a million-dollar X prize to anyone who can get five or more US voters to notice that Steve Bullock exists. Musk, Bezos, Gates, and Soros each put a billion dollars into teams trying to develop and deploy the messaging technology that would make such an achievement possible. Now, insofar as he's known for anything, Governor Bullock is known for his efforts to get big money out of politics. He would be mortified. In this scenario, what could he do?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess you can take the Democrat out of the racist, but you can't take the racist out of the Democrat.. Democrats will always find a way to hate an entire group of people.

    To be more accurate... You can take the Democrat out of the bigotry but you can't take the bigotry out of the Democrat...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    He would be mortified. In this scenario, what could he do?

    It's not really an apt analogy..

    Getting someone noticed and getting someone elected are two very different activities requiring two very different activities..

    In this case with Biden, the point is that Biden past said he would not accept PAC help..

    Biden present said he would..

    And therein lies the disappointing flip-flop...

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [15]

    Trump has a base of 40-45% and has made no meaningful attempt to play to anyone outside this base.

    Now 50% say Trump should be at least subject to an Impeachment Inquiry, and that number will only ride as more evidence is revealed.

    All the money in the world won't reelect him.

  21. [21] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [20]

    "...and that number will only RISE as more evidence is revealed."

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Trump has a base of 40-45% and has made no meaningful attempt to play to anyone outside this base.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    It could easily be said that the Democrat candidates have ALSO played to their base and made no meaningful attempt to appeal to anyone outside their base.

    And there are a LOT more facts to back up THAT claim..

    It's the PRIMARY season.. Playing to the base is what candidates do during the primary..

    Now 50% say Trump should be at least subject to an Impeachment Inquiry, and that number will only ride as more evidence is revealed.

    And 98% thought Hillary was going to be elected.. :D

    "...and that number will only RISE as more evidence is revealed."

    You mean, like the Russia Collusion delusion?? :D

    What you said is nearly word for word what most everyone around here said about the Russia Collusion delusion.

    "Oh more evidence is being revealed!!! Trump is TOAST for sure this time!!!"

    And we all know how THAT worked out, eh??

    And THAT was a lot more serious of a charge then President Trump simply doing what Presidents and diplomats have done since this country began..

    I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine...

    It's the way of the world.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those hundreds of foreigners and foreign leaders donating HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation..

    You think they were donating out of the goodness of their hearts?? You think they WEREN'T expecting something in return?? Say, when Hillary became President???

    The facts are clear.. The Clintons LIVED Quid Pro Quo every damn day of their lives...

    But THAT is OK, because they have a -D after their names.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, I guess in California, when you have high winds, ya'all have to have ya'all's power cut and live in the stone age...

    Remind me again how AWESOME California governing is??

    I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary... :smirk:

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    In this case with Biden, the point is that Biden past said he would not accept PAC help..

    Biden present said he would..

    And therein lies the disappointing flip-flop...

    It should be noted that the "disappointment" is on the part of Democrats..

    Me??

    I pretty much have created a cottage industry here in Weigantia on the DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO hypocrisy of the Democrat Party... :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Maher urges Clintons to skip Dems' 2020 convention: 'They've got to go away'

    "Real Time" host Bill Maher urged the Clintons on Friday night to "go away" and skip next year's Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.

    "It seems like every few months, Hillary Clinton bubbles up again," Maher told his guests during the show's panel segment. "And people are like, 'Oh, she's thinking about running.' Or she says something crazy. ...

    "The Clintons," he concluded, "they've got to go away."

    "I'm saying this a year out," he continued. "They can't be at the convention. Maybe on the video, waving or something, but I’m serious.”

    Maher then referred to a Twitter message posted by Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich., who called Hillary Clinton a "Donald Trump asset" in reaction to her claim that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" to run as a third-party candidate in 2020.

    "She is!" Maher agreed. "And Bill is damaged goods. And I just think they've got to go away. We can't be associating them with the Democratic Party."
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/bill-maher-urges-the-clintons-to-skip-dnc-convention-in-2020-the-dems-cant-be-associated-with-them

    Mr Maher, you shouldn't keep it all bottled up inside..

    Tell us how you REALLY feel... :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton called me a 'Russian asset'. The establishment is losing its grip
    -Jill Stein

    The McCarthyist smear against the Green party shows the lengths to which Clinton will go to blame others for her 2016 defeat

    Like her attack on Tulsi Gabbard, Hillary Clinton’s accusation that I am a “Russian asset” is a ludicrous, unhinged conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. It’s also an attempt to deflect attention from the role of Clinton’s campaign in her own defeat. This desperate blame game is not an encouraging sign that the Democratic party will muster a winning strategy to oust the disastrous Trump administration in 2020. Equally alarming, the Clinton camp’s attempts to shift responsibility for their electoral failure to “Russian assets” has fueled a new era of McCarthyism - a toxic brew of warmongering, political repression and censorship now poisoning our public discourse.

    By continuing to blame everyone else for their loss, the Clinton camp is suppressing serious reflection on the problems with their own campaign. These ranged from the “Pied Piper” strategy of urging media allies to elevate Donald Trump to front-runner status, to the sabotage of Bernie Sanders by Clinton surrogates in the DNC.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/24/hillary-clinton-called-me-a-russian-asset-the-establishment-is-losing-their-grip

    Hillary Clinton is the best Trump/GOP asset there is..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hunter Biden's legal work in Romania raises new questions about his overseas dealings

    Hunter Biden provided legal advice to a Romanian charged with real estate fraud, at a time when his father was pushing corruption reforms in the country.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-s-legal-work-romania-raises-new-questions-about-n1071031

    As I predicted.. Biden is going to be hurt MUCH worse than President Trump will be..

    Note that this isn't some Right Wing rag or such..

    This is NBC, who is at the forefront of the I HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP fanatics..

    Remind me again how there is never any Democrat on Democrat attacks???

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS that proves differently..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting someone noticed and getting someone elected are two very different activities requiring two very different activities..

    "In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'see redundant'..."
    Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    What I meant to say was:

    Getting someone noticed and getting someone elected are two very different ACTIONS requiring two very different activities..

    My bust...

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    8

    I answered you more completely on the prior page already. Your basic arguments were that the Vice President in his role as President of the Senate had no power and that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding over an impeachment trial in the Senate had the equivalent power which you basically claimed was nonexistent and equivalent to the Vice President's role. Incorrect on both counts.

    You also said it "doesn't matter what the rules say." I supplied you a portion of some of the Senate impeachment procedural rules they'll be under which explains the not nonexistent power of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during a Senate impeachment trial of the President of the United States, and you then started quoting the Senate rules back to me in a basic exercise of "preaching to the choir" and thus severely undercutting your stated position that it "doesn't matter what the rules say."

    You also quoted the part of the rules that you said didn't matter and conveniently omitted the part wherein they explain:

    The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.

    So that's again not your stated claim of him not having any "power at all," and I'd say I made my point on all counts.

    And how many of those were against what Mitch McConnell wanted?

    It doesn't matter. Your argument was:

    Mike Pence is president of the Senate. That doesn't give him any power at all. ~ dsws

    Mike Pence has the power to break ties in the Senate and that doesn't meet your definition above. He's also done it more times in the first year than any Vice President in the entire history of our nation and holds various other records I reported to you already.

    Are you seriously denying that stuff can be interpreted in ways that have no discernible relation to what they say?

    I see you've picked up the bad habits of another poster who shall remain nameless wherein you restate my easily discernible English (that doesn't generally mince words) in order to fit your own narrative. That's a bad habit to get into. No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that trials have rules of civil procedure that aren't up for reinterpretation and those words already have stated meaning that can't be changed based on the whims of a group of dipshits who decide they're going to upend settled rules of civil procedure, longstanding rules, and United States statute.

    It's simple English in the context of longstanding trial procedure. Your argument that words can be -- quoting you -- "interpreted however" by the majority Party in the context we're speaking are weak tea. When I use the term "Donald J. Trump" it has a meaning that can't be misinterpreted to mean some other person... words have meaning that can't be changed in Orwellian fashion just because the majority Party decides they'll upend facts.

    Have you tried to carry on a conversation with Michale lately?

    Again, you seem determined to make my point for me. Mike is an obvious sophist with a few tired circular arguments, precious little knowledge of the law, and nothing more to offer than the oft repeated fake quotes, false equivalency, and claims that everyone on the forum who disagrees with him is a partisan ideologue. When he loses an argument he's made he frequently restates another poster's position -- in the vernacular, he moves the goalposts -- and simply prattles on and on arguing something he made up that no one ever said. Same shit over and over. You would be wise not to pick up his bad habits.

    Now imagine a quasi-trial proceeding with 53 of him, only better at it, working under rules that let any one of them demand that evidentiary questions be submitted to majority vote.

    You're forgetting that there are 100 Senators, and it's also not as simple as you're making it out. Remember, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court whom you claimed had no power "shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for."

    Lord knows I'm not going to teach you the rules of civil procedure in one post or how lawyers can be summarily disbarred for legal chicanery so I think I'm done here.

    The gods themselves do not have enough power to get even one Republican to do the right thing, on anything, ever. Four is beyond impossible.

    Well, rest his soul, as I explained to you on the other page, there's you arguing Republicans will always march in lockstep and then there's the reality of John McCain's thumb in the wee small hours of the morning. Donald Trump still whines like a little bitch about it too... so there's that. :)

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Hunter Biden provided legal advice to a Romanian charged with real estate fraud, at a time when his father was pushing corruption reforms in the country.

    OK. Where is the problem with this? Joe Biden was pushing for a crackdown on corruption and Hunter was providing legal counsel to someone charged with fraud. Where is there a conflict of interest?

    How about Trump announcing to the world that he’s considering sanctioning a huge Chinese electronics maker? A few days later his daughter is granted trademark requests for her clothing brand by China and a Chinese bank decides to invest in one of Trump’s international projects and provides it with a huge loan. Trump then announces he won’t be sanctioning the Chinese company after all — citing it would cost a lot of Chinese people their jobs if he did! I am sure you were thrilled he is looking out for their best interests!

    Funny how you do not see any conflict of interest with Trump...ever.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK. Where is the problem with this? Joe Biden was pushing for a crackdown on corruption and Hunter was providing legal counsel to someone charged with fraud. Where is there a conflict of interest?

    Change the names to Trump and you'll see the conflict of interest..

    Funny how you do not see any conflict of interest with Trump...ever.

    Actually I have never commented or relayed my opinions on President Trump's conflict of interest..

    I simply point out ya'all's hypocrisy on the issue and prove beyond any doubt that any "conflict of interest" you see in President Trump's et al dealings is SOLELY based on Party slavery rather than any REAL problem with the alleged conflict of interest..

    As I have said, I have built a pretty awesome cottage industry at pointing out ya'all's hypocrisy and ya'all's enslavement (NEN) by Party dogma...

    Don't whine to me because ya'all give me PLENTY of reasons..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    Mike Pence is president of the Senate. That doesn't give him any power at all.

    It's like the Queen of England..

    On paper, according to the "rules" she is the unquestioned ruler of all of the United Kingdom...

    But the REALITY is far different from the "rules"..

    The REALITY is that the Queen of England has very little power beyond the ceremonial..

    Just like the US Vice President and the Chief Justice during an impeachment trial..

    The "rules" say one thing.. But the actual power of these people is nil beyond the ceremonial..

    Arguing with Victoria is a lost cause.. In the couple years she has been polluting this forum with her bile and bigotry and hatred she has NEVER once admitted to being wrong.. Even with the facts and reality prove beyond any doubt that she is...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Even if the president should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard — the very high bar that was set by the Founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense."
    -Senator Joe Biden

    So, APPARENTLY, it's wrong and abhorrent when President Trump compares this faux impeachment coup to lynching..

    BUT....

    But it's perfectly acceptable to compare Clinton's impeachment to lynching..

    ESPECIALLY given the FACT that the GOP offered Clinton every courtesy and privilege and right and processed Clinton's impeachment totally in the view of the Public eye..

    Where as the Democrats are plotting in secret Star Chambers with absolutely NO FACTS to support the claims..

    If anything, this faux impeachment coup IS a lynching in the abstract...

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Bill Taylor's damning testimony should be the biggest talking point for Democrats for some time to come -- unless, of course, even more damning testimony surpasses it next week.

    Not sure about the timing of it, but John Bolton's future testimony wherein others have already sworn he referred to Rudy Giuliani as a "hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up" and described Trump's "aid for dirt" as a "drug deal" and had it reported to White House counsel by Fiona Hill will likely be a notable event in history... a national security advisor testifying against a sitting President of the United States as a witness in his impeachment. Hope to see it.

    I'd like to see Trump and company attempt to spin Bolton as "deep state" or "Democrat." Good luck with that.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Taylor's damning testimony should be the biggest talking point for Democrats for some time to come -- unless, of course, even more damning testimony surpasses it next week.

    Except, of course, for the FACT that Taylor's "damning" testimony wasn't very damning at all..

    In fact, after John Ratcliffe got thru cross-examining Taylor, the testimony actually PROVED that there was no quid pro quo at all..

    Unlike Biden's rogue move which was not only quid pro quo, it was out and out extortion...

    Funny how NO ONE here is willing to address that with anything that even minutely passes for logic..

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    15

    We saw in 2016 how utterly inept Democrats were at fundraising..

    Educate yourself, Mike.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?cycle=2016

  38. [38] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    My two cents on a Senate trial: Unless there is a substantial shift of behaviour among a critical mass of Republican senators, I think they will try to make it a trial of Biden. Whether they get away with that is another question. Or unless the pack is after another Dem by that time.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether they get away with that is another question.

    Actually, there is no question that they can make it a trial about Joe and Hunter Biden, metaphorically speaking..

    The Chief Justice has no real power to prevent it and even if he did, it was Democrats who introduced Joe & Hunter Biden into evidence..

    So, GOP'ers will simply be pursuing the evidence that Democrats themselves put into play..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S. Democrats to limit witnesses in public impeachment hearings -sources
    http://news.trust.org/item/20191025175217-a8mn2

    What are Democrats afraid of that they won't go public with ALL the hearings???

    That's what the GOP did with the Clinton impeachment..

  41. [41] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-37

    Open Secrets is to trollish blather as garlic & stakes & sunlight are to vampires.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    A lag in fundraising casts doubt on DNC’s 2020 influence
    opensecrets.org/news/2019/05/a-lag-in-fundraising-casts-doubt-on-dncs-2020-influence/

    As I said.. The DNC is totally inept at fundraising.. They are having to turn to candidates to provide funding..

    Yea, cuz that worked out SO WELL in 2016.. :eyeroll:

    Ouch. The DNC Just Keeps Going Further And Further In Debt.
    townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/06/14/ouch-dnc-has-spent-more-money-that-it-has-raised-this-year-n2548173

    As I said.. The DNC is totally inept at fundraising..

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Bernie Sanders pioneered the concept that a presidential candidate can indeed run a competitive campaign by just relying on small donors, and many Democrats running have followed the path Bernie carved out."

    Sorry, CW, I was pioneering that concept for all candidates long before Bernie ran for president.

    And the path Bernie carved out that is being followed by other Democrats is NOT running their campaigns just relying on small donors.

    How about a check up on that?

    Back in the early spring there was much talk about early fundraising numbers and the high percentages of small donors at that time. We haven't heard anything about those numbers recently.

    Is this because many of those small donors then (less than 200 dollars total) have made more small contributions and their aggregate total of contributions has made them a large donor by now?

    If you are going to claim that Bernie is running a small donor campaign instead of a small contribution campaign pretending be a small donor campaign then you should back up that claim by addressing whether or not that statement is true.

    And please forgive me for not believing that the Our Revolution PAC will not be (and hasn't already been) working to help Bernie in 2020.

    Your continuing to repeat the lie that these are small donor campaigns is the equivalent of the "Esperanto quote" that you ridicule Trump for.

    Get Real.

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Funny how you do not see any conflict of interest with Trump...ever. ~ Russ

    *

    Actually I have never commented or relayed my opinions on President Trump's conflict of interest..

    I simply point out ya'all's hypocrisy on the issue and prove beyond any doubt that any "conflict of interest" you see in President Trump's et al dealings is SOLELY based on Party slavery rather than any REAL problem with the alleged conflict of interest..

    As I have said, I have built a pretty awesome cottage industry at pointing out ya'all's hypocrisy and ya'all's enslavement (NEN) by Party dogma... ~ Mike

    Right, Russ. Mike is just here to prattle on and on like a whiny little bitch about how horrible it is that posters on a lefty forum won't "mine history" for something similar to be outraged about every time His Orange Worship commits verbal diarrhea of the mouth or refers to things like his unilateral decision to allow the ethnic cleansing of Kurds as "winning."

    In Mike's tiny little mind, his repetitive spew on this forum through the disruption of the conversations of others, invention of fake quotes no one ever said, deflection, bitching, whining, and moaning utilizing the same basic bullshit over and over ad nauseam serves some kind of higher purpose.

    So to recap: Mike's just here to troll.

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    33

    On paper, according to the "rules" she is the unquestioned ruler of all of the United Kingdom...

