ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Infair To Rupublicans!

[ Posted Friday, November 1st, 2019 – 18:02 UTC ]

Does President Trump's phone even have a spell-checker? One has to wonder, when he tweets so many idiotic misspellings on such a regular basis. This week's gem came directly after the House voted on impeachment inquiry procedures, which Trump wasn't exactly happy about:

Republicans are very unified and energized in our fight on the Impeachment Hoax with the Do Nothing Democrats, and now are starting to go after the Substance even more than the very infair Process because just a casual reading of the Transcript leads EVERYBODY to see that.....

.....the call with the Ukrainian President was a totally appropriate one. As he said, "No Pressure." This Impeachment nonsense is just a continuation of the Witch Hunt Hoax, which has been going on since before I even got elected. Rupublicans, go with Substance and close it out!

Rupublicans? How infair!

Sigh.

For only the third time in the past 100 years, the House of Representatives has now officially gone on the record in favor of an impeachment inquiry. Nancy Pelosi remarked in a floor speech before the vote: "I don't know why Republicans are afraid of the truth. Every member should support the American people hearing the facts for themselves. That is what this vote is about. It's about the truth. And what is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy."

This vote is what Republicans have been loudly demanding for weeks, because it is so impossible for them to (as their Dear Leader begs) "go with Substance and close it out!" The substance is inarguable, which is why they haven't bothered to make such arguments. So they've directed their fire on the process instead.

Will the vote held this week make the Republicans happy? No, no it won't. They'll immediately find something else to whine about, because the facts are still the facts and they're impossible to refute. Maybe they'll all start taking their cues from Alaska's Don Young, who just responded to a question about Trump's wrongdoings by (you just can't make this stuff up) headbutting a camera.

The most hilarious argument they've been reduced to making is that the closed-door hearings have been unfair because "Democrats selectively leak testimony to the media." This absolutely ignores the fact that there are 47 Republicans in the room when the testimony is given. As the Washington Post pointed out:

But Republicans on the three committees in these depositions could do the reverse, by leaking information that exonerates Trump. It seems likely that isn't happening not because of their profound respect for the testimony, but because to date there hasn't been information exonerating Trump.

Trump, of course, lives in his own reality, and he's still hoping that the whole impeachment inquiry is somehow going to just go away if he wishes real hard. Kellyanne Conway, the morning before the House vote, echoed this delusional behavior: "You either have the votes or you don't. Guess what? A dirty little secret: They don't have the votes." A few hours later, Nancy Pelosi did indeed have the votes -- 232 of them, to be exact. She only had two defections from her own party, and she picked up the one independent (Justin Amash) in the House. All along, Republicans have been hoping that somehow vulnerable Democrats would refuse to back the impeachment inquiry because they'd be scared of their own prospects for re-election. That didn't turn out to be true, much to Kellyanne's (and Trump's, assumably) surprise.

This is likely due to the fact that impeachment is getting more and more popular with the public, over time. Polls show that support for the impeachment investigation is somewhere around 55 percent, whereas support for impeaching and removing Trump is hovering right around 50 percent. Both of those numbers have been creeping upwards, too. So the smart re-election strategy would be to support impeachment -- something that Republicans may sooner or later realize. So far, that hasn't happened, it's worth mentioning. House Republicans voted unanimously against the impeachment procedures they've been demanding a vote on, without a single defection across the aisle.

The impeachment inquiry has already been moving at top speed, but it's about to move along even faster. Nancy Pelosi is now indicating that the public hearing phase will begin within weeks -- before the end of November. This makes a lot of sense, because the case is so easily provable, and because they've been hearing exactly the same story from pretty much every witness who appears before the committee:

"A lot of the damning evidence already came out. And a lot of these witnesses are corroborating essentially the same narrative, which hasn't changed," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

A House Intelligence Committee source echoed that sentiment, asserting that the investigators gathering reams of evidence behind closed doors are not willing to let the process drag out, especially as the White House seeks to block the testimony of next week's spate of high-level witnesses.

"The reality is we could fill every day of the next month with a new potential witness interview," the source said. "Given the evidence we've collected so far, we think we're ready to enter a public phase sooner than later."

This is smart, because at this point, they could just streamline the process, and ask each new witness: "Please describe what you witnessed Donald Trump and his team doing with Ukraine, by using a Latin phrase."

"Um, that would be quid pro quo."

"What was the quid?"

"Hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and a visit to the White House."

"And what was the quo?"

"Dirt on the Bidens and proof that Russia didn't hack the 2016 elections."

"Thank you, you may be excused... NEXT!"

Pelosi followed the vote with an appearance on Stephen Colbert's show, where she explained the dynamics at play with House Republicans:

"The thing about this, again, it's about the Constitution," Pelosi explained. "We're honoring our oath of office, we're there to strengthen the institution in which we serve, and if they don't want to do that, that's their problem.

"But it's interesting because they have been talking process, process, process, because they know they can't really go near the substance issue," she added.

Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the news with a rather novel idea -- he's considering going live on television to read the semi-transcript of the Ukraine call. He thinks this would be a modern-day "fireside chat," but in reality it would more accurately be seen as a "dumpster-fireside chat." Or maybe that's too "infair" to the president.

One interesting point worth considering is how this is all going to affect the Democratic presidential race. The candidates are all pretty much on the same page, so this isn't an ideological problem, but rather one of timing. There are still six senators in the race (Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren). If the impeachment happens in December (a likely guess, given the pace things are moving along), then the trial in the Senate will likely take place in January. Would all six candidates faithfully return to Washington to spend six days of every week hearing the presentation of the case, since all senators are in essence jurors? If so, that would mean the loss of a large chunk of time out on the campaign trail at an absolutely crucial moment. Iowa kicks off the primary season at the beginning of February, but if six of the candidates disappeared from the campaign for an extended period of time, it might leave the field wide open to those who aren't sitting senators (Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, most notably).

The possibility exists that some of the candidates might decide that campaigning is more important than being present in the Senate while the trial happens, which they would explain by stating they have already made up their minds with the facts revealed by the House. But it'd be a tricky political decision to make, that's for sure.

There was one other big story in the political world this week, as President Trump totally pre-empted all the Sunday morning talk shows last weekend with the announcement that a raid had successfully killed the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. Trump's announcement and press conference was (as usual) rather bizarre at times, as when Trump once again came out in favor of war crimes. For years, he's had the mistaken notion that pillaging after a war is somehow acceptable behavior. He has repeatedly stated -- of both Iraq and now Syria -- that America should just go in and take the oil. He was convinced by his military advisors to leave some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, but his understanding of what this means is seriously flawed. During his Baghdadi announcement, Trump once again stated that America should just go in and grab all the oil we can, because we somehow deserve it.

This led to an incredibly bizarre statement in reaction to Trump's announcement from none other than Bashar Al Assad, the Syrian dictator:

I tell you [Donald Trump is] the best American president. Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he's the most transparent president. All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the "unique" and "brilliant" American or Western principles, but all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others. [Trump] speaks with transparency to say, "We want the oil." What do we want more than a transparent foe?

So far, the death of Baghdadi hasn't registered much in Trump's approval polls, which isn't all that unusual. When Barack Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden, his job approval numbers only went up six percent, and by the following month they were right back where they had started from. Bin Laden was known to a lot more Americans than Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, so Trump probably won't see much of a "rally 'round the president" poll bump at all.

One other bizarre footnote from Trump's announcement was pointed out by Dan Froomkin (who just launched a new media watchdog site: "Press Watch"):

How likely is it that we will soon establish that Donald Trump flat-out lied when he gloated on Sunday morning that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died "running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering, crying and screaming all the way"?

I suspect not long. But most news consumers will be surprised.

That's because they didn't read or see any pushback against Trump's comments -- which, even if true, were manifestly sadistic, inappropriate and suggestive of some disturbing interpersonal dynamic.

Trump has a long history of lying about, well, almost everything. As New York Times reporters Peter Baker, Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper, to their credit, told readers fairly high in their lead story, the video feeds Trump saw could not have detected any whimpering and no other officials independently confirmed Trump's account.

Froomkin then documents how the entire rest of the media world essentially reported this lie unchallenged. We'll be checking Froomkin's new site on a regular basis, because in the past he's always been an excellent scourge of the mainstream media's bias (and laziness, and stenography, and downright idiocy at times).

One other shameful thing that happened early in the week was a concerted Republican attack on a war hero. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was awarded the Purple Heart for being wounded by an I.E.D., was smeared by several lower species of life this week, by an unfounded accusation that because he was born in Ukraine, he somehow must be a double agent for them. This ignores the fact that his family left the former Soviet Union when he was three years old, as well as ignoring his brave service in the uniform of the United States.

One of the lowlifes essentially calling Vindman a spy was that towering ethical maven John Yoo, who (you'll remember) infamously wrote the memo that allowed George W. Bush to torture prisoners. Eventually, to their credit, several Republicans -- Liz Cheney most notable among them -- stood up and denounced these vicious smears. But the best denunciation came from MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, who used to be Bush's White House communications director:

Wallace then went after [Fox News host Laura] Ingraham, [John] Yoo and former Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), who suggested on CNN that Vindman's loyalty might be suspect because he was born in Ukraine before his family moved to the United States.

She didn't mince words, either.

After playing a clip of Yoo saying "some people" might call Vindman's work "espionage," she jumped in.

"Except those people aren't chickenshit like the three of you," Wallace said, "and they know he passed a background check that the president's daughter and son-in-law didn't."

Let's see, what else has been going on? Rudy Giuliani apparently butt-dialed an NBC reporter twice over the past few weeks, which led to much merriment on Twitter (example: "Rudy keeps talking out of his ass!"). Trump's poll numbers are just as dismal as ever. And the Democrats scored a big win in the state courts in North Carolina, where a panel of judges threw out the gerrymandered map of U.S. House districts and ruled that this map cannot be used in the 2020 election.

Oh, and a final note with some very late-breaking news today: Beto O'Rourke is officially out of the Democratic presidential race.

OK, let's move along to the awards, after a shameless plug for our annual Hallowe'en column, filled (as always) with Jack O'Lanterns and two scary tales (for right and left). Boo!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the awards this week, we have to admit we just don't know what to think about the resignation of Katie Hill from the House of Representatives. Should she be considered for most impressive or most disappointing? It seems impossible to answer that, given what we know and don't know about what happened.

She is unquestionably the victim of "revenge porn" after nude photos of her were leaked to the rightwing media. Nobody should have to go through that, and she even got some support from a totally unexpected corner:

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of the few lawmakers publicly declaring support for the embattled freshman, said it stems from the "baby boomer era of judgment" looming over Capitol Hill.

"Frankly, I think it's a generational issue," Gaetz said in an interview. "A lot of these baby boomers I serve with don't understand that millennials, by virtue of having smartphones, have shared stupid moments and regrettable moments for a substantial portion of their lives."

"We cannot adopt an ethic that some bad thing or embarrassing thing that you've done, released through the inflamed passions of an ex, somehow impairs your public service or fitness as a candidate," said Gaetz, a conservative bomb-thrower who rarely aligns with Democrats.

You may remember Gaetz, since he was the leader of the Republicans who last week crashed the impeachment hearings -- he's no lefty or anything.

But the story simply isn't that clear cut. If Hill truly was the innocent victim in all of this and is merely being slammed by the husband she's in the process of divorcing, then why did she quit?

She maintains that she did have an affair with a campaign staffer, but that she did not have a second affair with one of her legislative staffers, once she became a member of the House. That second affair accusation has triggered an ethics investigation into Hill.

If the second affair didn't happen, though, she could just have easily announced that she would not be running for re-election in order to give another Democrat a clean shot at holding on to her seat (which was won in a California district that Democrats flipped in 2018). But she resigned immediately instead -- which has the benefit of immediately ending the ethics probe against her.

So we really don't know what to think about the situation. Hill did give an emotional final speech in the House yesterday, and she's vowing to fight for other people who have been victimized the same way she has. That's admirable. But doubts remain about whether she has been telling the truth about the second affair, after her abrupt resignation. So we've decided to pass on giving her any sort of award, at least until further facts come to light.

Moving along, we have to at least give an Honorable Mention to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who just released her fully-paid-for Medicare For All plan. She avoided the "raising taxes on the middle class" trap by instituting new taxes on employers instead of employees. This is a smart way to go, but it seems certain that her fellow Democrats (those not named Bernie, that is...) will continue to attack her on the issue. It'll certainly change the conversation at the next debate, though.

But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She introduced her resolution setting the rules for the impeachment inquiry's public phase this week, and she very elegantly refused to take the Republicans' bait in doing so. Rather than a vote on approving the impeachment inquiry, Pelosi instead let the House vote on the rules for continuing an impeachment inquiry that already exists. Democrats now have an answer to all of the complaints from Trump and his minions about not holding a House vote -- forcing them to make some other inane argument (rather than argue the facts of the case, of course).

Pelosi not only held her vote, she also held her party together. Even though conservatives had deluded themselves into the belief that somehow the vote was going to fail, it didn't. Pelosi never holds votes when she is unsure of the outcome, please remember. In the end, she only lost two of her party's members, which was far fewer than had been predicted. Even Tulsi Gabbard voted for it in the end.

Nancy Pelosi is, without a doubt, the finest "cat herder" the Democrats have seen in their lifetimes. She is without peer in leading the House Democrats, and this week was just another confirmation of this basic fact. Her victory lap on Colbert's show was fun to watch, as well. All around, there's really no other choice this week for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week than Nancy Pelosi.

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

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Pelosi may or may not have engaged in a little arm-twisting behind the scenes, but she got more votes for her resolution than anyone expected. Two Democrats everyone had been counting on voting "No" actually flipped when the votes were counted:

Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.), one of the few Trump-district Democrats who has been reluctant about backing an impeachment inquiry, voted yes.

"It's about transparency in the process; I like the fact that the transcripts will be made public and the American public will get the chance to understand what's going on," he said Wednesday, adding that he still is not convinced Trump needs to be impeached. "I am not prejudging anything... until I see all the evidence."