    What "paper" is that, Mike? Link to the "paper" wherein the Queen of England is the unquestioned ruler of all of the United Kingdom. I'll wait.

    You honestly expect the posters on this forum to believe you know a damn thing about the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain? *laughs*

    But the REALITY is far different from the "rules"..

    Link to the "rules" you're referring to wherein the Queen of England fits your description. You seem blissfully unaware that the Queen (or reigning monarch) retains the power to dismiss a sitting Prime Minister and appoint a new one, among other things, of course.

    The REALITY is that the Queen of England has very little power beyond the ceremonial..

    Link to the "paper."

    Just like the US Vice President and the Chief Justice during an impeachment trial..

    Exercises in false equivalency brought to you always on this forum by Moron Mike who is just here invent fake stuff, whine incessantly when he's called on his standard fake shit, and troll.

    The "rules" say one thing.. But the actual power of these people is nil beyond the ceremonial..

    Link to the "rules."

    Arguing with Victoria is a lost cause.. In the couple years she has been polluting this forum with her bile and bigotry and hatred she has NEVER once admitted to being wrong..

    Incorrect. You're a liar.

    Even with the facts and reality prove beyond any doubt that she is...

    Facts aren't something you generally provide here... just your ignorant repetition of right-wingnut talking points that you're too stupid to know how stupid they sound because connecting the dots isn't the strong suit of uneducated trolling Trump trash.

  46. [46] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris,
    You mentioned Syria and the Kurds a couple of times in your introduction. But this topic needs to be a TOP talking point of Democrats. For reasons that I don't comprehend, Evangelicals have stuck by the adulterous, false-witness bearing pussy-grabber (whose favorite book is definitely NOT the Bible) - until now.
    'On October 27, the chaos following the Trump administration’s abandonment of the Kurds will be the subject of a “night of prayer” organized by Frontier Alliance International, a Christian international medical aid organization. “The event will neither be a condemnation nor a defense of President Trump or his Middle East policies,” the organizers write. “We are asking participants to leave partisan politics in the parking lot. We are gathering as Christians to consider and pray about issues that are much larger in scope than the decisions of a sitting President or the evolving dynamics of isolated geopolitical events. We aim to present the big picture, pray how the Lord would have us respond, and catalyze a Kurdish solidarity movement in the United States with the intention of also provoking the international community to do the same.”'
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/trumps-evangelical-base-is-cracking-over-syria-now-hes-scrambling-to-keep-his-mandate-of-heaven/

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    36

    Except, of course, for the FACT that Taylor's "damning" testimony wasn't very damning at all..

    You're a liar who likely hasn't read it. Also, we know that Taylor's testimony was damning because it was followed by the leaking of the DOJ criminally investigating the DOJ, but again, Mike, no one here expects you to be able to either comprehend the written word or connect the dots even if you could become of your demonstrable and repeated ignorance displayed near daily.

    In fact, after John Ratcliffe got thru cross-examining Taylor, the testimony actually PROVED that there was no quid pro quo at all.

    Incorrect.

    Unlike Biden's rogue move which was not only quid pro quo, it was out and out extortion...

    You're a rube and a liar.

    Funny how NO ONE here is willing to address that with anything that even minutely passes for logic..

    It's another Trump lie.

    Next!

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    ItalyRusty,

    Your FIRST mistake is actually thinking Mother Jones has ANY semblance of factual data..

    Then you go down hill from there..

    :D HTH :D

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    39

    Actually, there is no question that they can make it a trial about Joe and Hunter Biden, metaphorically speaking..

    Obviously the trial will be "about" Joe and Hunter Biden since Trump and his private attorney has used taxpayers' dollars to repeatedly lobby a foreign nation to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden before he would grant Zelensky with multiple things.

    The Chief Justice has no real power to prevent it and even if he did, it was Democrats who introduced Joe & Hunter Biden into evidence..

    Democrats did not choose the people Trump chose in his exercise in "arms for dirt." Trump and company chose the targets so you can stop blaming Democrats for that.

    So, GOP'ers will simply be pursuing the evidence that Democrats themselves put into play..

    You couldn't pass Evidence 101 with your obvious inability to grasp the facts.

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    40

    That's what the GOP did with the Clinton impeachment..

    Incorrect. In January 1994, Robert Fiske was appointed as Special Prosecutor to investigate Bill Clinton's land deals called "Whitewater." Fiske was then replaced by Ken Starr in August. Starr spent years and years investigating and then ultimately began investigating Clinton's conduct in a wholly unrelated matter regarding wherein he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, a former State of Arkansas government employee. Fast forward to this separate issue leading to allegations that Clinton lied under oath about an affair with White House aide Monica Lewinsky, whom Clinton wouldn't meet for 2 years after the beginning of the Whitewater investigation that prompted the appointment of Fiske and then Ken Starr.

    Fast forward to 9/9/1998 when the House received Ken Starr's report which was immediately made available to the public... warts and all. Two days later on 9/11/1998, the House adopted House Resolution 525 to direct the House Judiciary Committee to determine "whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced.

    By October 1998 the Judiciary Committee adopted House Resolution 581 which authorized it to conduct an impeachment inquiry and formulate procedures governing that inquiry.

    In mid November, Ken Starr was interviewed by the committee after having already spent four years investigating Clinton, and in mid December the Judiciary Committee debated and passed articles of impeachment, and by mid December the House adopted the resolution impeaching Clinton.

    In the Clinton investigation, four years of investigation materials were handed to the House by a special prosecutor.

    Trump's case began with a whistleblower complaint that was attempted to be hidden by the Department of Justice. The House is attempting to investigate in a similar fashion to a grand jury while the Republicans whine that it's not fair because the Clinton impeachment was open.

    The House in the Clinton impeachment had four years of investigation behind closed doors handed to them by Ken Starr and therefore little need to hold their own investigation process before impeachment.

    Comparing the impeachment cases of Trump to Clinton and whining about how "open" the 4-year Clinton investigation was is pure unadulterated bullshit.

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Bill Maher wants the Clintons to go away, then he should give a million dollars to the Biden campaign … per month or his talk about the Clintons is just a lot of hot air.

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    41

    Yep!

  53. [53] 
    dsws wrote:

    [20] MtnCaddy
    Now 50% say Trump should be at least subject to an Impeachment Inquiry, and that number will only ride as more evidence is revealed.

    The question of whether to have an inquiry is already moot: the inquiry is happening. So there can be no more polling of the prospective question of whether it ought to begin. What will happen is the inquiry, the drafting of articles of impeachment, the committee votes on those articles, the vote on each article in the full House, and the "trial" in the Senate. There will be polling about impeachment during each of those phases, just not about the question of whether there should be an inquiry in the first place.

    And the numbers on whether to convict will be low, after the "trial" focuses exclusively on the question of whether Joe Biden's actions were so heinous that everything Trump did was justified. Technically, the president's defenders in the trial will decline to contest the questions that would have things look bad for Republicans if the evidence were examined. In a trial before a competent judge, that would be a disastrous choice: it would mean that the lawyers had basically given away the case, accepting the prosecution's key points and arguing a defense so implausible as to be nearly irrelevant. But, for all that the Constitution itself calls the proceedings a "trial", they are not. The Constitution uses the word "trial", but what it sets up is a political show. It was a political show when the state of the art in high-tech communication was the telegraph, and Andrew Johnson was impeached. It was a political show when Bill Clinton was impeached at the dawn of the internet era. It would have been a political show during the dominance of three-network TV, if Nixon hadn't resigned. And a political show is what it will be again, in this time of media fragmentation.

    The news during the "trial" will cover what's presented. Editorial boards at NYT and WaPo will try to remind readers that theoretically it's a trial of the president. But what people will be trying to spin in each echo chamber will be the day's news, which will be some Republican frothing at the mouth about how evil Biden supposedly is.

    Public support for conviction will not rise under those circumstances.

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    42

    As I said.. The DNC is totally inept at fundraising..

    Actually, you said:

    We saw in 2016 how utterly inept Democrats were at fundraising.. ~ Mike

    You again made a false statement based on actual easily searchable data... to the surprise of EXACTLY no one on this forum.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Congressional Republicans would be wise to remember the warning, "Be careful what you wish for" …

    Investigations are done in private. If they weren't, we would live in a constant state of chaos. Oh, wait … we do already, anyway … but, you get my point.

    What the Democrats are doing by following the Constitution, laws and House rules actually amounts to a huge favour to the Republicans who are crying for open hearings. Open hearings will not be good for Republicans.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Bill Maher wants the Clintons to go away, then he should give a million dollars to the Biden campaign … per month or his talk about the Clintons is just a lot of hot air.

    How would giving money to Biden get the Clintons to go away???

    You would probably have a better chance of giving the million to the CLINTONS, dependent on them never being part of politics again.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    Public support for conviction will not rise under those circumstances.

    Word....

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Actually, the DNC may very be what Michale said - inept at fundraising.

    Hillary said something that shocked me in the podcast where she was talking about Russian assets.

    She said that after she won the nomination that she inherited next to nothing from the DNC. She said that Republicans had 23 offices in Florida and she had to start from scratch! Unbelievable!

    She did say that the Democrats might be in a little better shape in 2020 but that they would still have a lot of work to do to catch up.

    How does that happen!?

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Investigations are done in private. If they weren't, we would live in a constant state of chaos. Oh, wait … we do already, anyway … but, you get my point.

    Not political investigations..

    Political investigations are ALL done in public, unless the investigators are doing something nefarious or have something to hide..

    What the Democrats are doing by following the Constitution, laws and House rules

    But they are ignoring precedent.. You yourself stated that the impeachment is not legitimate unless it has bi-partisan support.

    As long as Democrats continue to prosecute this faux impeachment coup in smokey backrooms and secret star chambers, the "impeachment" will NEVER be anything more than a coup with NO bi partisan support....

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, the DNC may very be what Michale said - inept at fundraising.

    It is.. Victoria just can't admit I am ever factually accurate.. :D It's part of her charm.. :D

    She did say that the Democrats might be in a little better shape in 2020 but that they would still have a lot of work to do to catch up.

    The DNC is 7-10 million in debt left from 2016... Whoever is the nominee is going to have to cover the DNC debt and THEN start spending campaign funds..

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not political investigations..

    Especially political investigations, Michale!

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The DNC is 7-10 million in debt left from 2016... Whoever is the nominee is going to have to cover the DNC debt and THEN start spending campaign funds..

    Good God, Michale!

    Maher and his friends had better up that contribution to Biden, and fast!

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Political investigations are ALL done in public …

    Name one.

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But they are ignoring precedent.. You yourself stated that the impeachment is not legitimate unless it has bi-partisan support.

    I don't think I said that.

    As long as Democrats continue to prosecute this faux impeachment coup in smokey backrooms and secret star chambers, the "impeachment" will NEVER be anything more than a coup with NO bi partisan support....

    Oh, don't worry, Michale … the hearings will be in public before too long and Republicans will get exactly what they want.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Especially political investigations, Michale!

    Nope..

    There is absolutely NO REASON to do a political investigation in secret if the reasons for the investigation are above board and legit..

    Name one.

    Clinton Impeachment..

    Sex-Ethics investigation going on right now against Rep Hill...

    The ONLY reason to do a political investigation in secret is because there is no legitimate basis for the investigation..

    IE A partisan hit job or witch hunt..

    Oh, don't worry, Michale … the hearings will be in public before too long

    And if their not??

    Will you condemn them?? Will ANYONE here condemn them??

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And if their not?? Will you condemn them?? Will ANYONE here condemn them??

    I will indeed condemn them … absolutely, positively, unequivocally … every day of the week and twice on Sundays!

    Go ahead and bookmark this comment.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think I said that.

    I do believe you did..

    I quoted Joe Biden on the issue and you said you agreed with that..

    I may be wrong. If so, I apologize..

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    58

    Actually, the DNC may very be what Michale said - inept at fundraising.

    That's not what he said.

    EM: Will the Democrats, collectively, come anywhere near the funds Trump will have for the 2020 campaign?

    *****

    Mike: Probably not..

    We saw in 2016 how utterly inept Democrats were at fundraising.. Which is why they turned control of the DNC over to Hillary..

    With disastrous results, I might add..

    There is zero indication that Democrats have learned from their mistakes..

    The easily searchable data from 2016 show Democrats outraising Republicans, and not only that, the easily searchable data from 2018 -- Blue Wave -- show the exact same thing:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?display=T&type=A&cycle=2018

    continued...

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, let me be clear … the investigation now underway in the House is completely legitimate.

    However, if there is not a credible level of bipartisanship with regard to the actual vote on the articles of impeachment and the vote in the Senate, then the president should not be removed. So, yes, I agree with Biden.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Michale, the Clinton impeachment investigation was not done by the House. It was done by an independent counsel in private.

    Ken Starr did not testify in public until AFTER his investigation.

    Similar situation with the Nixon impeachment - the investigation by the special prosecutor in private.

    The current House investigation in private has lots of precedent.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... continued

    And I'll give you one guess as to what the easily searchable data from 2020 show:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?display=T&type=A&cycle=2020

    Of course, Mike moved the goalposts after the data was presented that answered your actual question about the "Democrats collectively" and proved his statement incorrect because that's what Mike does on this forum repeatedly.

    Hillary said something that shocked me in the podcast where she was talking about Russian assets.

    She said that after she won the nomination that she inherited next to nothing from the DNC.

    Well, the DNC isn't the "Democrats collectively," which is what you asked about.

    How does that happen!?

    It's complicated, but "Democrats collectively" have been outraising Republicans on a consistent basis for quite awhile, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of bullstench.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, let me be clear … the investigation now underway in the House is completely legitimate.

    OK, we differ on this, but it's what makes things fun.. :D

    However, if there is not a credible level of bipartisanship with regard to the actual vote on the articles of impeachment and the vote in the Senate, then the president should not be removed. So, yes, I agree with Biden.

    OK, just so I understand..

    If there is NO Bipartisan support for the House Vote, then in your opinion, the impeachment is not legitimate..

    And, would you agree that "bi partisan" means more than a handful of NeverTrumpers??

    Say 20+ GOP'ers supporting impeachment would be considered "Bi Partisan"...

    Fair??

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Just let me know what the Democrats, DNC, Republicans, and RNC have in the coffers today.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Fair enough, Michale. :)

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Donald Trump Awarded Bipartisan Justice Award for First Step Act
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/president-donald-trump-awarded-bipartisan-justice-award-for-first-step-act_3127916.html

    Funny how ya'all claim President Trump is racist, yet he is honored by black Americans for his historic legislation that rolled back the brutality of the Clinton era..

    Not to bad for a "racist" POTUS, eh?? :smirk: :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair enough, Michale. :)

    "Detente.. It's a wonderful thing..."
    -Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    60

    It is.. Victoria just can't admit I am ever factually accurate.. :D

    BS. You moved the goalposts, Mike, after you were proven incorrect. EM asked about the "Democrats collectively," and you slammed the Democrats 2016 fundraising which exceeded the GOP.

    Also, you lied when you claimed I never admitted I was wrong on this forum and made me sound downright presidential.

    It's part of her charm.. :D

    Finally... you got something correct. Good for you, Mike, for I am infinitely charming.

    The DNC is 7-10 million in debt left from 2016... Whoever is the nominee is going to have to cover the DNC debt and THEN start spending campaign funds..

    However, again, the DNC is not the "Democrats collectively." Check out those stats, Mike.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?display=T&type=A&cycle=2020

    If the Democrats are collectively "inept" at fundraising, then I'd say the GOP qualifies for "pissing in the wind" status. :)

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, again, the DNC is not the "Democrats collectively." Check out those stats, Mike.

    I never said anything about "collectively"..

    Never used the word once..

    I ALSO have a open secrets link.. :D

    A lag in fundraising casts doubt on DNC’s 2020 influence
    opensecrets.org/news/2019/05/a-lag-in-fundraising-casts-doubt-on-dncs-2020-influence/

    I was referring to the DNC and never said "Democrats collectively"..

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I understand..

    You can't admit that I am factually accurate..

    Such obstinance is positively Trumpian.. :D

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[75],

    You think that makes up for what he said about the late Rep. Elijah Cummings and his district and city or his entire record on race.

    It does not.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    You think that makes up for what he said about the late Rep. Elijah Cummings and his district and city or his entire record on race.

    It does not.

    What President Trump said was factually accurate and had been said previously by MANY Democrats INCLUDING Cummings and Bernie Sanders...

    The point is, there are NO FACTS that prove President Trump is a racist and there are TONS of FACTS that indicate President Trump is NOT a racist..

    This BiPartisan Justice Award is simply one more example that proves the point..

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    75

    Funny how ya'all claim President Trump is racist, yet he is honored by black Americans for his historic legislation that rolled back the brutality of the Clinton era..

    Not to bad for a "racist" POTUS, eh?? :smirk: :D

    Trump is going to be awarded with an impeachment by millions of "We the People" through the majority of our Representatives in the House, and that "award" will prove he's guilty as charged.

    You get my meaning or are you content playing your regular typical exercises in false equivalency?

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    78

    I never said anything about "collectively"..

    EM asked about the fundraising of the "Democrats collectively," and you slammed their fundraising of 2016. Read her question and then read your incorrect answer.

    Never used the word once..

    Elizabeth did. It was her question, and you botched the answer in spectacular fashion and also slammed the Democrats in 2020 who are also outraising the GOP. It's not complicated.

    I was referring to the DNC and never said "Democrats collectively"..

    Oh, BS. Read EM's question and your answer to it:

    Elizabeth Miller: Will the Democrats, collectively, come anywhere near the funds Trump will have for the 2020 campaign?

    *****

    Mike: Probably not..

    We saw in 2016 how utterly inept Democrats were at fundraising.. Which is why they turned control of the DNC over to Hillary..

    With disastrous results, I might add..

    There is zero indication that Democrats have learned from their mistakes..

    https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?display=T&type=A&cycle=2020

    Case closed. You're wrong about 2016 and 2020. :P

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is going to be awarded with an impeachment by millions of "We the People" through the majority of our Representatives in the House, and that "award" will prove he's guilty as charged.

    Yea.. You said much the same thing about the yer Russia Collusion delusion..

    We all know how THAT worked out.. :smirk: :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mike: Probably not..

    We saw in 2016 how utterly inept Democrats were at fundraising.. Which is why they turned control of the DNC over to Hillary..

    Thank you for proving I was talking about the DNC..

    Point to Michale :D

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Is it publicly known how much money each Dem candidate has and how much the DNC has and how both figures compare to Trump and the RNC?

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it publicly known how much money each Dem candidate has and how much the DNC has and how both figures compare to Trump and the RNC?

    It is... :D

    Dems Beware -- the RNC Is Crushing It
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/25/dems_beware_--_the_rnc_is_crushing_it_141582.html

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    From Woke to Broke

    The political contradictions of progressivism
    https://freebeacon.com/columns/from-woke-to-broke/

    It ain't pretty...

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    84

    Yea.. You said much the same thing about the yer Russia Collusion delusion..

    You seem intent on proving my point. I said no such thing. You're typical bullshit is again duly noted.

    We all know how THAT worked out.. :smirk: :D

    I don't think you do know since you didn't read it and simply regurgitate the Bill Barr bullshit you were spoon-fed. Also, that is far from over despite the lies you've accepted as fact. See Appendix D, heavily redacted, wherein multiple cases continue robustly.

    So far, we've got quite a collection of mugshots and more being added every day. Prisoners too and more coming since the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of separate sovereigns, and New York did their part just very recently by changing the law to ensure that no presidential pardon will undercut a state prosecution.

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

    Please now claim you weren't forewarned about New York when I've been given you a preview of where this was headed for years now. :)

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    You seem intent on proving my point. I said no such thing.

    Yea.. Of course you didn't...{/sarcasm} :smirk:

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pacific Gas & Electric is a case study in the progressive self-own. The state-regulated utility spent years deferring maintenance while it invested in renewable energy and promoted the ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Among the consequences of its neglect were terrible wildfires that devastated communities. The ensuing legal bills drove PG&E into bankruptcy. It says it's been forced to engage in "de-energization": purposeful mass blackouts to prevent further damage and legal action. In early October more than two million people were left in the dark. No house, no power, no prospects—welcome to the California Republic.

    :smirk: :D

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pacific Gas & Electric is a case study in the progressive self-own. The state-regulated utility spent years deferring maintenance while it invested in renewable energy and promoted the ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Among the consequences of its neglect were terrible wildfires that devastated communities. The ensuing legal bills drove PG&E into bankruptcy. It says it's been forced to engage in "de-energization": purposeful mass blackouts to prevent further damage and legal action. In early October more than two million people were left in the dark. No house, no power, no prospects—welcome to the California Republic.

    As I pointed out previously.. Any dystopian futuristic novel worth it's salt posits that intentional black-outs are sign of a decaying and putrefied society..

    As the man said, Welcome to The People's Republic Of California :smirk: :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:
  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    90

    Yea.. Of course you didn't...{/sarcasm} :smirk:

    You made the claim. Prove it or STFU. I never said that. In fact, I am on record saying I did not think Trump would be impeached... so it looks like I'm on track to be proven spectacularly wrong about that.

    The Articles of Impeachment haven't been agreed on. Who knows what they'll contain? In fact, who even knows if events might not supersede that wound render impeachment unnecessary? Because things happen and things change.

  95. [95] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-82

    Here is how I view Trump's 20/20 award:

    Saving one kitten is nice, but does not excuse drowning 99 other kittens in a sack.

    Troll is pimping a logical fallacy based on suppressed /ignored evidence fallacy. Spock would Kick his ass for this :)

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Troll is pimping a logical fallacy based on suppressed /ignored evidence fallacy. Spock would Kick his ass for this :)

    Funny how you claim to ignore me but you can't help talking about me..

    JUST as I predicted!! :D

    The simple fact is, you have NO Facts that prove President Trump is a racist and I have THOUSANDS of facts that prove he isn't..

    So you whine and cry and stamp yer feet like the petulant child you are..

    Again.. JUST as I predicted you would..

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Don't match wits with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
    -Ensign Sulu

    :D

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Will no one provide the report I asked for, in their own words?

  99. [99] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I think the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center meant well, but they have blundered into playing the roll of Afro American Sonderkommando. Trump's history of racial bigotry is so extensive it has its own Wikipedia entry (with 300+ references cited).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

    Every right wing propaganda organ in the USA has picked up on this fumble and run with it. 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center might want to adjust their board of directors.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Another question … are most of the judges being nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate, including the 37 year-old law professor whom the American Bar Association said is not qualified, replacing judges who people might call conservative judges?

  101. [101] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-86&98

    Contributions to US political campaigns must be reported on timely basis to The Federal Election Commission, but the FEC does not tally this on anything like a timely basis. All real time estimates are guesstimates.

    It gets worse.

    "Dark Money" spend on political activism "not coordinated with a specific campaign" is not reported to the FCC at all. Nobody really knows how much, to who and how it's spent.

    If all this sounds sly and crooked, it is.

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, but I was just wanting to know what the publicly released figures are and whether the Democrats (including the DNC) are in the dire straights that Hillary said they are.

    You don't have an opinion on that or any numbers to offer up?

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dark Money" spend on political activism "not coordinated with a specific campaign" is not reported to the FCC at all. Nobody really knows how much, to who and how it's spent.

    Can Biden get some of that!? Heh.

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    Worth noting re: Judge Howell's decision that the impeachment is legal and Congress should get to see all the Mueller info - that she also states:

    This OLC legal conclusion has never been adopted, sanctioned, or in any way approved by a court.

    She's referring to the untested legal opinion that a sitting potus cannot be indicted, to which Mueller paid unnecessary fealty.

    Lots of people have acted as though that untested opinion was LAW!!! and that it couldn't be challenged. Not so.

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula

    She's referring to the untested legal opinion that a sitting potus cannot be indicted, to which Mueller paid unnecessary fealty.

    You don't think that's a bit of cheap shot at Director Mueller?

    I really think that, like the IC whistleblower, the Mueller report set the roadmap for Congress and that Congress should have run with it.

    The Mueller report outlined a lot of bad behavior but I don't for a moment think that it alone would have impeached the president let alone indict him.

    Are you saying that Director Mueller should have charged the president?

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Lots of people have acted as though that untested opinion was LAW!!! and that it couldn't be challenged. Not so.

    How so?

    Can that OLC opinion be challenged in court on it's own, without reference to the Mueller report or impeachment or anything else?

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you saying that Director Mueller should have charged the president?

    Or maybe I should have said recommended charging the president.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's history of racial bigotry is so extensive it has its own Wikipedia entry (with 300+ references cited).

    Racial bigotry??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'SEE REDUNDANT'..."

    Only a true bigot and a moron would even CONCEIVE a concept such as "racial bigotry".. :smirk:

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every right wing propaganda organ in the USA has picked up on this fumble and run with it. 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center might want to adjust their board of directors.

    To be more in keeping with DEMOCRAT "racial bigotry", eh??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You crack me up, Stig..

    You put on aires like yer some deep thinker, but your spewage is that of a recalcitrant bigoted 10 yr old..

    :D

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    EM: On balance, yes, I think Mueller should have indicted Blotus. After Judge Howell's decision it certainly looks as though the courts would have upheld the abiiity of a potus to be indicted. But even if they didn't, if Mueller had approached the investigation without constraining himself with the idea that he absolutely could not indict Blotus, there's all sorts of ways his report would've/could've been different and even more damning.

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Could the next president act to get rid of that OLC opinion?

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Consider it a news flash. :)

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Could the next president act to get rid of that OLC opinion?

    Think of the consequences..

    Do you WANT a Democrat President to have to face the kind of animosity that Democrats have shown President Trump??

    Do you WANT a GOP Congress to be able to call up every little misstep that a Dem POTUS makes and have that POTUS ***ARRESTED*** for it???

    Think of the chaos!!!

    Democrats have a problem with not thinking thru their actions..

    One would think they have learned their lessons, but the keep making the same mistakes over and over again..

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    ICE Agents Hurl Pregnant Immigrant Over Mexican Border To Prevent Birth On U.S. Soil
    https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_1600/doryqqxskvuwkcmkxcqu.jpg

    What's so hilarious is that DEMOCRATS are so filled with hate and bigotry and intolerance that they actually BUY INTO this utter garbage!!

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you WANT a Democrat President to have to face the kind of animosity that Democrats have shown President Trump??

    If that Democratic president abused the power his office, obstructed justice, publicly took the word of a KGB operative over his own IC, consistently demeaned his fellow citizens, called the media the enemy of the people … just for starters, then YES, I would not only want that president to face that same kind of animosity, I would hope that the America people and their reps would want to throw him out of office.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that Democratic president abused the power his office, obstructed justice, publicly took the word of a KGB operative over his own IC, consistently demeaned his fellow citizens, called the media the enemy of the people … just for starters, then YES, I would not only want that president to face that same kind of animosity, I would hope that the America people and their reps would want to throw him out of office.

    Let me put it this way, Liz..

    How do you think Obama would have faired if he could have been **ARRESTED** for every little thing the GOP cooked up???

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point is, think of the most awesome power you could give a Democrat POTUS...

    Then think of how that power would be used if it was a POTUS like ya'all think President Trump is?

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We are not talking about "every little thing", Michale.

    Obama/Biden would have done just fine. I know this because they did.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [118] What's your point?

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    [118] What's your point?

    My point??

    When Harry Reid was the Senate Majority leader, he thought how wonderful it would be if Democrats could just fill the courts with Obama judges.. So Harry eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees..

    A VERY short-sighted move, as it gave Democrats Justice Gorsuch & Justice Kavanaugh..

    For ever "rule" you want to change to favor Democrats, you MUST take into account that the changed rule will allow Republicans to do what they will when THEY are in the majority..

    And if Republicans are as evil and corrupt as ya'all claim??

    Do you REALLY want to give them more power???

    Obama's explosion of Executive Orders (Remember?? "I have a Pen and a Phone"??)

    Well, NOW President Trump has a pen and a phone.. And HE appears to be even LESS CONSTRAINED than Obama was to use them..

    My point??

    Simple...

    What comes around, goes around...

    In short.. Karma's a bitch...

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm confused. All I'm talking about is jettisoning of a DOJ OLC opinion that says a president can be indicted.

    Now, there's simplicity for you.

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CAN'T

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lots of people have acted as though that untested opinion was LAW!!! and that it couldn't be challenged. Not so.

    Fine.. So let's wait until there is a DEM POTUS (If that ever happens again in our lifetime) and THEN let's test that opinion of LAW..

    You for that??

    Of course you aren't..

    Which proves yer just spewing Party slavery...

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm calling it a day … see you after the next column is up!

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm confused. All I'm talking about is jettisoning of a DOJ OLC opinion that says a president can be indicted.

    Now, there's simplicity for you.

    OK.. Then let's wait until there is a DEM POTUS and *THEN* we can jettison that OLC opinion..

    You down for that??

    Of course you aren't..

    And THAT proves my point of 121 and 118...

    Democrats are perfectly fine changing the rules when they are in charge..

    Yet, they fail (EVERY TIME) to take into account the FACT that those same rule changes give MORE power to the GOP when THEY are in power..

    Take this current faux impeachment coup..

    If Democrats lose the House in 2020 (which is all but guaranteed) and, by some utter fluke, we have President Biden or President Warren...

    What's to stop the GOP from instigating secret star chamber "impeachment inquiries" on President Biden or President Warren??

    Nothing... Because moronic Democrats established the precedent to do so..

    If we have a President Biden or President Warren... THEN let's discuss removing the OLC rule??

    K?? You be OK with doing that then??? :D

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm calling it a day … see you after the next column is up!

    But!! But!!! But that's 2 days away!!!!!! :'(

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    I understand.. You don't like getting down into the weeds..

    But the weeds is where politics meets reality...

    It's the most fun... :D

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You down for that??

    Well, I am the one who said it should be done. And it doesn't matter what future president does it.

    I'm not talking about appointing judges I'm talking about presidents who abuse their power.

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Give me a freakin' break, Micdhale.

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    Giuliani attacks Hunter Biden’s dealings with business executive despite working for same man

    Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, signalled this month that he planned to open a new front in his attacks against former Vice President Joe Biden — work done by Mr Biden’s son Hunter Biden for a wealthy Romanian business executive facing corruption charges.

    But there’s a problem with that strategy: Mr Giuliani participated in an effort that would have helped the same executive and was in fact recruited to do so by Louis Freeh, a former FBI director who had been brought into the matter by Hunter Biden.

    In effect, Mr Giuliani and Hunter Biden were on the same team, if not at the same time. And their work to help the business executive, along with that of Mr Freeh, stood in contrast to efforts by the United States, including Joe Biden while he was in office, to encourage anti-corruption efforts in Romania.

    The dynamic in Romania underscores how Mr Giuliani has done brisk international business with clients who sometimes seem to be seeking to capitalise on his connections to President Trump, even as he has accused Hunter Biden of seeking to capitalise on his father’s name while doing business in other countries. And the disclosure of the connection between his role in Romania and Hunter Biden’s comes at a time when Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor, is under investigation by federal prosecutors in New York for possible violations of foreign lobbying laws.

    Hunter Biden, who is a lawyer, was retained by the business executive, Gabriel Popoviciu, in 2015, while his father was vice president, to help try to fend off charges in Romania being pursued by anti-corruption prosecutors. In 2016, Mr Popoviciu was convicted on charges related to a land deal in northern Bucharest, the Romanian capital.

    Mr Popoviciu appealed the decision.

    Around the time of the 2016 conviction, Hunter Biden recruited Mr Freeh to assist on the case, according to four people familiar with the effort. Mr Freeh then retained Mr Giuliani, who last year criticised Romania’s anti-corruption crackdown and urged amnesty to those who had been convicted, which could have included Mr Popoviciu.

    Mr Giuliani’s involvement came after Mr Biden bowed out of the case, according to three people familiar with the arrangements.

    The episode, elements of which were reported Thursday by NBC News, is another example of the paydays available to politically prominent Americans willing to work for foreign interests, some of whom are hoping to parlay Washington connections into favourable treatment at home and on the world stage.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rudy-guliani-hunter-biden-romania-louis-freeh-ukraine-impeachment-scandal-a9172061.html

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not talking about appointing judges I'm talking about presidents who abuse their power.

    True.. But according to GOPers, Obama abused his power..

    Without the OLC, GOPers could have had Obama arrested..

    That's my point..

    If you make a rule change, you have to abide by it when politicos use it in a manner you did not intend..

    It's called the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES..

    And, as of late, Democrats have been totally bitch slapped by those unintended consequences.. :D

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:
  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the social sciences, unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated consequences or unforeseen consequences) are outcomes that are not the ones foreseen and intended by a purposeful action. The term was popularised in the twentieth century by American sociologist Robert K. Merton.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give me a freakin' break, Micdhale.

    On which part??? :D

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Micdhale.

    One tee meeny martoonies??? :D

    I am with ya.. On my 5th beer.. :D hehehe

    Let's make it a party!!!!!!!! :D

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's not that kind of day. See you on Tuesday.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not that kind of day.

    That's what's great about being military and LEO retired..

    It's **ALWAYS** that kind of day!!! :D

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner will celebrate 10th wedding anniversary at 'rustic' Camp David with intimate party – and no paparazzi

    Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner will toast a decade of marriage this weekend at Camp David

    DailyMail.com learned there will be a 'small family event at camp,' with Vanity Fair reporting that all of the couple's siblings will attend

    President Trump was headed to the 'very rustic' retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains after a day trip to South Carolina Friday
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7615297/Ivanka-Trump-Jared-Kushner-celebrate-10th-wedding-anniversary-Camp-David.html

    Congratulations to the newlyweds... :D

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    95

    Saving one kitten is nice, but does not excuse drowning 99 other kittens in a sack.

    Meow... Me ow!