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), who was undecided as of Wednesday night, also supported the resolution.

"I think the vote will allow a fair and open process and will finally let Americans judge for themselves," Brindisi told Syracuse.com on Thursday morning.

But it wasn't unanimous. So while we understand the politics of the vote, we still are going to go ahead and award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to Representatives Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, the two Democrats who didn't back Pelosi up in the end.

[Contact Representative Collin C. Peterson on his House contact page, and Representative Jeff Van Drew on his House contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 549 (11/1/19)

Another mixed bag this week, as there was (as always) a whole lot going on in politics. To change things up, we're going to lead off this week with the now-standard "Republican denouncing President Trump" talking point, and then work our way through all the rest of the week. Enjoy, and use responsibly.

 

1
   Tell us what you really think!

Richard W. Painter used to be an ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. He reacted this week to the news that Trump was busy raising money for Republican senators who might consider voting against him if he gets impeached. And Painter most decidedly did not mince his words, on Twitter:

This is a bribe.
Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery.
But he can get away with it?
Criminal.
Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash

The senators can raise their own campaign cash.
Any senator who accepts cash from @realDonaldTrump before the impeachment trial is guilty of accepting a bribe and should go to the slammer.

If @realDonaldTrump doesn't want to get hit with a bribery charge, during the impeachment process he had better stick to raising money for GOP challengers in senate races, not incumbent senators who will vote guilty or not guilty in his case.

 

2
   How much quid pro quo proof do we need?

Repeat the phrase Trump hates as much as possible.

"House Democrats are reportedly going to move on from their fact-finding stage in the impeachment inquiry because they're hearing exactly the same story over and over again, and at this point they feel that no more proof is necessary. Witness after witness has admitted under oath that Donald Trump did indeed use military aid to Ukraine as a quid pro quo to force them to dig up dirt on his political opponents. One witness reports the quid pro quo, and then the next witness verifies the exact same story. It's been quid pro quo after quid pro quo. No wonder the Republicans aren't making any sort of factual argument and are instead lost in the weeds of process arguments. I mean, how many people have to swear there was a quid pro quo to prove it did indeed happen that way?"

 

3
   Dot dot dot...

This may or may not wind up being a big deal, but it certainly is pretty easy to make the political case that it is.

"One interesting thing that came out of the testimony of Lt. Col. Vindman was that what the Trump White House released was not actually a full transcript of the Ukrainian phone call. Early on, reporters noticed a few ellipses in the text, and now we have the confirmation that those 'dot dot dots' did indeed represent things that had been edited out of the transcript. So where is the full transcript? What exactly is Trump still hiding? It must be pretty bad, considering what they didn't even bother to edit out of that phone call. I call on the White House to release the full transcript now, because the American people deserve to know what all those 'dot dot dots' are hiding."

 

4
   We still have values?

Senator Bob Menendez provided a fun "gotcha" moment this week.

"In his Senate hearing to become the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan fully admitted that what Trump did with the Ukraine should not have happened. When asked whether an American president should solicit foreign investigations into his domestic political opponents, Sullivan had to sheepishly admit that doing so would not 'be in accord with our values.' This is Trump's own pick to be our ambassador to Russia, and he seems to have stronger moral values than the man who appointed him, by far."

 

5
   This shoe may eventually be on the other foot, guys

Yet another massive ethical lapse by Republicans.

"The president admitted last weekend that he informed the Russians of his raid on the Islamic State leader before he had told any of the Democratic leadership in Congress. He flat-out stated that if he had briefed Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, they might have turned around and leaked it, thus putting military lives at risk. How insane is that? What possible proof does Trump have to essentially accuse the top two Democrats of treasonous behavior? None! And you know what we heard from Republicans in Congress about this travesty? Nothing! I would warn them, however, of what they're normalizing here. In the future, a Democratic president might decide to leave Republicans in the dark about something -- and they'll have no moral right to complain, since they are obviously OK with Trump doing exactly that. This one could come back to bite them in the future, in other words."

 

6
   Lock him up!

Hoo boy. Let's go to the replay, shall we?

"Ever since Donald Trump became president, he has avoided all public appearances where he isn't speaking to a hand-picked crowd of his own supporters. He has never faced an actual crowd made up of a cross-spectrum of Americans before, and it is now easy to see why. Trump showed up at a World Series game last week, and boy did the crowd let him know what they thought of Trump. First there was incredibly loud booing from all corners of the stadium, then came the sustained chants of: 'Lock him up!' This is what the baseball-loving public really thinks of Trump, obviously, and Trump certainly didn't look too happy when he heard it. My guess is that this will be the first and last time Trump ever appears before a crowd that he didn't personally select beforehand -- and for good reason."

 

7
   Good riddance!

Trump decamps. New York politicians "infairly" celebrate.

"Upon hearing the news that Donald Trump had changed his official residence from New York to Florida, a few New York politicians had some very New York things to say about it. Governor Andrew Cuomo reacted with: 'Good riddance... he's all yours, Florida.' And New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was even more to the point: 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out or whatever. Our deepest condolences to the good people of Florida as Trump attempts to outrun his past (and near future).' C'mon, Bill, tell us how you really feel. Heh."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

179 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Infair To Rupublicans!”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Yet another exhausting week has passed...

    Re: Katie Hill - from what I've read she said if she'd stayed in Congress the blackmailers were going to putting out photo after photo after photo and claimed they had hundreds. She just couldn't bear it.

    Then yesterday there was this: https://nypost.com/2019/10/31/katie-hill-hires-revenge-porn-lawyer-carrie-goldberg-to-sue-over-leaked-nude-photos/

    Goldberg — who represents Harvey Weinstein’s alleged victim Lucia Evans — said her firm has launched an investigation to determine who should be prosecuted for the trove of published photos.

    “Everybody who participated in Representative Hill’s humiliation is on notice that we will track them down,” Goldberg said. “Anybody who continues to share, barter, peddle, sell images of Representative Hill will be found out and be brought to justice one way or another. Whether you are an ex-partner, a political opponent, a publisher, or the Republican National Committee, don’t think for a second you’ll be getting away with destroying a woman’s life.”

    “Investigation into the universe of defendants is just beginning,” Goldberg told The Post.

    All I can say is I hope justice prevails and the swine, including her contemptible ex who shopped the photos he took without her knowledge, get hammered.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Kellyanne Conway, the morning before the House vote, echoed this delusional behavior: "You either have the votes or you don't. Guess what? A dirty little secret: They don't have the votes."

    I know, right!?

    Guess what? A dirty little secret: She's either knowingly lying to the gullible rubes -- because they admittedly "love the uneducated" and want to keep them that way -- or she's completely delusional regarding obvious facts. Either way, it's right-wingnut lunacy, and the rubes are "all in" and spew it back faithfully like useful idiots without a brain cell among them.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, once again, it's time to look at the FACTS...

    Conventional Weigantian wisdom..

    "Democrats desperation to impeach is directly and inversely proportional to their confidence that they can beat President Trump at the ballot box."

    Let's couple that with some quotes for the ages..

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    The quotes are clear..

    If an impeachment is not bi-partisan, it is not legitimate...

    If an impeachment is not legitimate, it is a coup..

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

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Beto has bit the dust, with Kamala I'll-Sleep-With-Anyone-To-Get-To-The-Top Harris soon to follow..

    Let me add another to the LONG list of Dem candidates who disqualify themselves from being POTUS..

    ANY Dem candidate who promises to curtail the 2nd Amendment and confiscate Americans' guns..... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...

    There are SO MANY ways that ALL of the Dem candidates have disqualified themselves to be elected POTUS...

    It's no wonder Dems are so desperate to purse this faux impeachment coup of theirs...

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It looks like this was not the first time Rudy and Trump had forced our Ukrainian allies to do favors for the president in exchange for military aid and a face to face meeting for their president with Trump!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/did-the-trump-quid-pro-quo-begin-even-earlier-than-we-thought/2019/10/31/404b1b80-fc28-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.html

    Great article by David Ignatius!

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors

    But it does ~ just not the republicants that you like.

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear: there will be a great deal made about that in the coming weeks...

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [3]

    The quotes are clear..

    They most definitely are clear!

    Until the full House votes on actual Articles Of Impeachment, there IS no impeachment.

    -Michale’s post from yesterday’s article [74]

    Squawk! Squawk! Squawk!

  9. [9] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CW - I'm so glad that you got Cuomo's reply in.

    Good riddance... he's all yours, Florida.

    One for the ages.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Great article by David Ignatius!

    With not a SINGLE fact to support.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    They most definitely are clear!

    As usual.. You can't attack the validity of the message so you attack the messenger..

    Such a typical response from those of lesser intelligence..

    :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear: there will be a great deal made about that in the coming weeks...

    Yea.. You said the same thing with all the Russia Collusion delusion bullshit..

    What was the result??

    You were WRONG...

    But hay.. I think it's cute you actually think you have any credibility here.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it does ~ just not the republicants that you like.

    Facts to support?? none..

    Yet, I have facts to support MY case..

    Not a SINGLE Republican voted for Nancy Pelosi's ridiculous measure...

    The VERY definition of Partisan...

    Nancy Pelosi says that a partisan impeachment is not a legitimate impeachment..

    Joe Biden says that a partisan impeachment is not a legitimate impeachment..

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

    :D

    You lose.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    We get rid of Jalen Ramsey..

    We gain President Trump...

    Life is good.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW - I'm so glad that you got Cuomo's reply in.

    Good riddance... he's all yours, Florida.

    One for the ages.

    Funny thing though..

    When Trump had a -D after his name, New York LOVED Donald Trump..

    Proof positive that they **ONLY** factor at work here is the -D vs -R....

    Once again.. You lose.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now lets here from a rabid liberal..

    A partisan impeachment vote is exactly what the framers feared

    The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

    Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

    It is almost as if this founding father were looking down at the House vote from heaven and describing what transpired this week. Impeachment is an extraordinary tool to be used only when the constitutional criteria are met. These criteria are limited and include only “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Hamilton described these as being “of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

    His use of the term “political” has been widely misunderstood in history. It does not mean that the process of impeachment and removal should be political in the partisan sense. Hamilton distinctly distinguished between the nature of the constitutional crimes, denoting them as political, while insisting that the process for impeachment and removal must remain scrupulously neutral and nonpartisan among members of Congress.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/468483-a-partisan-impeachment-vote-is-exactly-what-the-framers-feared

    The consensus is clear... Democrats and Republicans alike agree...

    A partisan impeachment is NOT a legitimate impeachment..

    An illegitimate impeachment is a coup...

    It's really THAT simple...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Supreme Court chief justice presides over the Senate removal trial of a sitting president, and adding that key judicial element would seem to demonstrate a desire by the framers to have a presiding officer whose very job description is to do justice without regard to party or person. In both of the previous removal trials of President Johnson and President Clinton, however, the chief justice played a traditionally symbolic role.

    If President Trump is impeached, it is certainly possible that his lawyers would ask Chief Justice John Roberts to play a more substantive role. If the grounds for impeachment designated by the House include criteria such as maladministration or corruption, his lawyers could plausibly demand the chief justice to dismiss the charges as unconstitutional.

    After all, the framers explicitly rejected maladministration as a ground for impeachment and removal. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, argued that such open criteria would give Congress far too much power to remove a duly elected president. It would, he feared, turn our republic into a democracy in which the chief executive served at the pleasure of the parliament and could be removed by a simple vote of no confidence.

    No matte HOW ya'all wanna spin it, the fact is clear...

    Democrats have NO CASE....

    And THAT is why they couldn't get any Republicans to vote for their ridiculous measure..

    THAT is why even a couple Democrats voted AGAINST it...

    The *ONLY* bi-partisan aspect of this whole sad coup is the forces aligned AGAINST the faux impeachment coup...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wha???

    Ya'all run away again!??? :smirk: :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    OUCH

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

    Biden has fallen BELOW Buttigeg.....

    JL, ya getting nervous??? :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.”
    -Adam Schiff

    Even SCHIFF-HEAD says a partisan Impeachment is not a legitimate impeachment..

    How many Democrats have to tell ya'all before ya'all get it thru your Party Loyalty blinders???

    The ONLY legitimate impeachment is a BI-PARTISAN impeachment..

    The founders on down thru today's Democrats ALL AGREE...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ronan Farrow says Bill Clinton was 'credibly accused of rape,' calls Juanita Broaddrick's case 'overdue for revisiting'
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/ronan-farrow-bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick

    Rut Roh....

    Bubba is peeing in his depends!! :D

    This is going to be worse for Dems than Harvey Weinstein.... :D

    By the time, Barr and Durham and Farrow gets thru with Democrats, there ain't going to be NOTHING left of the Party!!! :D

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    "C'mon, Bill, tell us how you really feel. Heh."

    Good deal: this one particularly Heh-worthy,!

    Signed-
    Society for the Prevention of Gratuitous Usage of Heh

  23. [23] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [22]

    I'm just sayin', people

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aha! A fellow early riser.. :D

    If I sleep in til 0500hrs I feel like I've wasted half the day... :D

  25. [25] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [22]

    Just like I want my next first kiss to be my last first kiss,
    I want my very next Heh
    To be my best Heh yet

    (Sooomebody, stop me!)

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll have what HE'S having!! :D

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the news with a rather novel idea -- he's considering going live on television to read the semi-transcript of the Ukraine call.

    That's positively unsane since the transcript isn't the whole conversation in its untirety, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and read unbetween the lines at what Trump was unsinuating.

    He thinks this would be a modern-day "fireside chat," but in reality it would more accurately be seen as a "dumpster-fireside chat." Or maybe that's too "infair" to the president.

    How much harm could he do to himself when he's already admitted he did it and would do it again... and then did it again except China?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the news with a rather novel idea -- he's considering going live on television to read the semi-transcript of the Ukraine call.

    He thinks this would be a modern-day "fireside chat," but in reality it would more accurately be seen as a "dumpster-fireside chat." Or maybe that's too "infair" to the president.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And yet, DUMBOCRATS had the EXACT SAME IDEA to have Hollywood stars read the Mueller Report out loud to an audience..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do ya'all POSSIBLY comprehend how COMPLETELY and UTTERLY RIDICULOUS ya'all sound!!???

    "Democrats should read the entire Mueller report out loud!!! What a totally and utterly INSPIRED idea!!! That is EXACT what needs to happen!!"

    "President Trump is going to read the Ukrainian call out loud.. What a totally and utterly STOOPID idea!!!
    What kind of MORON would THINK that THAT was a good idea!!!"

    BBBBWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    One of the symptoms of HHPTDS is an incessant and uncontrollable need to talk out BOTH SIDES of one's ass!!! :D

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    5

    Great article by David Ignatius!

    Yep! He's correct. :)

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, DUMBOCRATS had the EXACT SAME IDEA to have Hollywood stars read the Mueller Report out loud to an audience..

    As usual, I'll be happy to help ya'all out..

    "Well...er... uh... THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!"

    :eyeroll:

    It's astonishing to me that ya'all are so blatantly hypocritical and are totally oblivious to the hypocrisy ya'all spew....

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    17

    Democrats have NO CASE....

    And THAT is why they couldn't get any Republicans to vote for their ridiculous measure..

    Wrong. Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and wouldn't lose any of the Party Whores and Prostitutes who've chosen to ignore United States statutes and their sworn oaths to the Constitution, our rule of law, and "We the People" in favor of a "wanna-be" in service to the dictator Vladimir Putin.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and wouldn't lose any of the Party Whores and Prostitutes who've chosen to ignore United States statutes and their sworn oaths to the Constitution, our rule of law, and "We the People" in favor of a "wanna-be" in service to the dictator Vladimir Putin.

    That old tired line of bullshit died when Mueller totally and utterly EXONERATED President Trump for Russia Collusion..

    {{YYYYYYAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN}}

    You need new material....

    You have LOST at every turn... From 9 Nov 2016 til present day, ya'all have utterly and completely LOST..

    You lost in the courts, you lost at the SCOTUS, ya'all have lost with this illegitimate (Democrats' own claims) impeachment...

    Ya'all have LOST... EVERY TIME.... Each and EVERY time ya'all have lost.. :D

    And ya'all will continue to lose...

    The SMART Weigantians (yes, there are a few of us still around) know that President Trump is going to win re-election..

    And ya'all will LOSE again.. And again.. and again... and again...

    That's all ya'all can **EVER** do...

    Is LOSE!! :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Newt Gingrich: Pelosi’s Halloween impeachment vote was an enormous strategic defeat

    The Halloween vote for impeachment was an enormous strategic defeat for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    She admitted seven months ago, in a March 6 interview with The Washington Post, that a purely partisan impeachment vote was wrong and dangerous. She was right. Here are her own words:

    “I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

    Measured by that standard, the Thursday vote was a terrible failure. The House voted in an entirely partisan manner except for two Democrats who split to vote no with the Republicans.

    Months of leaks, secret investigations, news media hysteria, and a parade of witnesses failed to move a single Republican to vote yes.

    The so-called whistleblower has decayed into a potential liability so much the Democrats are now talking about never bringing him to testify.

    Senate Republicans have been so turned off by the House Democrats that Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, one of President Trump’s more outspoken Republican members, has called their effort “a partisan clown show.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt-gingrich-pelosi-impeachment-vote-defeat

    Even when Democrats win... They STILL lose!!!! :D

    So, let's take count.

    Joe Biden says a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    Nancy Pelosi says a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    Adam Schiff-head says a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    Do ya'all have to have a ton of BRICKS fall on ya??

    :smirk: :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Call to arms: Private group seeks armed volunteers to protect Trump rally-goers
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/1/private-group-seeks-volunteers-conceal-carry-permi/

    Sounds like my kind a gig.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So Pelosi claims she is finally honoring her oath of office and working to strengthen the institution in which she serves.

    There's a first time for everything.

    But there is no substance to the claim that this is one of those times.

    This is just part of the show designed to keep people paying attention to arguments over process or other distractions about the symptoms of the show so there is no discussion on addressing the cause of our problems.

    PLEASE limit the tag team issues of impeachment/scandal and the Dem presidential primary to one day each per week with a review in FTP.

    Spend one day a week covering the rest of the show and reserve one day a week for reality and actual substance.

    20% reality doesn't seem too much to ask of a reality-based blog.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA!!!!

    Nancy Pelosi Is Worried 2020 Candidates Are on Wrong Track
    https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosi-worried-2020-candidates-100000963.html

    I have been saying that for MONTHS and ya'all have been denying it.. :D

    Ya'all have to know how bad ya'all look when PELOSI agrees with me!!! :D

    Let's review..

    ANY Dem candidate who promised to give crimmigrants (illegal immigrant criminals) free and full health care.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...

    ANY Dem candidate who promises open/decriminalized borders.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS

    ANY Dem candidate who promised to take away MILLIONS of Americans' health care plans that they like.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS

    ANY Dem candidate who promised to end fossil fuel use and end fracking.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...

    ANY Dem candidate who promised to allow post-birth abortions.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...

    ANY Dem candidate who promised to give reparations to black Americans.... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS....

    ANY Dem candidate who promises to curtail the 2nd Amendment and confiscate Americans' guns..... WILL NOT BE ELECTED POTUS...

    Pelosi has finally realized what I have been saying for MONTHS...

    Given their current sharp LEFT course, Dims don't stand a CHANCE in 2020...

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    And yet, DUMBOCRATS had the EXACT SAME IDEA to have Hollywood stars read the Mueller Report out loud to an audience..

    There is quite simply no help for the rubes and suckers when they insist that Dipshit Don's idea of performing a live "fireside chat" of his own partially transcribed phone call wherein the criminal himself would be reading his very own words -- in what would essentially be a perpetrator doing a live reenactment of his very own crime -- is the EXACT SAME IDEA as a bunch of other people reading someone else's investigative work product.

    Do ya'all POSSIBLY comprehend how COMPLETELY and UTTERLY RIDICULOUS ya'all sound!!???

    "Democrats should read the entire Mueller report out loud!!! What a totally and utterly INSPIRED idea!!! That is EXACT what needs to happen!!"

    Oh, where would the rubes be without their demonstrable ignorance, their false equivalency, and their ever-present projection? You simply cannot fix stupid when it insists on false analogy... I mean, somebody is reading words so it's EXACTLY ALIKE! *laughs*

    "President Trump is going to read the Ukrainian call out loud.. What a totally and utterly STOOPID idea!!!

    Don't sell Hair Dick Tater short, sunshine. I, for one, think it's an excellent idea. Don could do a fireside chat complete with a crackling log in the background while he performs a reenactment on live television of that time he withheld from Ukraine our taxpayers' hundreds of millions of dollars and America's national security interests in service to Putin until Ukraine delivered some invented dirt on Trump's political opponent and disrupted our ongoing upcoming election while at the same time clearing Russia of any wrongdoing in the previous election. It'll be a fun time for the entire family to watch the confession... bring your own popcorn.

    What kind of MORON would THINK that THAT was a good idea!!!"

    Dipshit Donald... and just about anyone who wanted to see him make a fool out of himself at his own insistence. :)

    That old tired line of bullshit died when Mueller totally and utterly EXONERATED President Trump for Russia Collusion..

    That old tired line of Trump's about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is very much alive and well when not a single one of the Party Whores and Prostitutes who whined incessantly about the procedure and wanting a vote on impeachment didn't see fit to support exactly what they whined incessantly about wanting!

    Nancy Pelosi called their whiny little bluff so NOW what will they have to bitch about? *laughs*

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    That old tired line of Trump's about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is very much alive

    Just like the old tired line of Odumbo shooting someone on 5th Ave and no one caring was alive when Odumbo was POTUS.

    But, as usual, your head is so far up your ass, you can't see past your own hate and bigotry..

  39. [39] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Trump's sins and transgressions:

    1) He colluded with Russians.
    2) He hacked DNC emails.
    3) He revealed that Hillary cheated Bernie.
    4) He used foreign aid for QPQ dirt on Biden.
    5) He's of all-around questionable intellect.
    6) He's so dumb, he thinks the Chinese pay American
    tariff taxes. \
    7) He seeks to profit personally from his office.
    8) He's a total asshole of a human being.
    9) He's a sexist pig.
    10)He defeated Hillary when everybody said it wasn't
    possible. (Actually, that is really No. 1)

    So yeah, let's impeach!!!

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    You waste a lot of photons..

    Trump's sins and transgressions:

    Can be whittled down to 1..

    BEAT DEMOCRATS AT THEIR OWN SORDID GAME

    fini

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why everyone here is so hysterical..

    THAT is why everyone here (NEN) suffers from HHPTDS...

    They got beat..

    And TRUMP was the one that beat 'em...

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    38

    Just like the old tired line of Odumbo shooting someone on 5th Ave and no one caring was alive when Odumbo was POTUS.

    * But, but, but... Obama!
    * Incoherent rant... Obama!
    * False equivalency bullshit... Obama!
    * Noun, verb... Barack Obama!
    * Deflect, deflect, deflect... Obama!

    But, as usual, your head is so far up your ass, you can't see past your own hate and bigotry..

    * Said the guy who can't stop whining and deflecting incessantly in his display of love and tolerance for all things "Democrat," Pelosi, Hillary, and Barack Hussein Obama!

    * Said the guy whose pointy bald head is jammed so firmly up inside his elephantine butt cheeks that it seems to have grown some locks, but you mustn't let appearances fool you because that's just the Obama lover's admitted hairy ass.

    * Said the guy who admitted he's not here to discuss political issues... nope... he's just here to troll.

    When you're the poster who's admittedly just here to troll Democrats rather than discuss political issues, it shouldn't surprise you in the least if all you believe you see is bigotry and hatred... because you're the guy who's bringing it in spades, the one who gets his jollies ranting in repetitive fashion to the vast majority of other posters who are not and will never be a genuflecting member of the cult of which you suck at the alter like an ignorant yet useful idiot. *laughs*

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    41

    That's why everyone here is so hysterical..

    Said the guy furiously sucking.

    They got beat..

    You mustn't keep projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else; I would wager without hesitation that you're the only one here ignorant enough to believe the utter nonsensical proposition that the election was about them personally.

    Troll's gonna troll... but you're quite mistaken if you think it'll change our lives and a poor pathetic fool if you believe it'll alter your own miserable existence.

    Y'all have a nice day. :)

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you're the poster who's admittedly just here to troll Democrats rather than discuss political issues,

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify the hard feelings you have by getting your ass kicked every day of the week and twice on Sunday.. :D

    The vast majority of comments I post have NOTHING to do with you...

    The VAST MAJORITY of comments YOU post has EVERYTHING to do with me..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    You are PWNED, bitch!! :D

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    TRUMP was the one that beat 'em

    Don't forget that Trump beat another challenger: the Republican middle. He did that by portraying himself as a tough-dealing businessman.

    Then he LOST Syria, just turned it over to Russia, and betrayed the Kurds (our allies in the region).

    The Republican middle was quietly re-born. These were mostly quiet republicans, like my grandparents. They've been suffering in silence, aghast at Trump's behavior, but hoping that he at least could keep the economy running smoothly.

    Now growth is below 2 percent, and the economy has some rough passages ahead. If a recession hits, the number of defections could accelerate.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then he LOST Syria, just turned it over to Russia, and betrayed the Kurds (our allies in the region).

    Iddn't it funny how you didn't give a SHIT about the Kurds when Odumbo stabbed them in the back??

    Once again, proving beyond ANY doubt..

    You don't give a shit about anything but your Party slavery...

    Now growth is below 2 percent, and the economy has some rough passages ahead.

    You have been predicting "rough passages ahead" for over THREE YEARS!!!

    AND YOU HAVE ****ALWAYS**** BEEN WRONG!!!

    Do you HONESTLY think you have even an IOTA of credibility???

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yer frakin' hilarious!!! :D

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    44

    The vast majority of comments I post have NOTHING to do with you...

    I'll take your word for it.

    The VAST MAJORITY of comments YOU post has EVERYTHING to do with me..

    The forum troll admittedly reads EVERYTHING I post, but I would wager I am not unlike the VAST MAJORITY here who cannot factually say that we share his subjugation and enslavement toward us. Troll hanging onto our every word and admitting it!

    You are PWNED, bitch!! :D

    See, what did I tell you, Mike!?

    Your hairy ass is still just as wide as that trailer in the swamps you got yourself bitch slapped into, and you're still just the penniless dipshit troll who cannot change his pathetic existence no matter how much he trolls the others on this forum. However, thank you so much for your admission that you're our "PWNED bitch" since you're undeniably the poster who PWNED his own bitch and archived herein for all posterity. *laughs*

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    * But, but, but... Obama!
    * Incoherent rant... Obama!
    * False equivalency bullshit... Obama!
    * Noun, verb... Barack Obama!
    * Deflect, deflect, deflect... Obama!

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    45

    Then he LOST Syria, just turned it over to Russia, and betrayed the Kurds (our allies in the region).

    Trump didn't LOSE Syria; he gave it to Vlad as a birthday present.

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Peace out! :)

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria makes 11 comments..

    Almost 75% of them are TOO me or ABOUT me..

    BBBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Da bitch is PWNED!!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Contrast that to my 29 comments.. Barely 2 or 3 deal with Victoria...

    Yep... It's clear who has more real estate in who's head!!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Da BITCH is PWNED!!!! :D

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh... just one more thing before I go.

    Buzzfeed is posting the redacted 302's they obtained via FOIA and plans to release them on a regular basis.

    The Mueller Report’s Secret Memos

    BuzzFeed News sued the US government for the right to see all the work that Mueller’s team kept secret. We've published the first installment.

    Posted on November 2, 2019, at 12:08 p.m. ET

    The 448-page report issued by then–special counsel Robert Mueller last March was the most hotly anticipated prosecutorial document in a generation, laying out the evidence of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the Trump administration’s efforts to obstruct the inquiry. That report, however, reflects only a small fraction of the billions of primary-source documents that the government claims Mueller’s team may have amassed over the course of its two-year investigation.