    Troll is pimping a logical fallacy based on suppressed /ignored evidence fallacy. Spock would Kick his ass for this :)

    *laughs*

    And after said ass kicking, the inestimable S'chn T'gai Spock would pick Mike's ass up off the floor as he simultaneously performed on him a wicked Vulcan mind meld and explained to him in no uncertain terms the myriad of ways in which Mike's logic is infinitely and truly simple and how stellar of Mike to admit this fact repeatedly to the world since confession is indeed good for the soul of lesser mortals like Mike. :)

  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    96

    The simple fact is, you have NO Facts that prove President Trump is a racist and I have THOUSANDS of facts that prove he isn't..

    You needn't keep reminding us how simple your "facts" are since we do not share your demonstrable dearth of reading comprehension abilities. So sayeth Spock... so sayeth we all.

    So you whine and cry and stamp yer feet like the petulant child you are..

    It's very presidential. :)

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    97

    "Don't match wits with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
    -Ensign Sulu

    That certainly explains Mike's polka dot complexion.

    Now do Orange. :)

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    98

    Will no one provide the report I asked for, in their own words?

    What report? *be right back*

    https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    100

    Another question … are most of the judges being nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate, including the 37 year-old law professor whom the American Bar Association said is not qualified, replacing judges who people might call conservative judges?

    Case-by-case basis... usually replacing a mixed bag of retired judges.

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    104

    Worth noting re: Judge Howell's decision that the impeachment is legal and Congress should get to see all the Mueller info - that she also states:

    This OLC legal conclusion has never been adopted, sanctioned, or in any way approved by a court.

    I know, right!? It's an awesome long opinion that does no favors for the DOJ.

    Bill Barr will rue the day he redacted parts of the Mueller Report and misrepresented its contents beyond Mueller's redactions and Mueller's memo in order to run interference to protect the asses of Trump and company.

    United States v. WikiLeaks is our most likely destination with our next stop on the highway being the trial of Roger Stone... fasten your seat belts, fellow travelers. :)

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    114

    Do you WANT a Democrat President to have to face the kind of animosity that Democrats have shown President Trump??

    Been there, done that... the GOP invented this BS.

    Democrats have a problem with not thinking thru their actions..

    Your blanket bullshit generalizations like this is why no one need ever take you seriously.

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    KIck,

    Case-by-case basis... usually replacing a mixed bag of retired judges.

    Usually. But, during the last couple of years I've heard that there aren't too many liberal judges retiring or dying and that most of Trumps picks are simply replacing the same kind of judge.

    That's what I was asking -- hope I heard right!

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick [143]

    So, Hillary was right - the Dems are in pretty bad shape as compared with Trump when it comes to campaign funds.

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    124

    Fine.. So let's wait until there is a DEM POTUS (If that ever happens again in our lifetime) and THEN let's test that opinion of LAW..

    You for that??

    Of course you aren't..

    Which proves yer just spewing Party slavery...

    You really are nothing but a troll spewing the same simple hateful bullshit over and over ad nauseam and referring to anyone you perceive to be a Democrat as a slave.

    Your repetitive bullshit is so simple, and you seriously seem to appear as though you actually believe the utter asinine proposition that you're some kind of social justice warrior with a valid point when basically all you do is repeat the same seriously simple spew over and over while referring to everyone as a Democrat and calling them a slave over and over.

    It's pathetic, and your shit serves no useful purpose other than to troll and call everyone who disagrees with you a slave... over and over and over.

    Get over yourself.

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    128

    I understand.. You don't like getting down into the weeds..

    You understand precious little since you keep referring to Elizabeth as a Democrat and a slave. Doing that shit over and over isn't getting down into the weeds... it's just the same simple shit you prattle on and on about daily as if you serve some kind of useful purpose beyond trolling and referring to everyone as a slave.

    But the weeds is where politics meets reality...

    You're not really discussing politics, Mike. You're discussing hypocrisy and hatred over and over as if you're not the poster child on this board who represents the living embodiment of them the most.

    We get that you hate Democrats and think they are slaves. Your daily hate-filled rants saying the same shit over and over are archived for all posterity.

    So how about discussing actual politics versus your trolling the forum with the same simple spew over and over that never varies and ends with the word slavery as if you're stuck on stupid?

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    130

    Give me a freakin' break, Michale.

    Exactly right, EM! That's exactly what I was trying to say with my last few posts. You said it best. :)

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    132

    Deflect, deflect, deflect... stuck on stupid and hates Democrats.

    This is not discussing politics. You hate Democrats; we get it. Noun... verb... slaves.

  153. [153] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    133

    Trump hating Left Wing rag...

    'nuff said...

    So you're not really here to discuss politics. You can't refute the substance of the story so you assign it the characteristics that you spew here repeatedly daily and you're on to the next hate filled rant... Noun... verb... slaves.

    You seem to be a slave to your own hatred of all things Democratic, so you naturally explain away inconvenient facts by projecting that hatred onto anything that deigns to to not toe your cult-like worship of Donald Trump.

    Rudy Giuliani worked for the same guy as Hunter Biden. Manafort is in jail partially for his dealings with the corruption in Ukraine and these yahoos want to point fingers at Hunter Biden and Ukraine!?

    Hunter Biden isn't running for POTUS. :)

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    147

    That's what I was asking -- hope I heard right!

    Oh, I see... then I also hope you heard right. :)

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    148

    So, Hillary was right - the Dems are in pretty bad shape as compared with Trump when it comes to campaign funds.

    The DNC is, but the candidates definitely are not. Keep in mind that the DNC is generally outraised by the RNC while Democratic candidates generally outraise the GOP as a whole.

    No worries, though, EM. It just means those who contribute to Democrats do so directly to candidates versus being slaves to the Party like the GOP Party Whores. :)

  156. [156] 
    Paula wrote:

    The DNC has been in clean-up mode since 2016/Debbie Wasserman Schultz. When HRC was running she was also dealing with problems at the DNC under DWS's tenure. At the same time BSanders was whining about "favoritism" and otherwise generating as much bad press as possible about the DNC and Dem party as he could. Result has been that the DNC is now blamed for everything and anything people want to complain about re: the Democratic Party, including about all sorts of things the DNC has no control over.

    Tom Perez was given the mandate to clean things up and to come up with a primary process that couldn't be accused of favoritism. The latter is basically impossible since sore losers like to use the DNC as the reason for their lack of success. But Perez has done his best to do the impossible, with mixed results - which is the best anyone can do. There will always be people who will not like the outcomes and will blame the process.

    Separately, a lot of people decided they'd prefer to donate directly to candidates they like rather than via the DNC. Given we've had upwards of 22-25 candidates and most of them have gotten donations there's no question Dems are giving. Eventually there will be one at the top of the ticket and donations will start to concentrate. Of course there will be lots of down-ticket candidates looking for money too.

    On the Repub side there will be big dollars flowing from very wealthy fig-puckers as well as the donations from the cultists. Will the Repubs out-raise Dems? Probably. There's more money on the right. By how much etc. remains to be seen.

  157. [157] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    [32]

    OK. Where is the problem with this? Joe Biden was pushing for a crackdown on corruption and Hunter was providing legal counsel to someone charged with fraud. Where is there a conflict of interest?

    Change the names to Trump and you'll see the conflict of interest..

    No, I don’t.

    If I change the names to Trump, you have someone giving legal advice without a law degree and the sentence would sound like the ravings of a mad man if I were to exchange Trump for Joe — because we all know that Trump has never pushed for a crackdown on corruption with the Ukrainians.

    But there is still no “conflict of interest”.

    Actually I have never commented or relayed my opinions on President Trump's conflict of interest..

    Other than denying that any exist, I think you meant to say.

    I simply point out ya'all's hypocrisy on the issue and prove beyond any doubt that any "conflict of interest" you see in President Trump's et al dealings is SOLELY based on Party slavery rather than any REAL problem with the alleged conflict of interest..

    God, this makes you sound even more pathetic when you realize everyone else is here to discuss the politics and events occurring in this country. You come here simply to attack people to make yourself feel better.

    It’s even more repulsive when you see how bad you are at it! You make up and attack us for quotes that no one here ever made. You aren’t here to argue the merits of our arguments, you are here to attack us for simply having an opinion. You make it clear that every position we have must be hypocritical prior to us offering it.

    You don’t offer your own opinions because obviously you’d have to admit that you agree with us... because for you, this is —after all— only about stroking your own ego by putting others down.

    As I have said, I have built a pretty awesome cottage industry at pointing out ya'all's hypocrisy and ya'all's enslavement (NEN) by Party dogma...

    You’ve ”built a pretty awesome cottage industry at pointing out ya'all's hypocrisy and ya'all's enslavement (NEN) by Party dogma...?!?

    Who the FDUCK says this? Oh yeah, a pathetic, out-of-touch, delusional piece of shat with no self-esteem and no honor... a troll!

  158. [158] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Michale #24 Please explain how a Republican government can reduce the winds? Tell me exactly how a Republican firefighter can do a better job when confronted with a 100 foot tall wall of flames moving at 30 miles an hour and so hot it melts your fire truck? You do know that it was Bush who drastically cut the budget for Federal firefighting aircraft and that 80% of the wild-lands in CA where these fires start are owned by the Federal Govt. From where I sit in a smoke filled town I see our state doing more to impede climate change than any other country let alone another state. The R's in Washington including your friend Trump are doing their level best to derail those efforts. Please name one Republican initiative that would improve the fire situation here in CA.

  159. [159] 
    Paula wrote:

    And looky-here - some minutes after posting [156] about DNC and donations this piece comes up:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/10/26/at-least-20-billionaires-behind-dark-money-group-that-opposed-obama/#26e981d06c66

    A nonprofit group with a bland name, Americans for Job Security, spent $5 million supporting Republicans in the 2010 midterms and $15 million denouncing former President Obama in the 2012 election, but until this week, the group never had to file disclosures showing where its money was coming from.

  160. [160] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [44]

    Spot on!

    Funny that when I recently called him out for admitting he is here just to troll others, he called me a liar! Even after I posted his own admission to this:

    But, as usual, my comments are NOT a judgment on the actions of Odumbo OR President Trump..

    My comments are on the fact that ya'all's condemnations are totally and completely one sided...

    I think someone is now claiming that his arguments do not actually reflect his opinions on the matter because he knows Trump is going to go down and down hard...and he’ll quickly switch his story to be that he never actually supported the treasonous tumor in the White House.

    He is here to make himself feel better by attacking people who come here to discuss CW’s articles and the events of the day for being hypocrites, regardless of whether their arguments are actually hypocritical or not! And then showing what a truly pathetic coward he is, he tosses out that he doesn’t actually hold the opinions that he is arguing! He is basically admitting that it is likely that he’s attacked people for arguments that he actually agreed with!

    This admission by the troll is mind-boggling and sickening...but these are his own words!

  161. [161] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Italyrusty [46]

    I completely agree with you that Democrats need to make Trump’s turning his back on the Kurds — giving the green light for their extermination by Turkey — a big part of their message for why evangelicals should not support Trump. When Pat Robertson says Trump has broken his covenant with God to lead this nation by turning his back on the Kurdish Christians, that’s something Democrats should pay attention to!

    And you know Michale cannot find fault with your argument when all he can do is point to the source and say that it makes the point you are making moot.

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    INTERESTING NEWS

    Got a call from a source in DC that Special Forces operation believes they've killed HVT Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS leader.

  163. [163] 
    dsws wrote:

    Actually, the DNC may very be what Michale said - inept at fundraising.

    I'm not sure why any donor would want to give to the DNC, rather than to individual campaigns, PACs, super-PACs, and nominally-nonpolitical nonprofits.

  164. [164] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It’s no accident that we have a toothless FEC around the time that we learn of the Russians setting up a way to launder money into Trump’s and Republican PAC’s.

  165. [165] 
    dsws wrote:

    [19]
    It's not really an apt analogy.

    It's not an analogy. It's an alternate example. It's me asking us to take away the particulars of what candidate it was about and what he's said before, and focus on what's being asked of him. You can't control someone else's spending. If a PAC you're not in charge of decides to spend money, you can't stop them. The original pledge doesn't make sense.

    [34]
    So, APPARENTLY, it's wrong and abhorrent when President Trump compares this faux impeachment coup to lynching..

    BUT....

    But it's perfectly acceptable to compare Clinton's impeachment to lynching.

    It's disgusting that Biden did it, too. I'm still going to vote for him next November, after I vote against him in the primary.

    [44]
    Mike is just here to prattle on and on like a whiny little

    I would appreciate it if you didn't equate women with dogs.

    [69]
    However, if there is not a credible level of bipartisanship with regard to the actual vote on the articles of impeachment and the vote in the Senate, then the president should not be removed.

    Removal without bipartisanship would mean an intervening election, in which the Democrats (including independents who caucus Democratic) would have to have gained twenty seats. That's not normally even possible, since only 33 or 34 senators are up for election each cycle, and about half tend to be from each major party. In a hypothetical scenario where voters remove so many incumbent senators, I think that would be enough of a mandate, even if the rump Republican Party remained defiant.

  166. [166] 
    dsws wrote:

    [116] LizM:
    If that Democratic president abused the power his office, obstructed justice, publicly took the word of a KGB operative over his own IC, consistently demeaned his fellow citizens, called the media the enemy of the people … just for starters, then YES, I would not only want that president to face that same kind of animosity, I would hope that the America people and their reps would want to throw him out of office.

    I agree.

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    SF Bear,

    Michale #24 Please explain how a Republican government can reduce the winds? Tell me exactly how a Republican firefighter can do a better job when confronted with a 100 foot tall wall of flames moving at 30 miles an hour and so hot it melts your fire truck? You do know that it was Bush who drastically cut the budget for Federal firefighting aircraft and that 80% of the wild-lands in CA where these fires start are owned by the Federal Govt. From where I sit in a smoke filled town I see our state doing more to impede climate change than any other country let alone another state. The R's in Washington including your friend Trump are doing their level best to derail those efforts. Please name one Republican initiative that would improve the fire situation here in CA.

    And THAT is why California is such a fraked up state.

    It's trying to STOP the climate from changing.. It's SQUEEZING it's citizens of money and effort to stop the planet's climate from changing..

    Next year, California will launch a NEW (and VERY VERY VERY expensive) initiative to stop the planet's orbit..

    Stay tuned... :smirk:

    California is a shithole because it's government is concerned more about a ridiculous agenda than it is about it's citizens..

    And I say that as a son of California...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not an analogy. It's an alternate example. It's me asking us to take away the particulars of what candidate it was about and what he's said before, and focus on what's being asked of him. You can't control someone else's spending. If a PAC you're not in charge of decides to spend money, you can't stop them. The original pledge doesn't make sense.

    True... But you CAN make it clear that you do not support this PAC and that you will have nothing to do with it.

    The point is that Joe flip-floped on how he felt about Super PACs..

    It's disgusting that Biden did it, too.

    I don't agree, but that's not the point..

    The point is, at the time, no Democrat said BOO about it.. Hell, I am sure most Democrats at the time AGREED with Biden..

    But NOW that a POTUS with an -R after their name says it.. NOW it's disgusting and abhorrent.

    Simply more proof that all is at play here is -D vs -R...

    It's as comical as SPY vs SPY of old MAD MAGAZINE fame..

    I'm still going to vote for him next November

    Wanna bet??? :D

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    INTERESTING NEWS

    Got a call from a source in DC that Special Forces operation believes they've killed HVT Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS leader.

    So... Matt Drudge called ya???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    ISIS LEADER KILLED
    https://drudgereport.com/

    :smirk:

    :D

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    If that Democratic president abused the power his office, obstructed justice, publicly took the word of a KGB operative over his own IC, consistently demeaned his fellow citizens, called the media the enemy of the people …

    Would YOU take the word of your own Intelligence Agencies if they were PROVEN to be working against you and against the country??

    No you would not..

    As to the rest.. Obama "abused" his office MORE than President Trump has ever done.. But you don't consider it "abuse" because you agree with his actions..

    As far as "consistently demeaned fellow citizens"..

    You mean, like "Blotus"?? Or maybe "Orange DICK Tator"??? Or you might mean "Rethuglicans".. Or possibly you mean "Republicants"....

    I mean, if yer gonna start throwing people out of their jobs for "demeaning fellow citizens", why not start cleaning your own house first??

    As far as the media is the enemy of the people, that is self-evidently factual..

    I'm just sayin'...

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    OH!!!! OH!!!! OH!!!!

    President Trump called me!! He said he approved an op to take out ISIS top leadership!!

    TRUMP APPROVES SPECIAL OPS RAID TARGETING ISIS LEADER BAGHDADI, MILITARY SAYS HE'S DEAD
    https://www.newsweek.com/trump-approves-special-ops-raid-targeting-isis-leader-baghdadi-1467982

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Now watch.. Ya'all are going to attack President Trump because he ordered the assassination of a foreign leader...

    :smirk: :D

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    COMEY ON TRUMP WINNING IN 2020: I’LL BE AT ‘MY NEW HOME IN NEW ZEALAND’

    ‘Our leaders cannot be people who lie all the time’
    https://news.grabien.com/story-comey-trump-winning-2020-ill-be-my-new-home-new-zealand

    Yea, yea, yea... Every moron who has made that pledge is still here in the United States, still being morons and dipshits.