    Those documents are a crucial national legacy, a key to understanding this important chapter in American history. But the public has not been allowed to see any of them. Until now.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6537502-19-Cv-1278-Release-1-Bates-1-503-Ocr.html

    continued...

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    ...continued

    After years of speculation and accusation, these documents offer a chance for everyone to view a key function of American democracy. That opportunity — hard-won, but enshrined anew with each additional FOIA release — commences today. It will last long after all the players have departed.

    Some takeaways so far:

    Manafort was pushing the conspiracy theory that Ukraine hacked the DNC as early as 2016

    Page 14: In an April 2018 interview with the special counsel’s office, Rick Gates, who had served as deputy Trump campaign chair and long been Paul Manafort’s right-hand man, told investigators that after the campaign learned the DNC had been hacked, Manafort pushed the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had orchestrated the attack. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s persisted in right-wing circles, even after the US Intelligence Community concluded Russia was involved, and one that Trump brought up in his July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    In a written memorandum of the July call released by the White House, Trump at one point says to Zelensky, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

    ...

    Michael Cohen "had to keep Trump out of the messaging related to Russia."

    From Page 74: "COHEN learned the messge to have the Russia investigations end early from discussions with TRUMP, SEKULOW" and a third person whose name is redacted.

    ...

    From page 77, "Cohen has to keep Trump out of the messaging related to Russia" in preparation for his Congressional testimony.

    ...

    Manafort was advising the Trump campaign up until days before the election

    Bannon’s emails show that Manafort was still advising the Trump campaign three days before the 2016 election — despite having been fired in August — and the campaign’s need to hide that fact.

    _____

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/mueller-report-secret-memos-1

    Heavily redacted for ongoing litigation... e.g., Roger Stone's name fits nicely in lots of those spaces.

    Happy reading! :)

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why thank you. The Mueller Report rear its heads, and ironically (or not so ~ history is a tapestry) points right to THIS investigation.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    51

    Victoria makes 11 comments..

    Almost 75% of them are TOO me or ABOUT me..

    Oh, math equations and pathetic grammar... ALL devoted to your servitude of my EVERY post. What a quite obvious "PWNED bitch" you've demonstrated yourself to be, but you needn't have bothered proving it since the group on this forum is well aware that you're the board troll owned by every single one of us.

    Contrast that to my 29 comments.. Barely 2 or 3 deal with Victoria...

    I don't think anyone else gives a shit, having NEVER come anywhere near this exhibition of your palpable demonstration of sheer stone cold "PWNED bitch" servitude and enslavement to every single one of us.

    Now do word counts along with more math equations like the "PWNED bitch" you're demonstrating; that'll show us! *laughs*

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    54

    Why thank you.

    You're certainly quite welcome, as always, Beetlejuice.

    The Mueller Report rears its heads, and ironically (or not so ~ history is a tapestry) points right to THIS investigation.

    A not so coincidental coincidence, wouldn't you say, Beetlejuice?

    Third time's a charm, wouldn't you say... what's your name? ;)

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick: My first name is Parker.

    And yours is Victoria?

    How very nice, but I like "Kick", because that's what you do.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment a winner for Democrats? Don’t bet on it

    If the goal was to damage President Trump by formalizing the impeachment inquiry, it’s Mission Unaccomplished for House Democrats.

    If anything, the vote solidified Trump’s hold on power. There were zero GOP defections, meaning we have zero drama heading into the public phase of impeachment. Everyone is pretty much in the same lanes they’ve been in since the Russian-collusion investigation, the obstruction of justice investigation and every other investigation.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, that gives people little reason to be glued to their screens when House committees take public testimony. The basic story — Trump pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into Democrats that would help Trump — is out there already. People know how they feel about it, and if you believe the polls, they’re pretty evenly split on whether the president deserves to be thrown out of office.

    The only potential drama before last week’s vote was whether there might be any movement, whether any Republicans would see it Democrats’ way.

    Looks like they don’t.

    And when it gets to the Senate, it will play out just the same way. Someone like Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah may break GOP ranks, but no one thinks 20 Republicans, the bare minimum who would have to defect to convict Trump, would actually do so.

    So the Democrats will spend the next few precious months acting out a pretend cliffhanger to which everyone actually knows the script and the ending. No plot twists in sight. Remember health care, the issue that won so many elections for Democrats in 2018? You might, but they don’t seem to.

    Come next year, Trump will have an impeachment victory and quite probably a solid economy.

    The Democrats will have — what?
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Impeachment-a-winner-for-Democrats-Don-t-bet-14803559.php

    Again, let's take stock..

    Joe Biden says that a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    Nancy Pelosi says that a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    Adam Schiff-head says that a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    An illegitimate impeachment is an illegal impeachment...

    An illegal impeachment is a coup..

    "Hay, people!! Yunno what would be a great idea!!!?? A COUP to nullify a free, fair, legal, democratic and Constitutional election!!!"
    -Dumbocrats

    One just HAS to wonder if Dumbocrats have a few brain cells between themselves.. :smirk: :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    And lets visit the Democrat Paradise again...

    Is California Becoming Unlivable??

    Can California Save Itself?
    https://outline.com/GNzyY5

    The PERFECT example of Democrat Governing Incompetence..

    California is the US's Venezuela....

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Washington Post’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

    Reporting misconstrued facts, making knowingly deceptive omissions, and writing columns defending terrorists are just a few things Washington Post journalists were up to this week.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01/the-washington-post-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/

    What else can one expect from the Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party???

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Jeffrey Dahmer, connoisseur of exotic and locally sourced meats, dies at 34" #WaPoDeathNotices

    Voldemort, austere political reformer and aspiring school teacher, killed by teen terrorist. #WaPoDeathNotices

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Now THOSE are funny!!!! :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    And... From CNN of all places..

    :D

    Democrats are wasting America's time on impeachment

    (CNN)Let me skip to the end: The Democratic-majority US House of Representatives, in partisan fashion, is all but certain to impeach President Donald Trump. The Republican-majority Senate, in partisan fashion, will almost certainly acquit him. And the net result will be that Democrats will have abused the US Constitution to satisfy political passions instead of approaching impeachment as the solemn act the framers intended.

    Let's be honest. The Democrats were always going to do this. From the minute we realized on election night that Donald Trump had won, they began fantasizing about nullifying the election results. Indeed, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the Democrats' biggest concern was that Trump would not accept the outcome -- a Hillary Clinton win, of course! -- of which they were quite certain.

    And as it turns out, it was the Democrats who had no intention of accepting it. How odd that they have again become what they claim to detest about Trump.
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/opinions/democrats-are-wasting-americas-time-on-impeachment-jennings/index.html

    It's not as if President Trump actually DID anything to deserve the Mueller Collusion delusion or this faux impeachment coup...

    All of this was pre-ordained.. From the minute that Trump committed the unpardonable sin of destroying Hillary Clinton in the election, Trump was a marked man..

    The last 3 years could have gone a thousand different ways.. President Trump could have governed atop an awesome economy (as he has), he could have instituted policies and procedures that cured cancer and brought peace to the Middle East.. He could have exploded NASA and taken the US to Mars... He could have single-handedly fixed the Korea Peninsula issue and peacefully reunited the Koreas..

    President Trump could have done ALL of that and tons more..

    And he STILL would have had to endure a partisan based witch hunt and a faux impeachment coup..

    And do you know why??

    Because you people hate him.. Reasons?? Baaahhh.. You don't need any REASONS to hate.. Haters NEVER need any real reason to hate..

    They just hate..

    So, let's not pretend that President Trump actually did anything wrong to deserve ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion.. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that President Trump actually did anything wrong to deserve this faux impeachment coup..

    He hasn't...

    Ya'all Democrats just hate him.. And that is sufficient for ya'all..

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

    -Lee Ann Womack

    :eyeroll:

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    An illegal impeachment is a coup..

    Or an assassination..

    Take your pick..

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi never holds votes when she is unsure of the outcome, please remember.

    Yea... The Hastert Rule...

    Funny thing..

    Ya'all castigated and denigrated Hastert for that rule..

    But ya'all applaud and worship Pelosi for the same rule..

    Proof once again, that everything is relative... Relative to the -D or the -R that is in play..

    I miss the OLD Weigantia..

    Were right was right and wrong was wrong and it was pointed out more often than not without ANY regard for who had the -D after their name and who had the -R...

    Yunno... REALITY...

    I miss that reality-based Weigantia.. :(

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Parker,

    How come you never addressed your hypocrisy about the Kurds??

    How you cheered on Odumbo when HE stabbed the Kurds in the back...

    How you denigrate and attack President Trump when you thought HE stabbed the Kurds in the back..

    Why the hypocrisy??

    Ahh.. Of course... Odumbo has a -D after his name and President Trump has a -R after his name..

    That's all it is..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    An anecdote from history..

    When President Reagan was shot, he was wheeled into the OR for emergency surgery. Before he was put under anesthetic, he (as he was wont to do) quipped up. "I hope ya'all are Republicans.."

    The doctor, a devout Democrat replied "Mr President, today we are ALL Republicans."

    Democrats have, with a little help from the GOP during the Obama years, made such camaraderie, such love of country and old-fashioned relic of the past..

    Sad...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi is issuing a pointed message to Democrats running for president in 2020: Those liberal ideas that fire up the party’s base are a big loser when it comes to beating President Donald Trump.

    Proposals pushed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders like Medicare for All and a wealth tax play well in liberal enclaves like her own district in San Francisco but won’t sell in the Midwestern states that sent Trump to the White House in 2016, she said.

    “What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.”

    “Remember November,” she said. “You must win the Electoral College.”

    Pelosi was careful not to back any one candidate in the party’s contentious presidential contest, but didn’t hold back when asked about which ideas should – and shouldn’t – form the party’s case to American voters. Or about her fears that candidates like Warren and Sanders are going down the wrong track by courting only fellow progressives – and not the middle-of-the-road voters Democrats need to win back from Trump.

    This is familiar ground for Pelosi, who has spent the year tussling with the “Squad,” a vanguard of liberal newcomers to the House led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

    Hell, even Nancy Pelosi agrees with me that Democrats running for the Dem nomination are too far Left to appeal to Independents and NPAs...

    Pelosi is warming those Dem nominee wannabes that they are giving President Trump a HUGE re-election win by pushing so far to the Left..

    Who would have POSSIBLY thunked it???

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, all of this begs the question..

    In ya'all falling all over yerselves to praise and heap adulations on Nancy Pelosi...

    Does that mean you agree with here that the Democrat candidates are surging too far Left??

    Or is ya'all's praise and adulation of Pelosi SOLELY and COMPLETELY dependent on her saying what ya'all want to hear??

    Think about it.. Rub those two brains cells together and see if ya'all can come up with an independent thought that is not dependent on Party slavery...

    :smirk: :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrr

    Does that mean you agree with here that the Democrat candidates are surging too far Left??

    My kingdom for an edit feature!!! :D

    Does that mean you agree with her that the Democrat candidates are surging too far Left??

    Disqus... The future is Disqus...

    Hell, I'll even PAY for it!! :D

    What ya say, Liz?? Want to go in halfsies on a DISQUS subscription?? :D

  70. [70] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Contrast that to my 29 comments.. Barely 2 or 3 deal with Victoria...

    Actually, while you only use Victoria’s name directly in 2 or 3 of your posts, you are still talking about her and everyone else here in the vast majority of your posts.

    You attack everyone for taking positions that no one has taken. You constantly lie about the events that others are discussing — claiming to know our unspoken thoughts and motives for taking those untaken positions. So while you don’t always attack everyone by name, your posts that contain attacks of other posters to this site far out number your posts that do not contain any attacks!

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, while you only use Victoria’s name directly in 2 or 3 of your posts, you are still talking about her and everyone else here in the vast majority of your posts.

    And ya'all talk about what Republicans and Trump does all the time.

    So???? Duuuhhhhhhh

    You attack everyone for taking positions that no one has taken.

    Bullshit. Cite facts or shut up..

    You constantly lie about the events that others are discussing —

    Bullshit.. Cite facts or shut up..

    claiming to know our unspoken thoughts and motives for taking those untaken positions.

    Just as ya'all claim to know my unspoken thoughts and motives and the unspoken thoughts and motives of President Trump and Republicans.

    Again.. DUH.....

    So while you don’t always attack everyone by name, your posts that contain attacks of other posters to this site far out number your posts that do not contain any attacks!

    Just as ya'all's posts that attack people far outnumber ya'all's posts that don't.

    AGAIN.. DUHH!!! Moron. :eyeroll:

    This is so typical of you haters, Russ.

    Always accusing OTHER people of what you yourself do...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, Russ..

    I address haters and bigots...

    If you feel you are part of that group..

    Well, that says it all...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    You constantly lie about the events that others are discussing —

    Says the guy who is constant lying that I told you I was never an LEO..

    Once again, dipshit.. You accuse others of what you yourself does...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Antifa Violence
    https://twitter.com/i/status/1190473186518847488

    Funny how no one here condemns THAT violence, eh...

    Just the FACTS....

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Us...(us...us....us....us)

    and them....(and them...and them...and them)

    and after all we're only ordinary men."

    -Floyd

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would say that some are a little more ordinary then others.. :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems' Impeachment Charade a Disaster for Them, Not the American People

    What does it mean after the House of Representatives — on an almost one-hundred-percent pure partisan vote, save for two Democrats who wisely demurred — decides to expand an impeachment investigation on what they claim to be serious charges when... the very next day... the stock market zooms to all-time highs, breaking records substantially on all major indexes, and black unemployment goes to all-time lows?

    Well, the latter spells big trouble for the Democrats a year from now and the former means the investment world thinks impeachment is a bunch of horse hockey that will never happen (the Republican Senate will never convict Trump, not even envious Mitt) and the real news was the job figures.

    And it's easy to see why both of those are true. No matter what polls tell you, it's not just Kanye. African Americans are wising up to the fact they've been royally you-know-what'd by decades of Democratic Party rule. Under Trump, their paychecks are going up faster than anybody's. Even black youth unemployment is at record lows. You think they're not making the connection?
    https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/dems-impeachment-charade-a-disaster-for-them-not-the-american-people/

    No matter HOW ya spin it..

    No matter WHICH metric or parameter you want to use..

    Democrats are hosed.. :D

    And THAT ain't no lie.. :smirk: :D

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    You attack everyone for taking positions that no one has taken.

    Bullshit. Cite facts or shut up..

    You constantly lie about the events that others are discussing —

    Bullshit.. Cite facts or shut up..

    Or you can run away and prove to everyone you have no facts to support your claim..

    :smirk: :D

  79. [79] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Weigantians and other fumduckers who worship at the altar of political polltakers would do wise to figure out a way to gain access to today's "Ask Marilyn" column, still found in many newspapers.

    She's responding to the question (I paraphrase), "How in the age of cellphones and caller ID, can polltakers possibly hope to get anything right?"

    her response (again paraphrased), "They ain't got a prayer!"

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,
    perhaps i've never said so, but i for one am glad to have your voice in this forum. it's rare that a true conservative is willing to brave the waters of the liberal blogosphere for any purpose other than trolling.

    (note to @m, this is not necessarily a knock on you, but i don't consider you a conservative; your politics are generally more about the person than the principle. yes, often you repeat the talking points of the paleo-cons and john birchers, but only when they agree with your personal views.

    JL

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    fumduckers

    Is that an industry term?? :D

  82. [82] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    poet

    Thanks for your kind words. I only wish you could be more effusive in your praise for my efforts, perhaps on the order of Kick, Paula, Liz etc.

    They're almost nominating me for sainthood!

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    (note to @m, this is not necessarily a knock on you, but i don't consider you a conservative;

    And that's why I like having you around.. :D more often then not, you see the reality and ignore the propaganda.. Not always.. But enough to make you more or less trustworthy..

    Put another way.. If you tell me the sky is blue, I usually won't have to look outside to confirm... :D

    your politics are generally more about the person than the principle.

    More accurately, I would say my politics are more situationally based on the facts on the ground.. On a specific incident/issue instead of blanket Left or Right...

    In other words, I can easily come up with a plausible scenario where I would scream louder than the most devout Left Winger... :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks for your kind words. I only wish you could be more effusive in your praise for my efforts, perhaps on the order of Kick, Paula, Liz etc.

    They're almost nominating me for sainthood!

    It's been my experience with JL (over THIRTEEN YEARS!!!
    WOW!!!) that he, unless the transgression is mighty large, rarely joins in other people's battles... :D

    It's part of his charm... :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maryland governor assails Montgomery County executive for banning police station from displaying 'divisive' 'thin blue line' flag

    Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich called the flag “divisive” over the weekend and said it was not going to be put on display at the Fifth District police station, overruling officers who accepted the gift and said that it would be displayed.

    Montgomery County’s police union also criticized Elrich, who is a Democrat, saying that it would be honored to accept the “thin blue line” flag.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/maryland-governor-montgomery-county-executive-for-banning-police-divisive-thin-blue-line-flag

    What IS it about Democrats that they hate cops so much???

    Disgusting...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    (note to @m, this is not necessarily a knock on you,

    For the record, I consider this a compliment.. :D

    On some things I am conservative, on others I am a liberal..

    The fact that you recognize that I am not the dyed-in-the-wool conservative that others of lesser integrity try to paint me as??

    Pleases me to no end.. :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    SHOCK POLL: Biden in dead heat — with Hillary!

    If Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race today, she would essentially be vying to be the frontrunner.

    Despite some 20 candidates competing for the nomination, a weak media-appointed leading candidate is providing an opportunity for the 2016 loser to rethink getting into the race.

    A new poll from Harvard Harris finds Clinton nipping at the heels of Joe Biden in a hypothetical match up. Hillary, so far, has not declared her candidacy, though she has repeatedly teased the idea.
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-poll-hillary-only-1-point-behind-biden-in-hypothetical-match-up/

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

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that Hillary is taking a good long look at this pool, eh? :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whistleblower now willing to take Republican questions, lawyer abruptly announces
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whistleblower-gop-questions-lawyer-nunes-schiff

    Which basically means that the Democrat plant/stooge has been coached well enough that his handlers think he can stand up to scrutiny...

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhh Scratch that...

    Turns out the Democrat plant/stooge is still trying to remain anonymous and not have to accept the consequences of their bullshit..

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Polls, blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa

    Man on the street???

    'Meet the Press' asked voters in early primary states about impeachment, saw little support

    NBC News' "Meet the Press" took to the streets to ask voters in early primary states what they think of Democrats' efforts to impeach President Trump, and the results may be surprising.

    "We went out and tried to find some voters to talk about impeachment. We had to bring it up to them, here’s what they told us," host Chuck Todd said before playing the montage Sunday.

    "I think it's a waste of time," said Minnesota voter Jim Baird. "You have a bunch of kids fighting and not accomplishing what they are elected for."

    New Hampshire voter Gary Chynoweth said Americans should rely on the country's system of checks and balances to resolve the issue fairly.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-democrats-voters-meet-the-press-nbc

    You people can point to polls all you want..

    But the facts remain that everyday Americans?? Patriotic Americans??

    Think Democrats are wasting everyone's time and not doing their jobs..

    Democrats will pay for this BIGTIME in 2020...

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    South Carolina voter Tracy Veillette said she read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. "I read the document, and there was absolutely nothing concerning to me," she said. "From one President to another, it was absolutely appropriate."

    Democrats simply don't have a case..

    Patriotic Americans KNOW they don't have a case..

  92. [92] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You attack everyone for taking positions that no one has taken.

    Bullshit. Cite facts or shut up..


    Iddn't it funny how you didn't give a SHIT about the Kurds when Odumbo stabbed them in the back??

    Where is your proof? You got none! Zero!

    That old tired line of bullshit died when Mueller totally and utterly EXONERATED President Trump for Russia Collusion..

    Mueller didn’t investigate Trump for collusion, so he couldn’t have exonerated Trump.

    And then you make these wild statements that are comical at best:

    The last 3 years could have gone a thousand different ways.. President Trump could have governed atop an awesome economy (as he has), he could have instituted policies and procedures that cured cancer and brought peace to the Middle East.. He could have exploded NASA and taken the US to Mars... He could have single-handedly fixed the Korea Peninsula issue and peacefully reunited the Koreas..

    President Trump could have done ALL of that and tons more..

    So why the HELL DIDN’T HE DO THESE THINGS IF HE “COULD HAVE”??? What stopped him?

    Says the guy who is constant lying that I told you I was never an LEO..

    So now you are finally directly answering my question....you didn’t say that you had never been a LEO for a local police department? I guess I was lying about you claiming to be a MP in the service, too?

    Once again, dipshit.. You accuse others of what you yourself does...

    When did I lie about being a member of law enforcement?

    As for you lying about it, feel free to tell the group which department you retired from, because I am pretty sure that all we would need to do is look up their hiring guidelines and it would be clear that with your documented criminal history, you would never have been hired. Cue the excuses!

    We all already know your full name and where you live because you chose to tell us that info...so it’s not like you’d be giving out any relevant personal info. Plus, think about how big of an apology I would be forced to offer you!

    But we both know you are lying. The way you’ve avoided directly answering the question for so long was proof enough of that! Your lies caught up to you. This is what happens when you try to bond with people that you’ve been trolling and lying to for so long. You shared the real background for the real Michael, instead of the embellished one you had invented for your online persona, Michale.

    It’s a shame you feel compelled to be Michale on here...I liked Michael and think most everyone on here does too whenever he sneaks in.

  93. [93] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-79

    Vos Savant is no authority on the matter of statistically sound polling methods. If she backed up her assertion with some math reasoning, why didn't you cite it? Or is this a just another faith based opionion you took a shine to? You are perpetually smug, but I never see anything backing it up. Give it a rest.

  94. [94] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [93]

    I merely made a suggestion that the 'pollophiles' around here might find her thoughts/opinions interesting/illuminating If you don't want to bother, I couldn't care less, but there's no sense criticising me for what she wrote or what she omitted without even reading it.

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Lost in tedium and missing the big picture, just like the devolutionary American media. Which makes for an infinitely boring political blog.

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, I was referring to the ah, comments section(s) which contribute nothing to the endless divisiveness that more than threatens your republic.

    I hope you can keep it.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it funny how you didn't give a SHIT about the Kurds when Odumbo stabbed them in the back??

    Where is your proof? You got none! Zero!

    You didn't say anything at the time is my proof..

    Mueller didn’t investigate Trump for collusion, so he couldn’t have exonerated Trump.

    NOW look who is lying..

    YOU and most everyone here in Weigantia screamed COLLUSION COLLUSION COLLUSION for TWO FRAKIN' YEARS!!

    And then when ya'all LOST, THEN you tried to say "Oh, no one was ever talking about collusion!!!"

    Yer so full of shit your eyes are brown..

    So now you are finally directly answering my question....

    I have always directly answered your question..

    You are a liar.. You are lying.. It's ALWAYS been the same answer.

    YOU never addressed the FACT that you are lying..

    I guess I was lying about you claiming to be a MP in the service, too?

    Yes, you are lying about that as well..

    You simply can't stop lying..

    But we both know you are lying.

    Once again.. You accuse me of what you are doing..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Why do you always have to make this forum about me??

    I have made 60-odd comments here in this thread..

    The vast majority of them are about current events..

    You could have addressed ANY one of them, if you actually had the balls to take a stand and state a fact or opinion..

    But 98% of your comments are simply about me, personally..

    Why is that??

    Because you have no balls to take a stand on ANYTHING...

    You have made 5 comments in this thread.. ONE of them had anything to do with current events.

    The rest were just nothing but personal attacks on me, lies about me and discussions of me personally..

    While I appreciate the free space you give me in your head (it's so airy and empty) EVERYONE here would be better suited if you just quit worrying about me personally...

    But you can't do that...

    And that is what makes you sad and pathetic..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    but there's no sense criticising me for what she wrote or what she omitted without even reading it.

    Oh.. I see you have met Stig... Yer right. He has no sense..

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Of course, I was referring to the ah, comments section(s) which contribute nothing to the endless divisiveness that more than threatens your republic.

    I hope you can keep it.

    Oh, we can keep it..

    Once we get rid of the Democrat Party in it's current form, the United States Of America will be glorious again!! :D

    The current iteration of the Democrat Party is the only thing in the way..

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all say that Democrats could "walk and chew gum at the same time??

    So, tell me..

    Where is all the legislative efforts on gun control??

    Isn't that important any more??

    Where are the bills for a whole host of things Democrats promised??

    Down the tubes..

    Democrats are going to enter the 2020 election season with NOTHING to show for their efforts but 2 failed coups and NO LEGISLATION...

    And ya'all think that 2020 is going to be the election for Democrats??? :D

    THAT is hilarious... :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's True Crime: He Made People Laugh at Congress
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/04/trumps_true_crime_he_made_people_laugh_at_congress_141643.html

    Yup... :D

    And true patriotic Americans are STILL laughing at Congress.. :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    “That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States … did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted…”

    In other words, Johnson was a boor who had the temerity to speak ill of Congress! This reveals the low bar of impeachment when it is wielded as a weapon and it is an echo of what truly annoys Nancy Pelosi about our lowbrow president. How easy to substitute Donald Trump’s name before the claim that “he did bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States.”

    Sound familiar?? :D

    This faux impeachment coup is for one thing and one thing only..

    Trump/America haters are sore losers......

    It's THAT simple...

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    There were other articles of impeachment as well — 11 in all — but none rose to any level of true seriousness. In the end, the Senate only voted on three of the charges, and Johnson narrowly escaped conviction despite the Senate being heavily dominated by Republicans. It was to seven of them who could not be bullied into submission that Democrat Johnson owed his survival. They put country ahead of politics.

    “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution,” said Sen. James Grimes of Iowa, “for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President.”

    It should be noted that future president John F. Kennedy included Sen. Edmund Ross, one of the seven Republicans who saved Johnson, in his “Profiles in Courage.” Ross and the other six paid the ultimate political price — none was re-elected.

    However, according to an article in the U.S. Senate’s online archive, “Ross was vindicated by the Supreme Court, which declared the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional, and praised by the press and the public for having saved the country from dictatorship.”

    Let’s hope some Democrats and Republicans will earn their way into a sequel to “Profiles in Courage” by standing against the naked power grab of Democrats who wanted to overturn an election and eliminate an “Unacceptable President.”

    If Democrats and Trump/America haters had ANY semblance of humanity and decency in them, they would be properly and utterly ashamed of their actions..

    But GIVEN their actions, it's clear that they have no semblance of humanity or decency in them..

    And that includes most people here..

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. But Democrats DID find time to pin a Scarlett Letter on Katie Hill... :eyeroll:

    Once again, I have to marvel at Weigantia Post-HHPTDS to the Weigantia of Pre-HHPTDS.

    Pre-HHPTDS, Weigantia would have rose up and resoundingly condemned the actions of Democrats for forcing Katie Hill from office..

    Post HHPTDS, Democrats can do no wrong and all we have is a milquetoast "Ehh, she may have deserved it..."

    I think that's the saddest change in Weigantia brought about by HHPTDS...

    Sure, the flame wars are sad and the personal attacks on my wife and kids and grandkids are very annoying...

    But it's the transformation from a reality-based forum to a Forget Reality Hate Trump Every Day All Day forum...

    I guess that's what the haters want... :^/

    I just find it very saddening..

    My most fervent hope is that, once President Trump is re-elected, everyone takes a step back and realizes how far off the reservation they have gone and realize what their hate has made of them..

    But then reality seeps in and I realize that everyone here will probably be pushed past the breaking point by HHPTDS that has been dialed up to 20..

    Once President Trump secures his second term, I have a feeling that things around here are going to make President Trump's first term look like a pleasant family picnic by comparison..

    I see nothing to date that disputes that prediction..