    Which are you, Comey?? Moron or dipshit?? :smirk: :D

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    publicly took the word of a KGB operative over his own IC,

    "Captain, I come to you because I see my world in danger—and incidentally yours—and there's no more help to be found among my friends. At such a time, with millions and billions of lives riding on what is done, pride dies, and one has recourse to one's enemies."
    -Ael, STAR TREK, My Enemy My Ally

  175. [175] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in comey's case, he might really have to move for his own safety.

  176. [176] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as for superpacs, they're basically the political equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. it would be better if nobody had them, but as long as they're on the field it's foolish not to be armed with them.

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    but as long as they're on the field it's foolish not to be armed with them.

    As it would be foolish to foreswear their use...

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Last night, the United States brought the world’s No. 1 terrorist leader to justice,” Trump said in remarks from the East Room of the White House. “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead.

    The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread, terrified of the American forces bearing down on him.”
    -President Donald Trump

    Ooorrraaaaa, Mr President!!

    I am sure that all here who swooned and fawned all over Obama when Osama was hunted down and eliminated will give equal credit to President Donald Trump with equal passion, eh??

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    44

    I would appreciate it if you didn't equate women with dogs.

    In no way whatsoever did I equate "women with dogs," but apparently you just did. Allow me to walk your slow-firing synapses through the particulars:

    Mike is just here to prattle on and on like a whiny little bitch. ~ Kick

    Fact 1: Mike is a male.
    Fact 2: Mike prattles on and on, repetitively so.
    Fact 3: A whiny little bitch is a whimpering small female dog, wolf, etc.

    I would appreciate it if you didn't equate women with dogs. ~ dsws

    I didn't. See above. The only way in which you could conclude I compared "women with dogs" would be:

    * You think Mike is a woman.
    * You think women are bitches.

    Women aren't bitches. Bitches are whimpering female dogs. I compared Mike with a whimpering female dog, but the word "bitch" works so well in the scenario because Mike bitches a lot about the same thing over and over while pretending to discuss political issues when all he's actually accomplishing is the spewing of his venomous hatred of Democrats on this forum and anyone who disagrees with him is labelled thusly and summarily compared to human chattel.

    So to recap: I equated Mike with a whiny little bitch, while you apparently believe either Mike is a woman and/or that women are bitches.

    I would appreciate it if you didn't compare women with bitches. ~ Kick

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT ABOVE

    dsws
    [165]

  181. [181] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    169

    So... Matt Drudge called ya???

    Perhaps it was Drudge's boyfriend, but I'm not one to reveal sources... that's how they remain my reliable sources over decades.

    Besides, you seem blissfully unaware that Drudge isn't really a reliable source, peddling primarily in conspiracy theory bullshit for rubes and not really a DC guy but Shithole, Florida.

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, your "source" gave you info that Speaker of the House didn't even have??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I get it, Victoria... Yer a legend in yer own mind...

    :smirk: :D

  183. [183] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    170

    The fact that you'd pollute this forum with that bullshit speaks volumes about you and nobody else.

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    182

    So, your "source" gave you info that Speaker of the House didn't even have??

    I didn't say that since it would take a special kind of stupid for anyone to assume/presume the Speaker of the House didn't have that information when her sources are likely far more numerous and better than mine.

    I get it, Victoria... Yer a legend in yer own mind...

    No, I just reported on the forum what a reliable source had relayed to me. That source is quite a legend, though. :)

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that you'd pollute this forum with that bullshit speaks volumes about you and nobody else.

    The fact that you claim to have "sources" that reveal classified information to you is laughable... Which speaks volumes to how you have totally destroyed this once enjoyable place...

    Things were a LOT nicer here before you and your fellow haters and bigots showed up..

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't say that since it would take a special kind of stupid for anyone to assume/presume the Speaker of the House didn't have that information when her sources are likely far more numerous and better than mine

    As usual, I prove you are talking out your ass..

    Mr. Trump said he did not inform congressional leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of the raid beforehand, out of fear it would leak publicly. The House Intelligence Committee said it was also not aware of the operation ahead of time.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-major-statement-sunday-9-am-et-white-house-says-trump-will-make-a-major-statement-2019-10-27/

    As usual, you are full of shit..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    What a total moron you are, Victoria.. :smirk:

  187. [187] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    172

    President Trump called me!! He said he approved an op to take out ISIS top leadership!!

    Why would he phone when all he would have had to do was look down and tell you?

    Now watch.. Ya'all are going to attack President Trump because he ordered the assassination of a foreign leader...

    You're really not here to discuss political issues; you seriously just want to troll others.

    Your trolling, your hatred of Democrats and anyone who disagrees with you, and your standard prejudgments of the posters on this forum are again duly noted.

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how you are so defensive, Victoria... Hittin' a little close to home, am I? :D

    I find that hilarious!! :smirk:

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    185

    The fact that you claim to have "sources" that reveal classified information to you is laughable... Which speaks volumes to how you have totally destroyed this once enjoyable place...

    I never claimed any "sources reveal classified information" to me. I simply posted what a reliable source revealed to me in a phone call. Were they wrong?

    Things were a LOT nicer here before you and your fellow haters and bigots showed up..

    You keep saying that, but the archives linked at your left prove otherwise, and a reader needs only to view them. In addition, there's also your bragging on more than one occasion to me about how you'd run off multiple other posters whom you listed by name... people that I'd never heard of until I read the archives and indeed observed how you trolled them in similar fashion to how you carry on now and your insistence that I'd be no different from them and you'd run me off.

    How's that working out for you?

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP vows to take new steps to protect Trump
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467533-gop-vows-to-take-new-steps-to-protect-trump

    Say goodbye to bipartisan impeachment... :D

    According to Joe Biden, NO bipartisan, NO legitimacy...

    If Democrats continue to pursue, then it WILL be a bona fide and proven coup.. In every way that matters...

    :smirk:

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    I never claimed any "sources reveal classified information" to me. I simply posted what a reliable source revealed to me in a phone call.

    And I have PROVEN you to be a total and complete liar..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

  192. [192] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    continuing to call this impeachment a "coup" is very clever framing, but completely inaccurate in practically every way, including all those that matter and most of those that don't.
    JL

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    186

    I didn't say that since it would take a special kind of stupid for anyone to assume/presume the Speaker of the House didn't have that information when her sources are likely far more numerous and better than mine. ~ Kick

    As usual, I prove you are talking out your ass..

    No, you proved no such thing.

    Mr. Trump said he did not inform congressional leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of the raid beforehand, out of fear it would leak publicly. The House Intelligence Committee said it was also not aware of the operation ahead of time.

    Yes, I know Trump said he did not inform congressional leaders, but I cannot fathom why anyone would take Trump at his word since he lies virtually every time he opens his mouth. Assume that Trump didn't inform a single congressional leader up to and including Nancy Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee and anyone living and with a pulse, it would still take a very special kind of stupid for anyone to assume/presume that Nancy Pelosi did not have another source that did informed her what was going on since she's been kicking around Washington, DC for quite awhile now and has better and more numerous sources than me. Whether Pelosi did or didn't know what was going on, I'm not sure she would make that knowledge known either way, but I sure as hell wouldn't take the word of Donald Trump that she didn't know anything about it because that would take a special kind of stupid since I have no idea what Nancy Pelosi knows... but I do know she's got sources besides the current president and the president before him and even the president before the president before him.

    As usual, you are full of shit..

    Mostly water, actually, like everyone else, but I'm sure as hell not the special kind of stupid that believes they know what Nancy Pelosi knows just because Donald Trump says he didn't tell her. :)

  194. [194] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    188

    Funny how you are so defensive, Victoria...

    Nope... and your judgment is terrible as per usual.

    Hittin' a little close to home, am I?

    You are that special kind of stupid who makes a lot of assumptions and makes an ass out of himself; you're not only not "close to home," you're not even in the ballpark. Go Astros!

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump says he kept details of ISIS operation from Pelosi to avoid leaks
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-he-kept-details-of-isis-operation-from-pelosi-to-avoid-leaks

    Speaker of the House.. The THIRD in line for the Presidency...

    Nancy Pelosi was kept in the dark..

    But our own Victoria.... SHE got advance notice..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Vic, honey... Yer such a liar.... :smirk:

    :D

  196. [196] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    191

    And I have PROVEN you to be a total and complete liar..

    No, you haven't. You've only proven that you seem to genuinely believe everything Trump says and that you're that special kind of stupid rube who would presume to know what Nancy Pelosi knows and that if Donald Trump didn't tell her something she'd have no other way finding it out. *laughs*

    So you've proven two things:
    * You're an idiot.
    * You're a troll.

  197. [197] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    RE: 192

    it was also clever framing and completely inaccurate in 1998, the last time the president's party made such a claim.

    JL

  198. [198] 
    dsws wrote:

    [179]

    Ok. If you want to be an the kind of asshole who pretends not to know that the word in question equates women with dogs, no matter what context it's used in, that's your problem. No need to spend five paragraphs on it.

  199. [199] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if the vice-president and the cabinet invoked the 25th amendment, that might be a little closer.

  200. [200] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    198

    Ok. If you want to be an the kind of asshole who pretends not to know that the word in question equates women with dogs, no matter what context it's used in, that's your problem. No need to spend five paragraphs on it.

    My but you are being bitchy too and whining that I made a comparison of women to dogs that never took place. If you want to pretend that referring to someone as a "whiny little bitch" is the equivalent of comparing women to dogs, then I cannot help you.

    Women are not dogs, I can assure you. If your mind automatically thinks of women when someone uses the word "bitch," then you're the one with the problem!

  201. [201] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    176

    as for superpacs, they're basically the political equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. it would be better if nobody had them, but as long as they're on the field it's foolish not to be armed with them.

    Very well stated. Super PACS... so like pie in a pie fight. ;)

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:
  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    continuing to call this impeachment a "coup" is very clever framing, but completely inaccurate in practically every way, including all those that matter and most of those that don't.

    Actually, considering all the Democrats actions up to this point beginning 10 Nov 2016???

    Coup is a completely accurate term...

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    Ok. If you want to be an the kind of asshole who pretends not to know that the word in question equates women with dogs, no matter what context it's used in, that's your problem. No need to spend five paragraphs on it.

    OH SNAP!!!! Heh!!

    Welcome to the new wonderful world of Weigtantia... :D

  205. [205] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    you can keep repeating that inaccurate frame, but neither you nor donald nor bill clinton nor richard nixon gets to unilaterally change the meaning of the word.
    JL

  206. [206] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    from merriam-webster:

    Definition of coup d'état
    : a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics
    especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

    you find the part of that definition that has absolutely anything to do with donald being investigated and possibly impeached for (allegedly) extorting ukraine to investigate the bidens. pretty much the entire definition is the exact opposite of what's happening.

    JL

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics

    Which describes EXACTLY what Democrats are doing..

    They didn't like the election results so they are trying to nullify them..

    Textbook definition of a coup...

    Also known as SORE LUSERS...

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats WEREN'T pushing a coup, then they would be content to wait and defeat President Trump at the ballot box.

    But Democrats KNOW that they will lose in Nov of 2020..

    "If we don't impeach him, President Trump will be re-elected.."
    -Democrat Al Green

    "Democrat desperation to impeach is directly inversely proportional to their confidence they can win at the ballot box."
    -Official Weigantian Position

    "Coup" is the ONLY rational term. Especially since there is NO relevant GOP support

    And what's so hilarious is that, no matter what... Virtually the ONLY way this ends is with President Trump still President Trump... :D

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know, I know.. I am being an arrogant ass.. :D

    But hay... Ya'all backed the wrong horse..

    I tried ta tell ya'all way back in the fall of 2016 and a lot of times since then..

    Against President Trump??? Ya'all Democrats simply can't win...

  210. [210] 
    Kick wrote:

    Please allow me to make myself perfectly clear here.

    dsws: Ok. If you want to be an the kind of asshole who pretends not to know that the word in question equates women with dogs, no matter what context it's used in, that's your problem. No need to spend five paragraphs on it.

    First off, I will "spend five paragraphs" whenever I choose, and also you should learn to count. Furthermore, what you said there is complete and total bollocks because in no way whatsoever does the "word in question" equate "women with dogs, no matter what context it's used in."

    The "word in question" obviously has other meanings.

    From Oxford:

    bitch
    /biCH/

    noun
    1. a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
    2. INFORMAL a difficult or unpleasant situation or thing.
    "the stove is a bitch to fix"
    3. INFORMAL a complaint.
    "my big bitch is that there's nothing new here."

    verb INFORMAL
    express displeasure; grumble.
    "they bitch about everything"

    Welcome to the new wonderful world of Weigtantia... :D

    *laughs* Like you've never used the word in question "honey" dear sweetie boo boo dipshit. :)

    So to recap: The "word in question" means multiple other things in different contexts, and I think you guys just want to bitch about everything.

    _______________

    Next time, let's do discuss political issues, but for now, I've got to fly... got a plane to catch. :)

  211. [211] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    209

    But hay... Ya'all backed the wrong horse..

    Oh, I've got really bad news for you.

  212. [212] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I thing this tedious thread is overdone.

    Do yourselves a favour and comeback Monday after the new column is up.

  213. [213] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I think this tedious thread is overdone.

    Do yourselves a favour and comeback Monday after the new column is up.

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, I think this tedious thread is overdone.

    Do yourselves a favour and comeback Monday after the new column is up.

    Such good advice, it was rendered twice.. :D

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, I've got really bad news for you.

    Yea.. Like your HILLARY WILL BE PRESIDENT was "bad news" for me..

    Like your RUSSIA COLLUSION DELUSION was "bad news" for me..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yer "bad news" seems to be ALWAYS good news for me and GOOD NEWS for President Trump..

    LLLLLUUUUUUUUSERR!! :D

  216. [216] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    your reading comprehension deficits appear to know no bounds. let me try to take this definition apart piece by piece for your benefit:

    1. a sudden: you say it's been happening for the past two years, so by YOUR own calendar it is ANYTHING BUT sudden.

    2. decisive: the people who initiated it didn't want to impeach at all until donald did something so hare-brained that the vast majority who were on the fence (by definition, NOT decisive) had no choice but to move forward.

    3. exercise of force in politics: are you really calling this an exercise of FORCE? except perhaps for the light side, the dark side and holding the universe together, there is ZERO force involved. there's more force involved in duct taping your light fixtures than the current wave of subpoenas. what are congress threatening to do, execute executive employees who don't comply?

    especially : the violent overthrow - again, the exact opposite. non-violent, not an overthrow. if donald is required by the senate to leave office, his hand-selected running-mate would take over as acting president, not some liberal democrat. unless you're suggesting that pence will somehow also be impeached and replaced with pelosi (which pelosi herself hasn't even remotely suggested), this is nothing short of absurd.

    or alteration of an existing government - NOPE, even presuming impeachment AND removal of BOTH the president AND vice-president went through, which VERY few people suppose it might, it would still be the EXACT same government as in 1789, just with a different person at the helm.

    by a small group - not this either. donald's behavior toward ukraine has been cited as dangerous and possibly criminal by practically the entire government, with the exception of a few people trump himself hired (and even most of those have flipped).

    so, to summarize, every single aspect of how a coup d'etat is defined is completely different from the current charges being investigated by congress. (and to be fair, it was also completely different when bill clinton made the exact same insane argument in 1998)

    JL

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    so, to summarize, every single aspect of how a coup d'etat is defined is completely different from the current charges being investigated by congress. (and to be fair, it was also completely different when bill clinton made the exact same insane argument in 1998)

    I know you believe that..

    But the facts are still the facts..

    Given the FACT that Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the DAY he was elected..???

    No other description fits other than it's a coup...

    A bloodless (to date) coup to be sure..

    But a coup nonetheless...

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I KNEW no one here would give President Trump any credit for taking out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi...

    Which simply proves, nothing here is at play except Party slavery and bigotry....

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a coup, it is the military, paramilitary, or opposing political faction that deposes the current government and assumes power; whereas, in the pronunciamiento, the military deposes the existing government and installs an (ostensibly) civilian government.

    Deposing the current government is ***EXACTLY*** what Democrats are doing..

    Hence... COUP...

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    deposes the current government and assumes power

    What's that you say???

    Democrats are not trying to assume power??

    And yet, how many Weigantians have pushed for Trump **AND** Pence to be removed so that Pelosi could be named POTUS?? MANY...

    Sounds like Dims are trying to assume power to an RATIONAL person not enslaved by Party dogma and bigotry...

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    the people who initiated it didn't want to impeach at all

    Bullshit.. Democrats have been talking IMPEACHMENT of President Trump since 10 Nov 2016...

    Didn't want to impeach my hairy ass!!! :eyeroll:

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Asked later if he informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ahead of the raid, Trump said, "I did not do that," adding he "wanted to make sure" the mission was kept "secret."

    But our own Victoria had advance notice from her "sources"...

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The person who is 3rd in line for the presidency wasn't notified..

    But Victoria was!!!???

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    What a total maroon... :D

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    WaPoop refers to scumbag terrorist al-Baghdadi as a ‘austere religious scholar’ like he is some kind of legitimate religious leader or something..

    So typical of Letist propaganda media..