    :(

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, let's revisit some facts that NO ONE has refuted..

    Joe Biden says that a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    Nancy Pelosi says that a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    Adam Schiff-head says that a partisan impeachment is not legitimate..

    An illegitimate impeachment is an illegal impeachment...

    An illegal impeachment is a coup.. Or, per Benjamin Franklin, an assassination..

    These are the facts as they stand in the here and now..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Now, on with the countdown..."
    -Kasey Kasem

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Partisan impeachment process will harm Democrats in critical districts

    On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to formalize the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry and begin the critical public phase of the investigation. The final vote was 232 to 196 — every Republican representative voted no, and only two Democrats defected from the majority.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/468712-partisan-impeachment-process-will-harm-democrats-in-critical-districts

    Get that?? They only bi-partisan was on the part of those who OPPOSED the faux impeachment coup..

    Kudos to those 2 Democrats who had the courage to give the finger to the Democrat Party and do their JOBS which was to acquiesce to the wishes of their constituents..

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    As the impeachment process enters its public phase, Democrats must be mindful of the long-term implications of an apparently partisan inquiry. Undeniably, the media cycle will be dominated by impeachment for months to come, and it will invariably distract from any Democratic legislative priorities and accomplishments — importantly, the legislative promises that Democratic congressional candidates ran on in 2018.

    “We could investigate the issues that we’re really concerned about without going further down the impeachment road,” said Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, one of the Democrats who voted no. “We’ll have the same president and presidential candidate who will be able to say he is exonerated. So, I don’t know how much we really gain from that.”

    That is what's so ridiculous about the Democrats actions..

    No matter **WHAT** Democrats do, it is all but guaranteed that Democrats will LOSE..

    Everyone here agrees... The Senate will NOT convict President Trump.. The Senate will EXONERATE President Trump.. Just as Mueller EXONERATED President Trump..

    Democrats have decided on a course of action that will make President Trump STRONGER and immeasurably hurt Democrats..

    Their so-called "logic" is abysmal..

    The **ONLY** thing that makes sense is Democrats are thinking that, if they don't impeach/coup... If they DON'T try to change the message... Something much worse will happen..

    Enter the Horowitz probe and the Durham criminal investigation..

    The **ONLY** thing that makes any logical sense is that Democrats fear they will lose MORE by the Horowitz/Durham revelations then Dems will lose by this faux impeachment coup..

    If there is a flaw in the logic....

    "I am all ears"
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    Bonus points if one can point out the flaws without any personal attacks or immature name-calling..

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    To be sure, House Democrats have more to lose than to gain from an impeachment process that appears to be tainted by partisanship. Aside from the potential implications for the presidential election, Democrats need to pay particular attention to defending the 41 House seats that they picked up in 2018, many of which were in swing districts. Just one year has passed since the Democrats took back the House — not much time has passed, and not much work has been done.

    Democrats cannot and should not take their control of the House for granted. Given that several Republicans who lost by narrow margins in 2018, such as Young Kim in California’s 39th District and Maria Salazar in Florida’s 27th District, have already declared their candidacy for 2020, House Democrats must be mindful of how this apparently partisan impeachment inquiry will resonate with these voters.

    That is going to be the epitaph on the gravestone of the Democrat Party..

    DEMOCRATS HAD MORE TO LOSE THAN TO GAIN

    Again, the question must be asked..

    WHY??

    And the answer is Michael Horowitz and John Durham..

    Now, to be fair (as I am wont to do) the Democrats play MIGHT work...

    Democrats might find something so horrendous, so catastrophic to President Trump that *ANYTHING* Durham or Horowitz could say would be rendered impotent.

    That *IS* possible..

    But, given the *FACT* that Mueller spent TWO YEARS and over 35 MILLION DOLLARS and all Mueller could do is (by self and by proxy) EXONERATE President Trump???

    Given that *FACT*, the chances that Democrats find something so catastrophic in the next few months to render Horowitz and Durham impotent??

    Very, very, VERY, VERY, *VERY* slim... So very slim as to be all but impossible...

    So, it's obvious that Democrats view this faux/impeachment coup as the most desperate of desperate Hail Marys...

    The Democrat thought process is that, since they are going to be destroyed anyways might as well be pro-active about it rather than passively accepting their demise..

    In other words, Democrats choose to NOT go quietly into that good night..

    Once again.. Flaw?? Logic?? Ross Perot...

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The genius of the Constitution, a separation of powers: three coequal branches of government to be a check and balance on each other,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during the vote on Thursday, reverting to a constitutional argument as a basis for opening the inquiry. While there is a sound constitutional argument to be made here, there is a level of political practicality that simply cannot be ignored in today’s deeply polarized political climate.

    Whether House Democrats will acknowledge it or not, this impeachment inquiry is fundamentally partisan. The Republicans did not break ranks in the initial vote, nor are they likely to do so as the inquiry progresses, and Democratic leaders must seriously consider how this will resonate with independent and swing-state voters. Indeed, the country is sharply divided along partisan lines over whether President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

    Moreover, even if the Democrats successfully impeach President Trump in the House, there is no sign that any Republicans in the Senate will vote to convict the president. Further, if Trump is impeached but not convicted, the Republican base will be emboldened and increasingly formidable, which will present serious challenges for whichever Democratic candidate ends up taking him on in the general election.

    In order for Democrats to build off of their political success from one year ago, they need to continue to communicate on issues that the American people will consider when they go to the ballot box, such as how they are working to build an economy that works for everyone, achieving affordable health care and fixing the broken immigration system. If the 2020 election becomes a polarized battle over impeachment, Democrats may very well lose their gains from 2018 and, for the second election in a row, the White House.

    Once again, the logic above is sound..

    Is there anyone able to challenge the logic??

    Silence Gives Assent
    -Democrats' Charlottesville Rule

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats need to change their mascot from the Ass..

    https://media.giphy.com/media/3E4g26uDjjqKUMs73y/giphy.gif

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Americans go to the ballot box in Nov of 2020, the FOREMOST questions on their minds will be two fold..

    "What has President Trump done for me lately??"

    They will look at their larger paychecks, their larger valued homes and their pride in their country..

    "What have Democrats done for me lately??"

    No legislation, endless investigations, faux impeachment, coups and denigration of this great, this exceptional country..

    And Americans will vote accordingly...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I'll take a break and let everyone catch up.. :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think that's the saddest change in Weigantia brought about by HHPTDS...

    Sure, the flame wars are sad and the personal attacks on my wife and kids and grandkids are very annoying...

    But it's the transformation from a reality-based forum to a Forget Reality Hate Trump Every Day All Day forum...

    Need a BIG indication of this...??

    Look no further than the lead-in to this commentary..

    Rupublicans? How infair!

    Sigh.

    A Typo-Lame...

    Old Weigantia would NEVER have stooped to ANY kind of Lame, let alone the lamest of Lames, a Typo-Lame...

    I mean, seriously...

    If the MOST apropos lead-in one can have on the latest HATE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP screed is a Typo-Lame??

    Well, that says quite a bit on how lame the HATE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP screeds have become..

    I'm just sayin'...

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pregnant Florida mom uses AR-15 to kill home intruder
    https://nypost.com/2019/11/04/pregnant-florida-mom-uses-ar-15-to-kill-home-intruder/

    If Democrats had their way, a Florida family of three would have been brutally murdered by thugs...

    Vote against Democrats.. It could save your life some day...

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is California Becoming Premodern?

    More than 2 million Californians were recently left without power after the state's largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric -- which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year -- preemptively shut down transmission lines in fear that they might spark fires during periods of high autumn winds.

    Consumers blame the state for not cleaning up dead trees and brush, along with the utility companies for not updating their ossified equipment. The power companies in turn fault the state for so over-regulating utilities that they had no resources to modernize their grids.

    Californians know that having tens of thousands of homeless in their major cities is untenable. In some places, municipal sidewalks have become open sewers of garbage, used needles, rodents and infectious diseases. Yet no one dares question progressive orthodoxy by enforcing drug and vagrancy laws, moving the homeless out of cities to suburban or rural facilities, or increasing the number of mental hospitals.

    Taxpayers in California, whose basket of sales, gasoline and income taxes is the highest in the nation, quietly seethe while immobile on antiquated freeways that are crowded, dangerous and under nonstop makeshift repair.

    Gas prices of $4 to $5 a gallon -- the result of high taxes, hyper-regulation and green mandates -- add insult to the injury of stalled commuters. Gas tax increases ostensibly intended to fund freeway expansion and repair continue to be diverted to the state's failing high-speed rail project.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/31/is_california_becoming_premodern_141625.html

    As I said.. California is becoming the Venezuela of the USA.... :smirk: :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ...

    There ya go.. 20 comments.. At least 16 or 17 that have current events subjects..

    16 or 17 opportunities to show everyone here that you are NOT just here to make childish personal attacks on me or indulge in immature name-calling..

    Are ya up to the challenge???

    1000 quatloos says you can't handle it.. :D

    Prove me wrong.. I DOUBLE DOG dare ya... :D

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump to take imminent action on cases of three military members accused of war crimes
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-imminent-action-military-cases-golsteyn-lorance-gallagher

    This is why rank and file and patriotic service members love their Commander In Chief and political officers hate their Commander In Chief..

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's Week vs. Washington's Week: It's No Contest

    Trump’s triumphant week commenced with his announcement that U.S. forces had killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the malevolent leader of ISIS. This cretin and his acolytes arose from obscurity amid the feckless foreign policy of President Obama to briefly lead a de-facto country that inflicted untold misery upon hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East.

    Like Osama bin Laden, Baghdadi met his fate with assistance from valiant U.S. special ops forces. Those troops eliminated this menace with bravery, skill, and precision. Their success reflects well on our unmatched military and on the commander-in-chief. President Trump dispatched Baghdadi and the larger geopolitical threat of his evil caliphate without the risks of a wholesale U.S. invasion and the concomitant costs and pitfalls of idealistic nation-building.

    Somehow, the thoroughly biased media found fault with this unquestionable success. They wailed that the it had happened “in spite” of Trump, rather than at his direction. The obstinance of the liberal establishment press contrasted starkly with conservative media in 2011, which overwhelmingly congratulated President Obama following the great achievement of dispatching bin Laden. For conservatives, killing the 9/11 mastermind superseded partisanship. For mainstream media in 2019, hatred of Trump eclipses even patriotic tendencies to celebrate the elimination of a dangerous threat to our nation. So torn was the Washington Post that the headline on its obituary for this monster described him as an “austere religious scholar.” Reacting to that tone-deaf description, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo highlighted Baghdadi’s personal role in the rape and murder of American aid worker Kayla Mueller and stated: “To suggest that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was anything other than a murderous terrorist is truly sick.”
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/04/trumps_week_vs_washingtons_week_its_no_contest_141649.html

    President Trump kicks the shit outta Democrats and Trump/America haters (I know... redundant) six ways from Sunday.. :D

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Following the announcement of this military success, Trump traveled to Chicago to address threats to American security on our own streets. His speech to an international association of police chiefs made it clear that the Trump administration affixes itself strongly to principles of law and order as an ally of brave police officers everywhere. He scorched the insanity of so-called “sanctuary city” policies that preclude liberal jurisdictions from cooperating with federal agencies in removing illegal aliens who commit additional crimes after trespassing into America. Such misbegotten practices have led directly to totally preventable deaths and mayhem inflicted on Americans. Trump pledged that “not one more American life should be stolen from us because a politician puts criminal aliens before American citizens.”

    Trump cited the death of Ronil Singh, a policeman, father, and legal immigrant to America who was killed on Christmas Day by a previously convicted illegal migrant in the sanctuary state of California. At a memorial service for Officer Singh, his brother wholeheartedly lauded Trump: “This man over here” -- Reggie Singh gestured at the president -- “the Singh family supports him. Whatever he’s doing for law enforcement, we support him.”

    President Trump support waning???

    Just wishful thinking on the part of Trump/America haters everywhere...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Given this backdrop of positive accomplishment, no wonder Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leftist allies do not relish an honest election contest with this results-oriented, promise-keeping president. Other than offering endless “free” giveaways, what is the actual Democratic counter to this Trump record of achievement? This impeachment farce is, in reality, a long-shot attempt to smear the president and divert attention away from these results. If Republicans can find their backbones, as they did in last week’s House vote, and fight back with a unified front, this “Tale of Two Cities” drama can be turned starkly against the Democrats.

    In the city of Washington, the political and media elites obsess over the cheap chicanery of Capitol Hill machinations. But in the “city” of America beyond the Beltway, citizens recognize a country growing stronger abroad, safer at home, and wealthier from work.

    As stated..

    The Democrats' desperation to impeach is directly inversely proportional to their confidence of winning at the ballot box

    And Democrats are HUGELY desperate to push this faux impeachment coup..

    Ergo...... :smirk: :D

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    79

    Weigantians and other fumduckers who worship at the altar of political polltakers would do wise to figure out a way to gain access to today's "Ask Marilyn" column, still found in many newspapers.

    Said the ever-smug geezer who obviously isn't too wise to "do wise" and "figure out a way" to access "Ask Marilyn" beyond directing the very group that he's denigrating to a so-last-century newspaper!

    Stucki seems blissfully unaware that the column is available on the Internet and has thereby self-labelled as one of those selfsame "other fumduckers" far too ignorant to recognize his own obvious dumbfucking dipshittery.

    She's responding to the question (I paraphrase), "How in the age of cellphones and caller ID, can polltakers possibly hope to get anything right?"

    her response (again paraphrased), "They ain't got a prayer!"

    Do Pollsters Still Call Phones for Information?

    By Marilyn vos Savant

    As landlines are slowly becoming obsolete and fewer people are answering their mobile phones unless they know who’s calling, how are pollsters managing to get enough information?