    They truly are the enemy of the American people... :eyeroll:

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the past couple of years we’ve heard a drumbeat that President Trump is an idiot and a traitor, alienating key allies and caving to the Russians. Former special counsel Robert Meuller put the lie to that.

    For the past couple of months, we’ve heard that Trump has endangered America’s national security through his challenges to Iran, his telephone call to the president of Ukraine, and his partial withdrawal of troops from Syria.

    For the past several days we’ve been treated to Adm. William McKraven writing that the “republic is under attack” because the president does not agree with his and Gen. James Mattis’s “leave no Kurd behind” strategy. We’ve also endured William Taylor’s rambling third-hand impressions about Trump’s interchanges with Ukraine, which probably explains why Trump didn’t operate through “official channels” (i.e., Taylor, a top diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Kiev).

    With all due respect to these current and former officials: nonsense.

    That's what ya'all simply can't grasp about President Trump..

    He goes his own way and it WORKS!!!!

    Success upon success upon success...

    Win upon win upon win..

    And Democrats???

    They are left holding their dicks and nothing else time and time and time again...

    Democrats have been out-manned, outgunned and outsmarted at EVERY juncture... :D

    Democrats suck... Pure and simple.. They are clueless...

    "It's a great day to be an American!!"
    -Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK III

    :D

  225. [225] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Former special counsel Robert Meuller put the lie to that.

    And just how did he do that? I mean given that the entire first section of the report was about the Russians interfacing with the Trump campaign.

    If you have to lie to make a point, then you have no point.

    Link to this article?

  226. [226] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Didn't want to impeach my hairy ass!!!

    that's more information than any of us needed, but again your reading comprehension skills need remediation. the democrats with the power to initiate impeachment proceedings (pelosi, clyburn, hoyer, etc.) didn't want to impeach, and they made that crystal clear to the vocal left wing minority of the minority of the minority who wanted to impeach donald before there were any provable facts to justify such an action. even after the mueller report when there WERE a few facts upon which one might reasonably base an impeachment inquiry, pelosi and company STILL held firm against impeachment. dem leadership acquiesced only after donald did something so clearly an abuse of executive power in public with the cameras rolling, that they had no choice.

    JL

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    the democrats with the power to initiate impeachment proceedings (pelosi, clyburn, hoyer, etc.) didn't want to impeach,

    Ignoring for the moment that the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats DID want to impeach... I am constrained to point out that, while those yahoos may have CLAIMED they didn't want to impeach, every other words and actions stated that they DID want to remove President Trump from office..

    dem leadership acquiesced only after donald did something so clearly an abuse of executive power in public with the cameras rolling, that they had no choice.

    You mean, when President Trump did something that has ALWAYS been part and parcel to US diplomacy since this country began?? Did something much MUCH less bad than what Biden did (apparently going rogue) to Ukraine when he was VP???

    You mean that??

    The mere *fact* that Democrats en masse wanted to remove President Trump from office EVEN BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE proves that this is a coup..

    "I really hate her...
    I'll think of a reason later"

    -LeeAnn Womack

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Former special counsel Robert Meuller put the lie to that.

    And just how did he do that? I mean given that the entire first section of the report was about the Russians interfacing with the Trump campaign.

    If you have to lie to make a point, then you have no point.

    Link to this article?

    Who are you talking to??

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. Apparently it was me.. :D

    Fair nuff.. It was late and I forgot to link the article..

    One sec...

    Trump's unimpeachable foreign policy
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/467239-trumps-unimpeachable-foreign-policy

    And just how did he do that? I mean given that the entire first section of the report was about the Russians interfacing with the Trump campaign.

    And apparently, such interfacing was part and parcel to a President-Elect reaching out to a country who he will have to deal with in his tenure...

    All normal activities.. Not collusion or criminal in the least..

    Ya'all claimed it was criminal.. Mueller put lie to that claim...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    Amazing...

    President Trump eliminates Public Enemy #1 and no one here (sans yours truly) congratulates him..

    Sad to see.. But not entirely unexpected..

    "Feel the hate flow through you.."
    -Emperor Palpatine

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    An Emerging Scenario Where Buttigieg Wins The Nomination

    The mayor of a mid-sized Midwest city whose name no one could pronounce at the start of this year has come a long way in the Democratic primary.

    For a rising star in the party, vastly over-performing expectations in a crowded presidential field would easily be considered a victory in its own way. But there’s real reason to think Pete Buttigieg could yet win this nomination outright.

    One such rather plausible scenario is starting to develop right before our eyes. It starts, as these things so often do, in Iowa.

    Two polls this past week had good news for Buttigieg in the lead-off caucus state.
    https://iowastartingline.com/2019/10/26/an-emerging-scenario-where-buttigieg-wins-the-nomination/

    Wouldn't that be the shitz, eh?? :D

    Democrats nominate Buttigeg as their champion... :D

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    Freshman Rep. Katie Hill resigns amid allegations of affair with staffer

    "It is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress," Hill tweeted Sunday.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/freshman-rep-katie-hill-resign-amid-allegations-affair-staffer-n1072611

    Democrats are such morons.. :eyeroll:

    This is whats-his-name all over again..

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment Panels Threaten Contempt If Official Defies Subpoena
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/impeachment-panels-threaten-contempt-if-official-defies-subpoena/ar-AAJpw68

    Ooooooo Dumbocrats are threatening "contempt".....

    Ooooooo Scary... :eyeroll: :D

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Crisis of confidence': John Roberts' impeachment role prompts recusal rumblings
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/27/john-roberts-supreme-court-chief-justice-impeachme/

    This article is very interesting insofar as it spells out quite clearly how limited the Chief Justices's roll is in presiding over an impeachment..

    Just as DSWS and I have said time and time again.. :D

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kayla Mueller’s parents praise Trump, soldiers for raid that killed al-Baghdadi

    The family of Kayla Mueller on Sunday praised President Trump and the commandos who pulled off the daring raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a compound near the Turkish border, and the slain aid worker's mother delivered a stinging rebuke to President Obama's handling of her daughter's capture.

    Mueller, 26, was a humanitarian worker from Prescott, Ariz., who was captured while leaving a hospital in Aleppo, Syria, during that nation's bloody civil war in 2013. She is believed to have been tortured until her death 18 months later.

    Marsha Mueller, the woman's mother, praised President Trump and the Special Operations commandos who raided the compound and told the Arizona Republic that she believes if “Obama had been as decisive as Trump” her daughter may still be alive.

    The Obama administration was criticized over a reported 2015 rescue mission that targeted four prisoners held at a makeshift ISIS prison.

    By the time U.S. commandos stormed the compound, the hostages were already gone. Some relatives and people who worked on the raid blamed the White House for not acting swiftly enough on giving the mission a green light.
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/kayla-muellers-parents-praise-trump-soldiers-for-raid-that-killed-al-baghdadi

    Obama scrooed da pooch.. Pure and simple... :^/

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the final year of the Obama administration, an American lawyer traveled to Romania to meet with a businessman accused of orchestrating a corrupt land deal.

    The businessman was Gabriel "Puiu" Popoviciu, a wealthy Romanian real estate tycoon. The lawyer brought in to advise him was Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    Hunter Biden's work for Popoviciu in 2016 went unreported at the time, but Joe Biden's involvement in Romania was very much public. The vice president was among the leading voices pushing the government to crack down on corruption.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-s-legal-work-romania-raises-new-questions-about-n1071031

    Once again, Hunter Biden follows Daddy around the world and everywhere they go, Hunter lines up a sweet paying gig with some corrupt scumbag based on NOTHING but having access to the US Vice President...

    If we change "Biden" to "Trump", ya'all would be screaming hysterically about this..

    But, apparently ya'all have different rules depending on the -D or -R after the person's name.. :eyeroll:

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now for the facts... From, of all places, a devout Left Wing rag... :D

    Trump will win again, easily: Liberals simply don't understand what he represents

    Trump is accelerating American empire toward its doom. Democrats can't stop the historical wheel from turning
    https://www.salon.com/2019/10/26/trump-will-win-again-easily-liberals-simply-dont-understand-what-he-represents/

    I have to say, the article is a pretty tough read.. The author is all over the place...

    But one thing is clear.. President Trump is heading for a re-election landslide..

    If ya'all can't believe SALON, who CAN ya'all believe?? :D

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone who believes this faux impeachment coup will ever become bi-partisan and, therefore, legitimate is fooling themselves..

    It’s a total fantasy to think Republicans will abandon Trump now

    Republican senators will soon be receiving an invitation to tear apart the GOP ahead of the 2020 elections, and they are going to decline to ­accept it.

    It’s a trope of pro-impeachment commentary that it should be simple for Republican senators to swap out President Trump, who puts them in awkward positions every day, for Vice President Mike Pence, an upstanding Reagan conservative who could start with a fresh slate in the runup to the 2020 election.

    The only flaw in this scenario is that it is entirely removed from reality.
    https://nypost.com/2019/10/24/its-a-total-fantasy-to-think-republicans-will-abandon-trump-now/

    The GOP and President Trump have NO DAYLIGHT between them...

    Hoping for bi-partisan to legitimize this faux impeachment coup???

    NOT gonna happen..

    You heard it here first.. :D

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump, Israel and the Democratic Crack-Up

    Nearly every week, the Democrats reach new heights of radicalism. Israel has good reason to be deeply worried.

    Until 2000, the peaceful transition of power in the wake of elections was a feature of American democracy that everyone took for granted. In 2000, the Democrats shifted. They refused to accept the election results in Florida that gave Bush his victory in the state, and through it, in the electoral college, until the Supreme Court ruled that the results were legitimate. Even afterwards, many Democrats considered Bush’s victory and his presidency illegitimate.

    In retrospect, the Democrats’ refusal to accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election results marked the beginning of the party’s radicalization.

    Since Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, the speed and depth of the party’s radical transformation has gone into overdrive.

    The day after the election, Democrats coined a new term in American politics, “resistance.” Until then, the side that lost a presidential election was the “opposition.” But the Democrats don’t simply “oppose” Trump, they “resist” him.

    The distinction is profound. An opponent recognizes the basic legitimacy of the person he opposes. A resister does not. The purpose of the anti-Trump resistance is not to offer an alternative path for governing. It is to nullify Trump’sis presidency by among other things delegitimizing and dehumanizing Trump his family, associates and supporters. The resistance seeks to paralyze Trump’s presidency to prevent him from wielding the power of office and oust him from that office as quickly as possible.
    http://carolineglick.com/trump-israel-and-the-democratic-crack-up/

    Not a coup, my left butt cheek!!

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then too, last weekend two top Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg indicated they support using US military aid to Israel as a means to coerce the Israeli government into denying the property rights of Israeli Jews in Judea, Samaria and unified Jerusalem. In July, their fellow leading presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders expressed a similar position.

    It's funny how quid pro quo is PERFECTLY acceptable when it's a Democrat who is doing the Quid Pro Quo'ing..... :eyeroll:

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Dems angered that Trump told Russia, Turkey of al-Baghdadi raid, but not Pelosi
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dems-angered-that-trump-told-russia-turkey-of-al-baghdadi-but-not-pelosi

    And Victoria too!! Don't forget.. Trump, indirectly, told Victoria too!! Even before Nancy Pelosi!!! :D

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are whining and crying that President Trump didn't inform them of the raid in advance..

    OF COURSE he didn't!!

    Democrats can't be trusted to put Country before Party...

    It's that simple..

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    California’s new normal: Wildfires, ash and power outages could last a decade
    https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/californias-new-normal-wildfires-ash-and-power-outages-could-last-a-decade/

    This is what you get from Democrat governance...

    A third world dystopia...

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    SFBear,

    It’s not just Sonoma. Millions of residents across California, including in the major San Francisco metro areas, were expected to lose power this weekend in a record event as power utility company Pacific Gas & Electric cut services in what it said was an effort to prevent fires – a new normal its executives have said could continue for a decade.

    I can see why yer so frustrated...

    Maybe the Democrat Party agenda is not all it's cracked up to be, eh?? :D

    I'm just sayin'...

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rut Roh Raggey!!

    'SUPERNATURAL' STAR
    SAM ARRESTED AT HIS AUSTIN HAUNT ...
    Drunk In Public & Assault

    https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/27/supernatural-star-jared-padalecki-arrested-club-austin-drunk-assault/

    Sammy was a bad monkey!!!

    Blame it on Lucifer, Sammy.. You'll be OK... :D

  246. [246] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Re "Once again Hunter Biden follows daddy around getting a sweet deal from some . . ."

    Perhaps Biden's title during the Obama admin. should have been "Vice president in Charge of Vice."

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps Biden's title during the Obama admin. should have been "Vice president in Charge of Vice."

    heh

    "Now that right thar is funny as hell, I don't care WHO you are!"
    -Larry The Cable Guy

    :D

  248. [248] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet-
    "As for superpacs....as long as they're on the field it's foolish not to be armed with them."

    Superpacs are just a tool. How that tool is powered and used determines whether or not it has a positive effect.

    But if you are implying that CW has been foolish to not inform citizens about a superpac that is powered by and designed to be used by ordinary citizens leaving citizens unarmed against the superpacs and other vehicles designed and weilded to benefit the big money interests, then you may have a point.

  249. [249] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Funny how with all the bitching on definitions on bitches and coups no one else here seems concerned with CW using the wrong definition of a small donor and small donor campaigns.

    "Never ask from whom the bull trolls- it trolls from thee!"

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    Goodwin: Why are Democrats acting like they have something to hide?

    With no end in sight to the madness gripping Washington, it is wise to seize on any possible sign of humor to brighten the day. In that spirit, a statement by Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler qualifies as the mood booster of the week.

    Responding to reports that Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the 2016 spying on Donald Trump’s campaign is now a criminal probe, Schiff and Nad­ler laid down their thumbscrews and emerged from their impeachment dungeon to express outrage. In unison, the twin Trump tormentors declared that partisanship has infected the Justice Department and “the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage.”

    Despite stiff competition from two centuries of congressional hypocrisy, that is a first-rate howler. If you can’t laugh at Schiff and Nad­ler accusing anyone else of damaging the rule of law for partisan purposes, you don’t have a sense of humor.

    They have violated every historic precedent, not to mention simple decency, by conducting their impeachment probe in a secret star chamber. They leak juicy fragments to the media echo chamber, which would be a federal crime for real prosecutors.
    https://nypost.com/2019/10/26/goodwin-why-are-democrats-acting-like-they-have-something-to-hide/

    There is simply NO REASON to conduct this impeachment in secret..

    If it is NOT a coup, if the case against President Trump is so open and shut as Democrats both here in Weigantia and out in the real world... If the case against President Trump is so open and shut as ya'all claim???

    Why keep it in secret??

    The **ONLY** reason to keep it secret is because it's a lame case with NO FACTS to support..

    Period...

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr’s decision means US Attorney John Durham, after months of interviews, believes crimes were committed by government officials during and/or after their probe of Trump’s campaign. The designation gives Durham the power to empanel grand juries, issue subpoenas for testimony and documents and send target letters to potential suspects.

    “It’s all the stuff that scares the crap out of people,” a former prosecutor told me. As for the significance, he put it this way: “We may find out that the people entrusted with our most sacred powers are criminals themselves.”

    Possible charges could include perjury and illegal wiretapping, and the public is likely to learn more very soon about where Durham is going. The separate report from the Justice Department’s inspector general on how the government secured the suspect wiretapping warrants on Carter Page is almost ready for release and any criminal referrals in it would be made to Durham. Although there is no certainty, logic suggests that Barr authorized the switch to a criminal probe because there are, in fact, prosecution referrals in the IG report.

    In addition to the review of the wiretapping issue, Barr and Durham also interviewed foreign intelligence officials who may have been recruited by the Obama administration to meddle in the campaign and help spy on Trump.

    And now the urgency and the desperation of the faux impeachment coup plotters is clear..

    Many Democrats are going to jail...

    And, as is always with Democrat machinations....

    President Trump will have the last laugh... :D

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    These are extraordinary events and the effort to expose the truth about both the spying on a presidential candidate and the subsequent plot to upend his administration is so rich with bombshell potential that you would think the media would be licking their chops over the scoops to come. Instead, The New York Times, CNN and the rest of the Democratic propaganda outlets are furious that the public may finally learn the whole sordid story about one of the most disgraceful episodes in presidential history.

    And so they have joined forces with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi in attacking Barr for daring to hunt for the truth. In effect, the left-wing media, instead of leading the search for truth, has become the errand boys of those trying to hide it.

    The Who's Who of those soon to be wearing prison stripes..

    It must be nice to be a defense lawyer in DC these days..

    With all these Democrats going to jail, they are going to be very VERY busy.. :D

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the ultimate irrationality of the anti-Trump zealots, in and out of the media. Their hatred for him has distorted their judgment so much that they are willing to help cover up potential crimes and turn Barr into a villain for seeking to enforce the law against corrupt officials.

    SEE ALSO

    Justice Department review of Russia probe is now a criminal probe
    Of course, this is the same corrupt alliance that sold Russia, Russia, Russia as the crime of the century before it was exposed as much ado about almost nothing. Now they tell us never mind Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine is the crime of the century and Trump must be removed immediately.