    — Joe Rihn, Englewood, Florida

    What pollsters call the “response rate” has been plummeting for decades as Americans tire of the novelty of being asked for their opinions. This is now exacerbated by the annoyance of answering such a call while you’re shopping for groceries or doing the laundry. But the difficulty of obtaining enough information isn’t the main problem. The difficulty is knowing which people will respond by either means. Also, whether they will actually vote is uncertain.

    https://parade.com/946075/marilynvossavant/do-pollsters-still-call-phones-for-information/

    The idiot from Florida (redundant, I know) simply wanted to know how pollsters are managing to get enough information, and the correct response to his question would have been:

    In present-day America, polls aren't merely conducted via telephone anymore in the same manner that news isn't only delivered via printed newspaper.

    FUN FACT: Average raw IQ decreases with age. :)

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    80

    @crs,
    perhaps i've never said so, but i for one am glad to have your voice in this forum. it's rare that a true conservative is willing to brave the waters of the liberal blogosphere for any purpose other than trolling.

    That was him trolling.

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    93

    Vos Savant is no authority on the matter of statistically sound polling methods. If she backed up her assertion with some math reasoning, why didn't you cite it?

    Vos Savant didn't really even answer the reader's actual stated question.

    You are perpetually smug, but I never see anything backing it up. Give it a rest.

    Stucki's brain is obviously at rest and likely the motivating factor behind is interest in trolling rather than anything to do with actual polling. :)

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words...

    Anything that DOESN'T toe their Party Slavery/Trump-America hating line is "trolling"..

    Nice delusion...

    One has to wonder what color the sky is in their own little world of make-believe...

    Yunno the world.. Where there is President Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is exiled to Gitmo..

    :eyeroll:

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment Vote Will Cost These Dems Their Seats

    They ran as moderates in swing districts yet voted like radicals.

    During the 2018 midterms, dozens of “moderate” Democrats won House seats in swing districts by forswearing partisan feuds in order to concentrate on the needs of their constituents. They pledged to focus less on conflict than on finding common ground with their Republican colleagues. They also modulated their comments concerning President Trump and, when the subject of impeachment arose, insisted that it would be a divisive and unproductive exercise. Thursday, however, all but two voted in favor of a hyper-partisan impeachment resolution, exposing their campaign promises as cynical lies and ensuring that the Democrats will lose their House majority in 2020.

    The Democrats, their bluster about the 2018 “blue wave” notwithstanding, have a particularly tenuous grasp on the House majority. The GOP needs to flip only 19 seats in 2020 to regain control — and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has already identified more than twice that number of vulnerable Democrats in districts won by Trump in 2016. Thursday’s vote has imperiled those weak Democrats even further by graphically illustrating that there really is no such thing as a “moderate Democrat.” Below is a list of Democrats who promised their constituents they would rise above the corrupting influence of the Washington establishment and are now likely to lose their House seats.
    https://spectator.org/impeachment-vote-will-cost-these-dems-their-seats/

    Democrats have insured that the GOP will not only retain the White House, grow their majority in the Senate, but will also take back control of the House... :D

    Ya gotta hand it to Democrats..

    When they scroo da pooch, they don't fool around.. They go full blown SCROOOED!! :D

  128. [128] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Raises the question, were those 2016 polls "not conducted via telephone" the same ones that guaranteed to Kick that there was no chance for Trump to win, thereby resulting in her massive affliction with PTSD syndrome, from which she has yet to recover?

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's take a gander at those Dumbocrats who are going to lose their jobs..

    Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.): In 2018, Cunningham beat a weak opponent by fewer than 4,000 votes in South Carolina’s 1st District. During his campaign, and until just recently, he spoke of impeachment in the following terms: “I’ve warned members of my own party that a partisan rush to impeach the president would be bad for the country.” Last Tuesday, however, he announced that he would vote for the resolution. Like most of these faux moderates, he will tell his constituents that Thursday’s vote merely affirmed an ongoing investigation. This will not mollify the voters to whom he so brazenly lied. In a district that the president won by 13 points in 2016, Congressman Cunningham is a dead Democrat walking.

    Dead Democrat Walking.. I like that.

    DDW :D

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Raises the question, were those 2016 polls "not conducted via telephone" the same ones that guaranteed to Kick that there was no chance for Trump to win, thereby resulting in her massive affliction with PTSD syndrome, from which she has yet to recover?

    Oooooo SHHNNNNNAAAAPPPP!!!! :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another DDW :D

    Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.): Rose defeated Republican Dan Donovan in 2018 in New York City’s last Republican stronghold, the 11th District. Like Cunningham, he told his constituents he was against impeachment. In fact, he wrote an op-ed that included the following denunciation of any such course of action: “Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.” But Congressman Rose had an impeachment epiphany after he arrived in Washington. The president won NY-11 by 10 points in 2016. With Trump at the top of the ticket again in 2020, plus a strong Republican opponent backed by the NRCC, Representative Rose is very likely a goner.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's another Democrat that is going to lose her job in 2020...

    Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.): Horn narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, a major upset in a state dominated by the GOP. Her margin was painfully thin, and her victory was no doubt facilitated by her alleged opposition to impeachment. As recently as a month ago, she was still trying to have it both ways when talking to her constituents: “While I didn’t support an impeachment inquiry, I certainly know that these are serious allegations that have to be investigated.” Yet when Thursday arrived and she had the opportunity to keep her promise or cave to political pressure, she opted to betray the voters who elected her. Rep. Horn won her seat by a mere 1.4 percent in a district Trump carried by 14 points in 2016. She’ll be history after 2020.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Xochitl Torres Small (D-N.M.): Torres Small is yet another candidate who ran in 2018 as a different kind of Democrat and eked out a narrow victory over Republican Yvette Herrell in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. Small did suggest a creative way to dodge the resolution: “The president’s conversation with the Ukrainian president must be investigated.… Designating this as an impeachment inquiry, though, has led some in the public to believe that a conclusion has been reached while … facts are still being gathered.” Yet she kept her toe on the party line during Thursday’s vote. Torres Small won her House seat by 1.8 percent in a district Trump won by 10 points. She should update her résumé.

    Another Democrat who promised her constituents one thing, then flip-flopped and gave her constituents the finger..

    Her constituents will have the last laugh when they throw her out of office...

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.): Brindisi defeated Republican Claudia Tenney to win New York’s 22nd District and has always claimed to be averse to impeachment. After the fabled phone call between presidents Trump and Zelensky, however, his position began to evolve: “The thought that any government official, especially our commander-in-chief, would hold up foreign aid to an ally and suggest they investigate a political opponent, is a grave and troubling accusation. It is clear that this administration needs to provide answers.” Inevitably, he voted for Thursday’s resolution. In 2018 Brindisi won by less than two points in a district President Trump won by more than 15 points. He’ll be crushed in 2020.

    Another Dumbocrat who got elected by spewing the bullshit he was against impeachment..

    Another Dumbocrat who will be shown the door in 2020...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    And so on and so on and so on..

    Dozens and Dozens of Democrats who promised bi-partisanship and to reach across the aisle only to turn around and do/be the EXACT opposite..

    Republicans will easily take back the House in 2020.. The political ads that paint the Democrats as liars and cheats practically write themselves...

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the beat goes on. In addition to the 12 listed above, there are 18 more Democrats clinging to districts that Trump won in 2016. That brings the total to 30. As noted above, the Republicans need to flip slightly more than half of these to retake the House. Moreover, the GOP is awash in campaign cash. As Open Secrets reports, “RNC continues to dwarf DNC in fundraising.” This means that the GOP project of retaking the House will enjoy three major advantages — a target-rich environment, the ability to fund any campaign that shows real promise, and the moral high ground associated with defeating an attempt to oust a president whose faults just do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

    All of this brings us back to Thursday’s hyper-partisan vote and the resolution that purports to lay out the framework for the next phase of the “impeachment inquiry” launched by fiat during a news conference last month. This resolution, departing from 150 years of historical precedent, endows the House Intelligence Committee with extraordinary power over the inquiry, codifies Adam Schiff’s closed-door hearings, severely limits the powers of the Republican minority, and violates the president’s right to due process. The Democrats whose districts were won by Trump in 2016 have signed their own political death warrants by voting for this tawdry resolution. Execution day will be November 3, 2020.

    Just in time for the 2020 Weigantian Annual Fundraiser!! :D

    What a blast I am going to have on THAT fund raiser, eh??

    Will make 2016 look like chump change.. :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House witnesses defy impeachment deposition subpoenas
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-witnesses-defy-impeachment-deposition-subpoenas

    Patriotic Americans giving this faux impeachment coup the finger!! :D

    Until this so-called "whistle blower" (democrat plant/stooge) comes forward and until ALL full transcripts of Schiff-Head's secret star chamber "hearings" are released..

    Schiff-Head, Pelosi and the rest of the Dumbocrats can go pound sand.. :D

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    126

    In other words...

    Anything that DOESN'T toe their Party Slavery/Trump-America hating line is "trolling"..

    In other words, no one said a word about any Party affiliation or Donald Trump in any of the requisite comments about polling... so any dumb fucking idiot who decided it had anything to do with Donald Trump or Party affiliation as opposed to the names that were hurled at the group as a whole is as fucking ignorant as the day is long.

    Nice delusion...

    There's nothing "nice" at all about your ever-present and persistent delusion that everything in the world can be explained by Party affiliation.

    One has to wonder what color the sky is in their own little world of make-believe...

    You wouldn't have to wonder what color the sky was in our great big world if your bald pointy head wasn't lodged so firmly up inside your admitted elephantine hairy ass cheeks.

    Yunno the world.. Where there is President Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is exiled to Gitmo..

    Funny you should say that since right-wingnut conspiracy theory media like Breitbart and Fox News is exactly where they do seem to perpetuate the myth that Hillary Clinton is president, which is news designed and designated right up your "alleyway"... what little space is left up there and not already occupied by your vacuous yet corpulent head.

    FUN FACT: "Hillary" is one of those words that triggers the rubes.

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    FOXNEWS POLL: HILLARY BEATS TRUMP

    Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.
    https://theweek.com/speedreads/876179/hillary-clinton-leads-trump-new-fox-news-poll-yes-november-2019

    O M G what an OP President Trump is pulling on Hillary!!

    Enticing her... DARING her to run again!!! :D

    BRILLIANT!!!!! Nth LEVEL Brilliance!!!!! :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since Clinton is not running, it isn't clear why Fox News decided to ask voters to choose between her and Trump. The pollsters noted that the last time they included Clinton in a matchup against Trump was Nov. 3-6, 2016, during which period she was also leading Trump, 46 percent to 42 percent — and also actually running for president. Which, again, she isn't currently.

    It's PERFECTLY clear why FNC is asking about Hillary!!

    And it's a masterful stroke of genius!!!!!

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    bbzzzzzzzz bbzzzzzzzzzz

    Little pipsqueak gnat is buzzing around again...

    bbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz bbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment is not the issue voters in Iowa care about

    Corn is. And healthcare. And immigration. And this wacky weather. Will someone do something about it?
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/04/impeachment-is-not-the-issue-voters-in-iowa-care-about

    Hysterical Trump/America haters actually BELIEVE that the American people care about impeachment..

    All Dumbocrats are doing is simply PROVING how utterly scared and panicked Democrats are in facing President Trump at the ballot box...

    It is UNIVERSALLY agreed here in Weigantia..

    They **ONLY** result of this faux impeachment coup is that President Trump remains in office.. :D

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    128

    Raises the question, were those 2016 polls "not conducted via telephone" the same ones that guaranteed to Kick that there was no chance for Trump to win, thereby resulting in her massive affliction with PTSD syndrome, from which she has yet to recover?

    There are no guarantees in any polling, you "fumducker," and thank you ever so much for coming along and proving the fact that you don't know shit about polling and that your aim here -- as ever -- is trolling.

    I'm great, Stucki; however, please keep equating traumatic stress injury with a routine election held every four years; that way no one ever need wonder what a dumb fucking moron you really are. :)

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    ever need wonder what a dumb fucking moron you really are. :)

    Oooooo Looks like Stucki struck home with Victoria!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    CRS, since I was here first, I'll let you have your space behind Victoria's right ear.. It's quite empty.. :D

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump loses appeal in New York tax case, while Trump's lawyer said he would appeal the case to the Supreme Court... of course, not the lawyer who is already in prison and not the one looking at a probable indictment... the other lawyer.

    Winning!

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Winning!

    yea... You said the same thing when that Obama judge ruled that the Mueller Collusion Delusion report had to be sent unredacted to Congress..

    Remember what I said??

    That decision is going to be reversed on appeal..

    What happened??

    It was reversed on appeal and YOU lost. :D

    The SCOTUS will rule in favor of President Trump as they always have..

    And you will LOSE again.. :D

  147. [147] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    144

    CRS, since I was here first, I'll let you have your space behind Victoria's right ear.. It's quite empty.. :D

    Why, yes... there is actually air behind my right ear owing to the fact that I can actually discern what color the sky is without having to speculate.

    You know what happens when you assume that everyone has a buttload of packed shit behind each ear like you do, right? You prove my point that your bald pointy head is shoved firmly up inside your hairy ass. Thank you ever so much for doing that.

    I keep having to thank both the trolls for proving my posts. :)

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    An open letter to Katie Hill

    Oh, Katie, Katie, Katie.

    How very sad and weak of you to blame your problems on a rotten man. Was he terrible? Of course. Any man who cheats on his wife is. But let’s remember that you also cheated in the tawdry, three-way sexcapade.

    Revenge porn, you say, is the issue. Just remember that in order for you to be a “victim” of revenge porn, there first have to be pornographic photos of you. And, of course there are, with you as a willing participant. Not only as a participant, put positioned as some sort of sick mother image, brushing the hair of your young, paid lesbian lover while she sits submissively on the floor in front of your naked body.

    I’m sorry, but if you get caught in the act of living a red-light district lifestyle, you don’t get to blame your demise on someone else. And you certainly don’t get to hold yourself up as a hero and advocate for other women.

    Nor do you get to portray yourself as a victim, when in fact, you were the predator. As the congressional candidate and then a duly elected public official, you were the one with the power and prestige. As the older woman, you were the one with the influence. You held all the cards, dealt a confused young woman a bad hand, and then dare to cry about being the victim?
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/3/katie-hill-open-letter/

    See.. I don't agree with this..