    What if it’s all a head fake? What if the Russia-collusion narrative was created by the FBI and CIA to steal the election? What if Ukraine is the same thing by ­another name with a separate group of rogue agents?

    The mere possibility that “yes” is the answer to any of those questions should shake every American to the core.

    Remember, too, that none of this would have come to light if Hillary Clinton had been elected.

    Indeed, the assumption that she was a sure thing for the Oval ­Office helps explain the arrogance of the plotters. They thought they were immune from suspicion and, ultimately, above the law.

    In that case, it is worth repeating again Sen. Chuck Schumer’s infamous warning to Trump: “You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

    Pay attention. The curtain on the real crime of the century is about to be lifted.

    And I, for one, am going to be laughing and gloating each and every day all throughout the Weigantian Annual Fundraiser.. :smirk: :D

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, from the OFFICIAL Weigantian FACT site.. :D

    Sorry, Dems -- Even If Trump's Impeached, He Still Wins
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/28/sorry_dems_--_even_if_trumps_impeached_he_still_wins_141591.html

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi has harpooned the great white whale. Now let’s see what happens to her Pequod.

    If you don’t remember your classic American literature, Moby Dick sank the whaling ship Pequod and killed all aboard except the lone character of Ishmael, who lives to tell the story of how obsession destroyed Captain Ahab and those who served him.

    The analogy of Melville’s “Moby Dick” to Pelosi’s revenge-obsessed pursuit of Donald Trump is an apt one.

    Trump is a force of nature, just as the white whale was, and he has a habit of biting Democrats off at the knee. No wonder they thirst for retribution, but despite the Greek chorus of attaboys from the Resistance Media, Captain Pelosi and her three mates — Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney — are unlikely to prevail in the long run.

    Let’s look at some of the scenarios that are possible if President Trump were to be impeached by a Democratic Party that has come unmoored from reason.

    Taking down President Trump has been the Trump/America haters' dream since Jun of 2015...

    And it has all been for naught....

    Because EVERYONE (who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together and is NOT a Party slave) knows that this just ends one way..

    With President Trump STILL in office.. :D

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most likely, the Republicans in the Senate would hold together and refuse to convict Trump on the partisan political charges cobbled together by the troublesome elves in the House. In that case, it is easy to declare Trump the winner. He no doubt would take a victory lap during which he would do dramatic reenactments of Pelosi metaphorically drowning in the wake of the giant whale she had foolishly tried to slay. A vindicated Trump would be the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

    This is the most likely scenario...

    President Trump is completely and utterly exonerated by the US Senate..

    And you think a victorious Trump was bad after the Democrats' Russia Collusion delusion???

    Democrats would go thru a LIVING HELL with a vindicated and victorious President Trump.. :D

    Once again... Democrats are doing EXACTLY what President Trump wants them to do.... It's almost as if Nancy Pelosi gets her marching orders from the Oval Office itself..

    President Trump plays the tune and Democrats fall all over themselves to dance to it.. :D

    It's positively uncanny... :smirk: :D

  257. [257] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mike - entertaining yourself this morning with choruses of right wing media? Obviously.

    The trouble is that all of your favorite authors have a pro-trumpian attitude. There are no dissenters, even among the so-called 'liberals' that you quote.

    Needless to say, this is a minority position. Most of the world would prefer us to abandon this President, and the noxious views that he espouses.

    Moreover, even among his followers are folks who, in the middle of the night, with enough drinks in them, wonder what the fuck happened to the party which once reveled in being the party of consistency, which once worried about deficits, which once worried about allies and internationalism. Where is that party today?

  258. [258] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mike - entertaining yourself this morning with choruses of right wing media? Obviously.

    Really??? Right Wing media??

    I see an NBC link there and a SALON link there.. An MSNBC link..

    But yea.. Keep trying to convince yerself it's all right wing.. It's hilarious.. :D

    The trouble is that all of your favorite authors have a pro-trumpian attitude. There are no dissenters, even among the so-called 'liberals' that you quote.

    A point you have tried to make before.. I proved that to be bullshit then as well.. :D

    Needless to say, this is a minority position. Most of the world would prefer us to abandon this President, and the noxious views that he espouses.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to maintain your delusion..

    I deal in FACTS.. you have none.. :D

    Moreover, even among his followers are folks who, in the middle of the night, with enough drinks in them, wonder what the fuck happened to the party which once reveled in being the party of consistency, which once worried about deficits, which once worried about allies and internationalism. Where is that party today?

    you would be better served to worry about the Party you represent..

    The one that is being flushed down the toilet.. Whose leaders are facing some very real jail time.. :D

  259. [259] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Only people who are themselves dumb enough to worship at the altar of "Social Media" are dumb enough to believe that Facebook/Twitter postings were the cause, or even a meaningful contributory factor, of Hillary's defeat.

    Unfortunately, that includes damn near all of the land of Weigantia.

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    I find it very telling that President Trump just took down the most wanted terrorist on the planet.

    And he COULDN'T tell Democrats because they would have warned said terrorist..

    Proof positive that Democrats ARE Trump/America haters...

  261. [261] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only people who are themselves dumb enough to worship at the altar of "Social Media" are dumb enough to believe that Facebook/Twitter postings were the cause, or even a meaningful contributory factor, of Hillary's defeat.

    Unfortunately, that includes damn near all of the land of Weigantia.

    Word....

  262. [262] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I see an NBC link there and a SALON link there.. An MSNBC link..

    All right wing authors. Just because the vehicle is left-leaning doesn't make them right.

    you would be better served to worry about the Party you represent..

    Appropriate side-step from the chronicler of the Party of Grumpy Old Men. In your mind (and in fact) the Grand Old Party never existed, save as a receptacle of future Trump propaganda. Today it is the Trump party.

    Whose leaders are facing some very real jail time.

    Wishful thinking. My guess is that Durham will either disappoint you all, or come back with 'charges' that won't make it through the first cut.

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    All right wing authors.

    Yea??

    Prove it.. :D

    Just because the vehicle is left-leaning doesn't make them right.

    Just because they don't agree with YOU **ALSO** doesn't make the Right..Wing.. :D

    Appropriate side-step from the chronicler of the Party of Grumpy Old Men.

    That's real funny coming from the Party who has a Grumpy Old WHITE Man as their frontrunner.. :D

    Wishful thinking. My guess is that Durham will either disappoint you all, or come back with 'charges' that won't make it through the first cut.

    Yes.. But your "guesses" have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong.. :D

    So..... :smirk: :D

  264. [264] 
    Paula wrote:

    Blotus booed at World Series and heard "lock him up".

    No one deserves it more.

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EH9jY0jVAAAEdEY?format=jpg&name=medium

    Ahhhhh Democrat governance...

    Such an effective style of governance.. :smirk:

    Imagine if California Democrats took all that money used to coddle and help crimmigrants and used that to actually safeguard and protect California's AMERICAN citizens.

    EVERYONE in California would be happier...

    Instead of living thru a dystopian shithole of an existence..

    Have to live in the stone age or be burned to death..

    California living.. :eyeroll:

  266. [266] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blotus booed at World Series and heard "lock him up".

    No one deserves it more.

    Funny how ya'all complain when Trump supporters do that to Hillary et al...

    But it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for Trump/America haters to do it..

    Proving once again that, if ya'all didn't have double standards... Ya'all (NEN) would have no standards at all...

  267. [267] 
    Paula wrote:

    This:

    The Hoarse Whisperer
    @HoarseWisperer
    For the first time in his three-year presidency, Donald Trump faced a crowd made up of actual constituents and not just a subset curated to present a fake veneer of popularity.

    For the very first time, Trump faced the actual public.

    1/2

    Last night was a more important moment in the public life of America’s top public servant than any from all of his rallies combined.

    Pundits should focus on what his lone moment of facing the public revealed and how it unmasked the facade of every other event he has attended.
    2/2

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the very first time, Trump faced the actual public.

    Actually no.. Baseball fans.. Effeminate latte sipping Trump/America haters...

    Not the "actual public" IE patriotic Americans at all..

  269. [269] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    215

    Yea.. Like your HILLARY WILL BE PRESIDENT was "bad news" for me..

    The election wasn't about you, Mike.

    Like your RUSSIA COLLUSION DELUSION was "bad news" for me..

    The ongoing investigations into Donald Trump aren't about you either, Mike.

    Yer "bad news" seems to be ALWAYS good news for me and GOOD NEWS for President Trump..

    How nice of you to admit yet again that you've wrapped yourself around Donald Trump's pintle and look up to him ALWAYS, but the news isn't about you either. Everything

    LLLLLUUUUUUUUSERR!! :D

    SUCKER! I don't think it's all too hard to discern why the Trump Trash would latch onto Hair Dick Tater and hang on like adulating leeches... and it's quite reassuring through their constant panegyrizing praise that when Trump goes down, they're going down too. :)

  270. [270] 
    Michale wrote:

    they're going down too. :)

    yea???

    That's what you said about your Russia Collusion delusion.. :D

    And you were wrong..

    You are ALWAYS wrong!!

    Funny how that's ALWAYS the case..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  271. [271] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why the Democratic superdelegate whispers are starting again

    The dynamics of the race could prevent any one candidate from seizing insurmountable momentum from the early nominating states.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/28/democrats-2020-long-primary-057751

    The Dumbocrat Party... Making all the same mistakes all over again... :smirk: :D

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    William Owen, a Democratic National Committee member and Biden supporter from Tennessee, said he fears that if the nomination remains unsettled by the time of the national convention, “we will look like a dystopian Hunger Games auction,” with delegates trading support for appointments and other political favors.

    Hell.. Even DEMOCRATS are acknowledging the dystopian nature of the Democrat Party!!! :D

  273. [273] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    218

    And I KNEW no one here would give President Trump any credit for taking out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi...

    Well, you trolled the subject with your usual lies and then made prejudgments as if everyone here belongs to you and should perform on cue to your satisfaction. So why would anybody?

    Which simply proves, nothing here is at play except Party slavery and bigotry....

    Nope. Exactly the opposite since no one here belongs to you and aren't here to post to please you. When you make prejudgments and troll the group about a subject, you virtually assure that the topic won't be discussed... and then you brag like an ignorant fool about how you predicted it.

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    and then you brag like an ignorant fool about how you predicted it.

    Says the moron who claimed to have "sources" that gave her top secret information that not even the Speaker Of The House had..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Total waste of skin, Victoria.. :smirk: :D

  275. [275] 
    Paula wrote:

    Ezra Kleing also says it well:

    Ezra Klein
    @ezraklein
    A lot of people are confusing an act of protest and an act of illiberalism.

    To take the argument at its best, "lock her up" is dangerous rhetoric when adopted by a political party, and to see it then normalized across the political spectrum is twice as scary.

    But in context, it's not being normalized. The crowd was confronting Trump *with his own abnormal rhetoric* as an act of protest and humiliation. They're not trying to lock him up, they're trying to publicly embarrass him — and correctly so.

    Unlike with the RNC "lock her up" chants, there is neither illiberal intention nor result here. Just the opposite: a powerful political figure, for once, is confronted by public protest he has to see and hear, forcing him to listen to his own rhetoric echoed back.

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ezra Kleing also says it well:

    Which is exactly as I said..

    If the subject has a -R after their name, screams of LOCK THEM UP from Democrats is perfectly acceptable and even ENCOURAGED..

    If the subject has a -D after their name, screams of LOCK THEM UP from Trump supporters is abhorrent and perverse..

    If you Trump/America haters didn't have double standards, ya'all would have no standards at all...

    Ya'all are SOOO predictable....

  277. [277] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    222

    But our own Victoria had advance notice from her "sources"...

    "Our own"? You don't "own" anyone here; no one here is yours or anyone else's. Sheeeeesh.

    You seem either seriously incapable of understanding the written word or intent on lying... or both. I got a phone call after the fact and posted what I'd heard on this forum and nothing more:

    [162] Kick wrote:

    INTERESTING NEWS

    Got a call from a source in DC that Special Forces operation believes they've killed HVT Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS leader.

    That's it. Then you lied from there. Lying constantly proves nothing more than you're an incessant liar incapable of understanding words.

    The person who is 3rd in line for the presidency wasn't notified..

    But Victoria was!!!???

    Yes, I got a call and some current news... after the fact... simple English that's not difficult to understand unless you're stuck on stupid or intent on lying... or both.

  278. [278] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    225

    If you have to lie to make a point, then you have no point.

    This!

  279. [279] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    226

    that's more information than any of us needed, but again your reading comprehension skills need remediation.

    This too... with pie!

  280. [280] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, I got a call and some current news... after the fact...

    Oh.. So NOW it's "after the fact"..

    BACKPEDAL!!! BACKPEDAL!!!!

    In other words, you saw on a news feed that the Democrat's favorite scumbag terrorist was killed and thought you would LIE your ass off and claim some "secret sources"..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yer hilarious, Victoria... :D

  281. [281] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    229

    And apparently, such interfacing was part and parcel to a President-Elect reaching out to a country who he will have to deal with in his tenure...

    You would have a point if Trump was actually president-elect when Cohen, Manafort, Gates, Stone, Flynn, and multiple others were "interfacing" over 150+ times (as outlined in the Muller Report) with Russians and representatives/cutouts of Russia before the date of the election... but he wasn't... so you don't. The majority of the shenanigans occurred before the election. Full stop.

  282. [282] 
    Michale wrote:

    The majority of the shenanigans occurred before the election.

    Then they have NOTHING to do with ya'all's bullshit Russia collusion to win the election..

    MORON...

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  283. [283] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    249

    Funny how with all the bitching on definitions on bitches and coups no one else here seems concerned with CW using the wrong definition of a small donor and small donor campaigns.

    Don Harris figuring out that his whiny obsession isn't shared by the author or the commenters.

    Progress.

  284. [284] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    257

    Nice post, Bettlejuice.

    Moreover, even among his followers are folks who, in the middle of the night, with enough drinks in them,

    with a cherry on the bottom

    wonder what the fuck happened to the party which once reveled in being the party of consistency, which once worried about deficits, which once worried about allies and internationalism. Where is that party today?

    Well, Bettlejuice, I'll tell you: They obviously have no spinal columns so they're quite naturally bent over on their knees and sucking furiously like leeches.

  285. [285] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    260

    I find it very telling that President Trump just took down the most wanted terrorist on the planet.

    And he COULDN'T tell Democrats because they would have warned said terrorist..

    I think you are confusing "couldn't" with "didn't," and again informing the world that you're a Trump rube who believes whatever bullshit you are spoon-fed by the Liar-in-Chief. We get that you're a Trump sucker; you needn't keep confirming it.

    Proof positive that Democrats ARE Trump/America haters...

    Proof positive that Trump is indeed an admitted America hater since he did inform Putin while he didn't inform the representatives of the vast majority of "We the People."

  286. [286] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    264

    Blotus booed at World Series and heard "lock him up".

    No one deserves it more.

    *laughs* Yes, ma'am. It's all fun and games until the ones leading the "lock up" chants are the ones getting all the prison time.

    They were also chanting "impeach" throughout various times during the game. It was the only fun they were having since it was their third time in a row of watching the Astros beat the Nationals. Even if they go on to lose the series in the final two games at home, it wasn't quite the "sweeping" the Nationals fans were predicting when the series began with the Astros' two losses.

    Go Astros! :)

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    Washington Post Writes Glowing Obituary For World’s Most Dangerous Terrorist
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/27/washington-post-writes-glowing-obituary-for-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorist/

    Trump/America haters..

    Apparently, ALSO lovers of terrorists who butcher innocent men women and children...

    :eyeroll:

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, apparently, according to Veronica, I control ALL of your posting habits.. :D

    and then made prejudgments as if everyone here belongs to you and should perform on cue to your satisfaction. So why would anybody?
    -Victoria

    So, according to the forum MORON, ya'all WOULD have posted ya'all's congratulations to President Trump if I HADN'T predicted ya'all wouldn't..

    In other words (again, according to the forum moron & liar) since I predicted ya'all wouldn't do something, ya'all are going to PROVE my prediction factually accurate and NOT do it!!!!

    BBBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    You Party/Ideological slaves really crack me up..

    1000% predictable.... :D

  289. [289] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    figures: right-winger finds politics in an obituary.

    By the way, that obituary isn't very glowing.

    :eyeroll:

  290. [290] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    267

    Harsh but factual. :)

  291. [291] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    270

    Oh, another cut-and-pasty-like repetitive rebuttal from Mike. There's no better way of alerting the whole world to your dearth of ideas and your "simple logic" than that repetitive shit. Thank you so much for the assist.

    So to recap: Mike's got nothing again.

  292. [292] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    274

    POP QUIZ

    Says the moron who claimed to have "sources" that gave her top secret information that not even the Speaker Of The House had.. ~ Mike

    A. Lie
    B. Illiterate
    C. Both

    _______________

    The answer is C and in "see" how the entire group knows the correct answer, and why do you suppose that it? Rhetorical question.

    Total waste of skin, Victoria.. :smirk: :D

    Said the admitted criminal fat bastard with mugshot multiple chins and an admitted hairy ass. With all those admitted characteristics you've got going for you, how could your skeevy skin be anything other than a total waste? Simple logic.

  293. [293] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA!!!!!!

    Democrats bend to Trump's will!!! AGAIN!!!!

    House to vote on impeachment resolution this week...
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/28/house-to-vote-on-resolution-establishing-next-steps-in-impeachment-inquiry-000302

    BBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Once again.. President Trump rules... Dumbocrats Drool... :D

    Spin away, Trump/America haters..

    But it's CLEAR that President Trump is in control here... :D

  294. [294] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives," Pelosi said in a letter to Democrats obtained by POLITICO.

    Yep... President Trump said no cooperation until there is a formal vote..

    Dumbocrats CAVE and give the vote..

    A vote that they are SURE to lose!!!

    It's gonna be GLORIOUS!!!!! :D

  295. [295] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA!!! President Trump says "NO COOPERATION WITHOUT VOTE!!"

    Democrats cave and say "OK, Mr President.. We'll do as you command" :D

    And then, when the Democrats LOSE the vote, they will be left standing with nothing but their wee-wees in their hands!!! :D

    Glorious!!! :D

    BBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

  296. [296] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ya'all just HAVE to know that Democrats are going to LOSE that House vote...

    The vast majority of seats that Dims won in 2018 to give them control of the House were in areas that Trump won in 2016...

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that THOSE Democrats LIKE their job and will want to keep it.. If they vote impeachment, they will be signing their own death warrants..

    Democrats will lose the vote and I'll be laughing and gloating ALL thru the annual Weigantian Fundraiser!!! :D

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  297. [297] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    288

    And, apparently, according to Veronica, I control ALL of your posting habits.. :D

    Nope. Another LIE from Mike.

    So, according to the forum MORON, ya'all WOULD have posted ya'all's congratulations to President Trump if I HADN'T predicted ya'all wouldn't..

    And another LIE and demonstration of the inability of Mike at interpreting the written word. The sentiments above are Mike's and no one else's, but it is very good of Mike to admit to being the forum MORON.

    Thanks for the assist, Moron Mike.

    In other words (again, according to the forum moron & liar) since I predicted ya'all wouldn't do something, ya'all are going to PROVE my prediction factually accurate and NOT do it!!!!

    Another admission of being a moron and an admission of being a liar from Mike since I didn't say that either.

    Thanks again for the assist Lying Moron Mike.

    Noun... verb... slaves. So you got anything else? Or are you quite content to demonstrate to anyone with a keyboard and an Internet connection that you're a babbling fool with nothing else to offer except: Noun... verb... slaves and the same stupid bullstench repeated over and over like a fool with no creativity who is stuck on stupid with no way out of Moron Mike's Repetitive Hell? *laughs*

    You Party/Ideological slaves really crack me up..

    So that's it? Noun... verb... slaves again? You really are completely bereft of anything to offer except the same rote shit! Your flailing is as predictable as it is repetitive, and it is so repetitive as to be rendered ignorant as well as totally meaningless. You got bupkis!

  298. [298] 
    Michale wrote:

    Growing uncertainty looms over Democrats’ 2020 primary

    MUSCATINE, Iowa (AP) — Look no further than Pearl City Station, a plain brick building set along the banks of the Mississippi River, to understand the growing sense of uncertainty seeping into the Democratic Party’s 2020 primary contest.

    Inside, 200 Iowa Democrats recently sized up Joe Biden, the former vice president and one of their party’s leading presidential candidates. He engenders respect and admiration but generates little excitement.

    One elderly man sitting in the back of the room fell asleep as the former vice president shared his vision for America’s future in unusually hushed tones for nearly 45 minutes without taking questions.
    https://apnews.com/66b6b14798ac4e609ab32871ee9d0a65

    No wonder Democrats are so hysterical about impeachment..

    They KNOW that President Trump will bitch-slap them to hell in the 2020 election.. :D

    Life is good today.. :D

  299. [299] 
    Michale wrote:

    Afterward, David Metz, a member of the county Democratic committee, said that despite a campaign season that has already featured millions of dollars spent, countless miles logged and four debates staged, there is a deepening feeling of indecision among local voters who now have less than 100 days to finalize their 2020 pick.

    “Nobody knows what to do,” Metz said. “They’re all afraid. There’s a lot of anxiety.”

    That's the Dumbocrat Party..

    Scared shitless... :D

  300. [300] 
    Michale wrote:

    More questions emerge about Hunter Biden's business dealings, even as Trump impeachment inquiry intensifies
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-questions-emerge-about-hunter-bidens-business-dealings-even-as-trump-impeachment-inquiry-intensifies

    The more Dumbocrats push impeachment, the more Joe and Hunter Biden are raked over the coals!!! :D

    BBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Democrats.. Masters of shooting themselves in the foot!!! :D

    Ya'all just GOTS to love the irony, eh?? :D

  301. [301] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rep. Jim Banks: Trump was right on al-Baghdadi move – Dems could not be trusted with info about secret mission
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/al-baghdadi-trump-democrats-jim-banks

    Democrat Party simply CAN'T be trusted to put the safety and security of America and Americans before their disgusting hateful and bigoted agenda...

    That says it all....

  302. [302] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's even more evidence President Trump made the right call. Previous attempts to get al-Baghdadi have been foiled by leaks. In 2017, Gen. Tony Thomas explained how a leak to the New York Times foiled good intelligence that could have led to al-Baghdadi’s kill or capture.

    How disturbing is it that our military and intelligence officials are too afraid to brief congressional Democrats on important intelligence matters because of fears the classified subject matter will be leaked and politicized.

    Watching the Democrats’ reaction to al-Baghdadi’s death further vindicates the president’s decision. At every turn, enemies of Donald Trump tried manipulate the story to take shots at the president.

    Trump/America haters put their own bigoted agenda before the safety and security of this country..

    Disgusting...

  303. [303] 
    Michale wrote:

    In another era, every citizen across the nation would have taken to the streets Sunday in celebration. But, as has become custom since November 2016, petty partisan resistance-types found a way to politicize the operation’s success.

    This moment should remind us what is important to the people we serve, should remind us that when our troops go into harm’s way to protect us—they are Americans, not Republicans or Democrats. Democrat leaders should remember that fact and quit the partisan charade of impeachment and start working on getting things done for the American people and remember who the real enemy is—people like Baghdadi who want to do harm to all Americans.

    Democrats should be standing up and cheering that Baghdadi is dead...

    But no..... They would rather take pot shots at the President...

    Their hatred and bigotry knows no depth of depravity...

  304. [304] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    280

    Oh.. So NOW it's "after the fact"..

    Well, Moron... all I did was report that I got a call that they thought the HVT was dead. He sure as hell wasn't dead before the fact. You lied the other shit into existence because lying is your modus operandi on this forum.

    In other words, you saw on a news feed that the Democrat's favorite scumbag terrorist was killed and thought you would LIE your ass off and claim some "secret sources"..

    Wrong again, Moron Mike. I got a simple phone call from a friend in DC with some news so I reported it here. End of simple story. Why are your knickers so in a twist about this? Rhetorical question. It's pretty damn basic shit. Phone rings, friends have a conversation. So what? Try not to lose your shit over the fact that I posted some information I got on the telephone, skippy.

    Yer hilarious, Victoria... :D

    You're a liar and a prick, Mike, and your projection does indeed speaks volumes... about yourself.

  305. [305] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrats will for the first time vote on impeachment procedures on Thursday, a shift in their strategy seemingly meant to cut off GOP arguments about an unfair process.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467776-house-to-vote-this-week-on-impeachment-inquiry-procedures

    In other words, Democrats cave to President Trump's demands!!!!

    Once again... President Trump sets the tune and Democrats furiously dance to it!!! :D

    Whatta day, eh!!! :D

  306. [306] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're a liar and a prick, Mike,

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Wow.. You are REALLY defensive aren't ya Victoria..

    Every one of your comments has been TO me or ABOUT me!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

    Thanx for this rent free space I have in your head... Do you mind if I re-decorate.. It's kinda empty and drab... With not a single brain cell in sight!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Yer so easy to manipulate, Victoria.. 1000% predictable... :D

    It truly is a fun day today!! :D

  307. [307] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have, on THREE different occasions brought an impeachment vote to the floor..

    And ***ALL*** of them failed..

    "Failed! Failed!! Impressively failed!!"
    -NASA Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

    Democrats are utterly delusional if they think that the fourth time is the charm.. :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

  308. [308] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most Democrats now support an impeachment inquiry, but a handful of vulnerable centrist House Democrats withheld their support for officially launching the inquiry last month and remain skeptical of impeachment, including Reps. Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), Kendra Horn (Okla.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Joe Cunningham (S.C.), Jared Golden (Maine) and Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.).

    Yep... Democrats are going to LOSE this vote!! Just like they lost the other three votes on impeachment.. :D

  309. [309] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmmm There was this buzzing in my ear... An annoying gnat... I guess it ran away... :D

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  310. [310] 
    Michale wrote:

    The announcement of the vote on the resolution comes hours after Charles Kupperman, a top aide to former White House national security adviser John Bolton, did not show up for testimony on Monday. Kupperman's attorney said that his client will not testify until a court rules on a lawsuit to determine whether he must testify in the impeachment inquiry.

    Yep.. Dumbocrats caved... They KNEW they were not making any headway so they bowed to President Trump's demands!!! :D

    Gods, ya gotta love the day, eh? :D

  311. [311] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Real Reasons Why Legacy Media Are Freaking Out Over Trump’s Successful Baghdadi Mission

    The successful strike against ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi complicated media and Democratic efforts to destroy Trump.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/the-real-reasons-why-legacy-media-are-freaking-out-over-trumps-successful-baghdadi-mission/

    Yunno, ya almost have to feel SORRY for the Dumbocrats... These Trump/America haters throw all kinds of bullshit at the President and at the country!!

    And President Trump still comes out smelling like a rose!!!

    Poor Dumbocrats... They just CAN'T catch a break!!! :D

    It's HILARIOUS!!! :D

  312. [312] 
    Michale wrote:

    “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.”
    -Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

    Amazing how prescient this was...

  313. [313] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trying to impeach President Trump after he just bagged Baghdidi is as stoopid as the GOP trying to impeach Obama after Obama bagged Osama..

    Fortunately for this country, the GOP are not as stoopid or moronic as the Dumbocrats are...

  314. [314] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK I'll pause for a bit to let ya'all catch up.. :D

    Gotta get dinner going for my lovely wife.. :D

  315. [315] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    306

    Wow.. You are REALLY defensive aren't ya Victoria..

    Nope... and you're still a horrible judge of character.

    Every one of your comments has been TO me or ABOUT me!!!

    Wrong! Everything isn't about you, Lying Moron Mike; it's not. You should learn to read or stop lying... or how about doing both of those? How pathetic is it that you claim everything is about YOU? Rhetorical questions.

    Thanx for this rent free space I have in your head...

    Dumbfuck... Pay no attention to the obvious fact that every Democrat on the planet lives rent free in your head along with the entire group in Weigantia whom you regularly troll with lies because that's just how you roll in your demonstrable hatred of Democrats and belief that everything is about YOU. *laughs*

    Do you mind if I re-decorate.. It's kinda empty and drab...

    It's your doublewide trailer in Shithole, skippy: Knock yourself out. In the alternative, you could go back to that cell in prison you told us all about where the accommodations are much nicer than your trailer in the swamps. Your decision, Mike; I would wager no one else cares.

    Yer so easy to manipulate, Victoria.. 1000% predictable... :D

    Hey! Thanks yet again for another assist, Moron Mike!

    You're truly are quite simply just an obvious repetitive rube who gets his jollies from his bilious preoccupation with lying and attempting to manipulate others on a political chat board where you're not here to discuss politics at all... you're just here to feed your sick obsession, and that makes you an admitted troll.

    It truly is a fun day today!! :D

    Knock yourself out, skippy. Feed that demonstrable hatred and obsession of yours with Democrats who quite obviously possess your every thought. Troll's gonna troll. #Pathetic

  316. [316] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual, Victoria is spewing herself and proving how much space she gives me in her head.. :D

    She is SOOO easy to manipulate... :D

  317. [317] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    309

    Hmmmmm There was this buzzing in my ear... An annoying gnat... I guess it ran away... :D

    Likely your last brain cell and its whimpering peals of screaming... an undeniable buzzing echoing into the vast dark cavernous emptiness as it makes its run for daylight.

    Better hurry and go catch it before it drowns in the trailer swamps.

  318. [318] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it's been fun seeing Victoria et al squirm and spew..

    But now my time belongs to my beautiful wife..

    So...

    "Hasta Lasagna, don't get any on ya"
    -Emilio Estevez, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

    :D

  319. [319] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    316

    As usual, Victoria is spewing herself and proving how much space she gives me in her head.. :D

    You're the one who's got their knickers in a twist about my post, dumbfuck, and quite obviously not the other way around. Then there's your obvious hatred and obsession with the opposition Party.

    Let's talk about me some more, Mike. I don't think you've done enough whining and flailing about that simple little post of mine wherein you got your knickers in a twist. What an effing ignorant tool you are.

    Phone rings... I answer... I post one simple sentence of a conversation among friends. Mike reads it and goes apeshit and starts inventing lies and gets his knickers all in an effing twist for multiple days. *laughs*

    It's just too hard for Mike's brain cell to grasp how people can talk on phones.

    She is SOOO easy to manipulate... :D

    You're the one flailing about my little post, skippy, not the other way around. Do you need me to explain again how phones work and how people can communicate via voice and how everyone is not an obvious Internet whore like yourself and "mining the web" daily for bullshit they can spam onto another guy's forum and fill up his comments sections with the filth he lifts and copies from right-wingnut sites and foists onto that author's readers who come to read and discuss his columns and post about current events rather than whatever lunatic BS they're carrying on over at Fox, Brietbart, or whatever the conspiracy theory bullshit of the week is over on Drudge and QAnon?

    Why CW allows you to fill up the comments section of his columns with your endless trails of pilfered right-wingnut copied lunatic shit is beyond me, and why you can't understand how simple telephone conversations work and how news comes from other places besides the right-wingnut places where you prostitute in order pollute CW's forum and foist that shit on others who couldn't care less what's occurring on the sick lunatic fringe is equally baffling.

  320. [320] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick’s posting about the Special Forces taking down the ISIS leader on here occurred about 2 hours before I got any notifications reporting this info. Of course, if her friend had read it on a news site and told Kick about it, it doesn’t change the fact that she was still correct!

    It’s strange that Trump waited until the next day before announcing this to the world. Obama was able to tell us about bin-Laden’s death hours after it occurred. But then Obama wasn’t trying to make the announcement about himself or needed to distract the Sunday morning news shows from discussing his upcoming impeachment!

  321. [321] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trying to impeach President Trump after he just bagged Baghdidi is as stoopid as the GOP trying to impeach Obama after Obama bagged Osama..

    This demonstrates how hard Trumpkins have to work in their attempts to convince themselves that Trump’s criminal behavior should be ignored so that they can claim that impeachment is unjustified and is being done on a whim!

    The GOP didn’t try to impeach Obama because Obama did not do anything that came close to warranting impeachment!

    Impeachment is not about judging the good that a president might have accomplished, it is a judgement on whether the president is guilty of committing the actions as outlined in the Articles of Impeachment.

  322. [322] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [275]

    Ezra Klein nailed that!

  323. [323] 
    Paula wrote:

    [322] Listen: Yep!

  324. [324] 
    Paula wrote:

    [290] Kick: Yep!

  325. [325] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    320

    Kick’s posting about the Special Forces taking down the ISIS leader on here occurred about 2 hours before I got any notifications reporting this info. Of course, if her friend had read it on a news site and told Kick about it, it doesn’t change the fact that she was still correct!

    He's been a close friend of ours since long before he left Texas for a career in DC. I can't say why, but he's forever in my debt. He called with news and a last-minute invite to a baseball game... wish the turd would have called sooner. I have two tickets to Game 7 in Houston, but I do hope there isn't a Game 7 in Houston. Go Astros! :)

    It's strange that Trump waited until the next day before announcing this to the world. Obama was able to tell us about bin-Laden’s death hours after it occurred. But then Obama wasn't trying to make the announcement about himself or needed to distract the Sunday morning news shows from discussing his upcoming impeachment!

    Right, Russ... and also: How many times did Bush and Obama and their respective administrations along with our military/special forces expunge the leader of ISIS, and was it treated like a big deal then?

    * Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Founder of ISIL/ISIS, killed on June 7, 2006 by airstrike
    _____

    * Abu Ayyub al-Masri, killed on April 18, 2010

    * Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi, killed on April 18, 2010

    Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi were killed at the same time in a raid carried out by an operation by ground forces and airstrikes where computers were seized with e-mails and messages to two most-wanted terrorists at that time: Osama bin Laden and bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

    Obviously, that helped lead to bin Laden's demise May 2, 2011.
    _____

    So Trump says another president should have killed the leader of ISIS, but did no one tell the Moron-in-Chief that two presidents already did? Did no one explain to Dipshit Don that they replace their leaders in the same fashion that Trump will one day be replaced? #Morons

Comments for this article are closed.