    Ms Hill IS a victim..

    She is a victim of Dumbocrats and their Holier Than Thou vendetta based SOLELY and completely on their partisan anti-American agenda..

    Democrats are the evil ones here.. So are Republicans who are attacking Ms Hill..

    Ms Hill's **SOLE** transgression is living and loving as she saw fit within the confines of the law...

    That's the beginning and end of this...

    Which is not to say that Ms Hill didn't make some mistakes.. Sure she did...

    But that just means she is human...

    Apparently, for Democrats and some Republicans..

    That represents a crime for which the person must pay a very VERY steep price..

    Just ask Al Franken..

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    bbbzzzzzz bzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Little gnat.....

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    146

    yea... You said the same thing when that Obama judge ruled that the Mueller Collusion Delusion report had to be sent unredacted to Congress..

    Remember what I said??

    That decision is going to be reversed on appeal..

    Yes, you did say that decision would be reversed on appeal... or words to that effect.

    What happened??

    Nothing yet. It was appealed and a quite regular temporary stay was granted while the case is being considered... as per standard operational procedure that happens every day of the week.

    It was reversed on appeal and YOU lost. :D

    Wrong. You have quite obviously confused a knee-jerk standard temporary stay with a reversal on appeal. Those two things aren't the same. You should really stop yourself whenever you feel like you're going to explain ANYTHING about legal issues to ANYONE ELSE on this forum... since you generally have no idea what you're talking about.

    The SCOTUS will rule in favor of President Trump as they always have..

    Wrong again, sunshine. Like I said, whenever you think you need to explain legal issues on this forum:

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

  151. [151] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    You're obviously just a heartless Republican bastard for inflicting that "BBBWWAHAHAHAH" etc on the poor PTSD syndrome girl. Have you no compassion for the stupid and the self-deceived??

    Being a NICE guy Republican, I only indulge in mild checkles (although they DO go on and on or hours)!

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're obviously just a heartless Republican bastard for inflicting that "BBBWWAHAHAHAH" etc on the poor PTSD syndrome girl. Have you no compassion for the stupid and the self-deceived??

    Guilty as charged..

    The stoopid and self-deceived Democrats are responsible for more pain and suffering than has been inflicted in the 30 years prior...

    Being a NICE guy Republican, I only indulge in mild checkles (although they DO go on and on or hours)!

    I hope to grow into such tolerance when I get to be yer age.. :D

  153. [153] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Stucki -94

    You didn't quote, you paraphrased. You didn't provide a link. So,
    I don't know what M said. I can look up her credentials. A high IQ does not automatically make you knowledgeable about statistics or political polling. Her academic training is in philosophy. Her Parade answers are one paragraph affairs.. So, why should I be interested in what she has to say? Or what you have to say about what you think she said? If file 93 under lights on, nobody home.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, I don't know what M said.

    Still offering my that space in yer head, eh Stiggy boy?? :D

    So, why should I be interested in what she has to say? Or what you have to say about what you think she said?

    You responded.. So, obviously it DOES interest you..

    DUHHHHHHH

  155. [155] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That was him trolling.

    if so, it was pretty mild.

    JL

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    152

    You're obviously just a heartless Republican bastard for inflicting that "BBBWWAHAHAHAH" etc on the poor PTSD syndrome girl. Have you no compassion for the stupid and the self-deceived?? ~ C.R. Stuck-on-Stupid

    Guilty as charged..

    In your zeal to insult someone, you just admitted to be being a Republican. It's okay, we already know you're a Tea Party rube.

    The stoopid and self-deceived Democrats are responsible for more pain and suffering than has been inflicted in the 30 years prior...

    And yet you will never see a Democrat with a pointy head and/or tea bags dangling around their ears.

    I hope to grow into such tolerance when I get to be yer age.. :D

    Oh, why not practice some tolerance now? Also: You better get busy exercising if you're planning on making it to Stucki's age; his brain is quite obviously still living in the 20th century, but his body is hanging on in this one. :)

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    155

    if so, it was pretty mild.

    You'll get no argument from me there. The trolls on this board generally do suck at doing it. :)

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    153

    I don't know what M said.

    I posted it at [123].

    Still offering my that space in yer head, eh Stiggy boy?? :D ~ Mike

    You're talking about Marilyn vos Savant, and the idiot thinks you're discussing him. *laughs*

    So, why should I be interested in what she has to say? Or what you have to say about what you think she said?

    I see you also noticed that Stucki was more interested in trolling the group than any discussion about political polling... as per his SOP. :)

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    When Ambassador Yovanovitch sought advice from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, he recommended that she tweet her praise of President Trump. (Page 267-268, 306)

    Q: And what did Mr. Sondland say when you talked to him about this topic?
    A: He hadn’t been aware of it, that the story had shifted, and he said, you know, you need to go big or go home. You need to, you know, tweet out there that you support the President, and that all these are lies and everything else. And, you know, so, you know, I mean, obviously, that was advice. It was advice that I did not see how I could implement in my role as an Ambassador, and as a Foreign Service Officer.

    Q: Did he actually say, “support President Trump”? Was that his advice, that you publicly say something to that effect?
    A: Yes. I mean, he may not have used the words “support President Trump,” but he said: You know the President. Well, maybe you don’t know him personally, but you know, you know, the sorts of things that he likes. You know, go out there battling aggressively and, you know, praise him or support him.

    http://bit.ly/33fUdM7

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    BWWHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Stiggy boy blocks me because he is afraid of what I say..

    Veronica QUOTES what I say so Stiggy boy is FORCED to read it!!

    BBBWBWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

  161. [161] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [153]

    I'm pretty sure I already told you I'm perfectly OK with you not paying any attn to MVS. This is a political blog, narrow minded ain't all that uncommon around here, doesn't bother me in the least.

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm pretty sure I already told you I'm perfectly OK with you not paying any attn to MVS. This is a political blog, narrow minded ain't all that uncommon around here,

    Narrow minded not uncommon??

    Hell, it's a defining characteristic... :D

    But there are a few of us who are the exception...

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Ambassador Yovanovitch sought advice from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, he recommended that she tweet her praise of President Trump. (Page 267-268, 306)

    Yea... That's Schiff-Head's claim..

    But he is a PROVEN liar, so we don't really KNOW what was REALLY said...

    There are NO FACTS to prove ANYTHING you post is factually accurate.

    NO FACTS AT ALL..

    That's what happens when you have secret Star Chamber hearings with NO independent verification.

    Yer only spewing it because it's what you WANT to hear..

    Once again..

    NO FACTS

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA!!!

    ANOTHER Democrat cop-hating moron takes a hike!!

    NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill expected to resign, reports say
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-commissioner-james-oneill-expected-to-resign

    That's what happens when Democrats throw cops under the bus!!

  165. [165] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-153

    You are a better an/or more persistent Googler than I. That was some pretty "creative paraphrasing from Sage of Idaho.

    Let me paraphrase Lincoln's most famous address in Stucki Style:

    "It's a Great day to be at Gettysburg!"

    I didn't know Parade was still a thing.

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nationals catcher Kurt Suzuki wears MAGA hat to White House celebration

    WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump declared Monday “Washington Nationals Day” to celebrate the team’s World Series title, he chronicled the Nats’ season from a 19-31 record in May to hoisting the Commissioner's Trophy in Houston last week.

    Along the way, he arrived at Washington’s ninth-inning comeback against the New York Mets on Sept. 4. Down six runs with three outs to go, the Nats erased the deficit, capped by catcher Kurt Suzuki’s three-run, walk-off home run.

    Trump called Suzuki to the podium and the 36-year-old put on a red “Make America Great Again" hat, a trademark of Trump and his supporters since he jumped into politics in 2015, as he made his way to the podium.

    Trump looked surprised by the gesture and hugged Suzuki from behind.

    In front of the microphone, Suzuki said "I love you all. I love you all. Thank you."

    The president and Suzuki shook hands, and then Trump said, "What a job he did. I didn't know that was going to happen."
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/11/04/kurt-suzuki-nationals-maga-hat-white-house-trump/4156375002/

    Ooo.. Democrats.. Democrats Democrats..

    That's just GOTTA hurt, eh?? :D

    hehehehehehehe

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me paraphrase Lincoln's most famous address in Stucki Style:

    "It's a Great day to be at Gettysburg!"

    Wasn't that Joe Biden's saying??

    When he was in Idaho?? :D

    Yer in my pond, sunshine.. :D Just remember that.. :D

  168. [168] 
    Kick wrote:

    FUN FACT: Roger Stone has arrived with his wife and legal team to Washington, DC.

    Have I mentioned lately that Roger is set to stand trial tomorrow? First charges up for Roger include:

    * Obstruction of justice
    * Witness tampering
    * Lying to Congress.

    He's wearing a black suit, black tie, and a frown.
    Roger could be so much prettier if he'd just smile more. :)

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have I mentioned lately that Roger is set to stand trial tomorrow? First charges up for Roger include:

    * Obstruction of justice
    * Witness tampering
    * Lying to Congress.

    All process crimes that have nothing to do with anything..

    Oh wow!! Ya caught the MASTERMIND!!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yer a funny lil bit, ain'tcha... :D

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    160

    Stiggy boy blocks me because he is afraid of what I say..

    No one on a political forum is afraid of a bullying, self-absorbed dipshit like yourself who thinks everything being discussed is (or should be) about him. The problem with the right-wingnut echo chambers like yourself who repeat the same lame BS over and over is that when you've seen a few of their posts, you've basically seen them all.

    Veronica QUOTES what I say so Stiggy boy is FORCED to read it!!

    In your repeated and demonstrable exercises in pure dumb rube remedial reading incomprehension, you yet again claimed that a post that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you was ALL about you.

    Every now and again, I absolutely will quote your "narcissism for no reason" and the evidence of your pure dumbfucking personality disorder back to Stig.

    We're not laughing with the delusional dipshits like you, Mike; we're obviously pointing and laughing at you. :)

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nominate Elizabeth Warren to secure Trump a second term
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nominate-elizabeth-warren-to-secure-trump-a-second-term

    I mean, no matter what, President Trump is going to win re-election..

    That's the Weigantian majority (of those who have expressed such an opinion) statement...

    But Dims nominate Warren!???

    It will likely be a 48+ state landslide!!! :D

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    161

    I'm pretty sure I already told you I'm perfectly OK with you not paying any attn to MVS. This is a political blog, narrow minded ain't all that uncommon around here, doesn't bother me in the least.

    Nice to see Stucki accepting of his exiguous cranial resources... proving yet again that you really cannot fix stupid, but you can apparently convince yourself not to be the least bit concerned about it like the goobs and the rubes around there in Podunk. :)

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    163

    Yea... That's Schiff-Head's claim..

    No, that's her sworn testimony that is corroborated by the sworn testimony of multiples others.

    It would be great if the admitted rubes could at least learn to read in order to avoid the appearance of being inveterate lying asshats.

    But he is a PROVEN liar, so we don't really KNOW what was REALLY said...

    What part of sworn testimony is confusing at all? Try to keep up, dipshit.

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    What part of sworn testimony is confusing at all? Try to keep up, dipshit.

    What part of Schiff-Head says it's sworn testimony is not clear to you, moron???

    Schiff-head is a known and proven liar..

    You only believe him because it's what you WANT to hear..

    But, as with yer moronic Russia Collusion delusion, in the end yer proven to be a total luser.. :D

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, as per usual, it's time to leave ya'all to catch yer breaths and lick your wounds... :D

    My lovely wife and I are going to spend a fun filled evening together...

    See ya'all in the AM when I can start again, kicking ya'all's asses around Weigantia..

    Ya'all are my lil puppies now!!! :D

    "Ya see, you are in MY pond now.. And *I* am the big fish here!!"
    -Dennis Franz, DIE HARD 2-Die Harder

    Get used ta it, people.. :D

  176. [176] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    165

    You are a better an/or more persistent Googler than I.

    I might have resources that run circles around Google. ;)

    That was some pretty "creative paraphrasing from Sage of Idaho.

    As Stucki has herein confessed, that narrow mindedness is virtually a feature over in Podunk.

    Let me paraphrase Lincoln's most famous address in Stucki Style:

    "It's a Great day to be at Gettysburg!"

    Heh! The featured speaker at Gettysburg prattled on and on for about two hours before Lincoln stepped up to the podium and basically reminded the audience regarding the purpose of their sacrifice and the importance of national unity in two minutes... reminds me of some of the bozos on this forum too.

    I didn't know Parade was still a thing.

    Whenever the circus clowns and trained elephants come 'round your neighborhood, a Parade is sure to follow. *laughs*

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump looked surprised by the gesture and hugged Suzuki from behind.

    Suzuki wasn't at all surprised that Donald Trump just grabbed him by the... wherever. *laughs*

  178. [178] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    169

    All process crimes that have nothing to do with anything..

    If you ever find yourself in a court of law for whatever reason, you would be wise not to fall victim to your own delusions grandeur and the ridiculous nonsensical idea that you possess any legal knowledge whatsoever.

    Oh, wait! Too late. *laughs*

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    174

    What part of Schiff-Head says it's sworn testimony is not clear to you, moron???

    It's a verbatim transcript of her testimony.

    Schiff-head is a known and proven liar..

    You mean like Donald Trump? Well then, he better slow down directly or the GOP goobs, rubes, and suckers will commence to genuflecting at his feet, beg him to become Their Worship, and ditch Donald in favor of Schiff. *laughs*

    You only believe him because it's what you WANT to hear..

    It's verbatim transcript of Yovanovitch's testimony, and you really have precious little idea regarding anything at all whatsoever... least of all what I WANT to hear.

    But, as with yer moronic Russia Collusion delusion, in the end yer proven to be a total luser.. :D

    Said the uneducated dipshit who keeps prattling on and on claiming to know a damn thing about legal issues and inventing fake quotes and bullshit statements while claiming to know what everyone is thinking.

    Mike, you're that legend in your own mind that got yourself bitch slapped into your trailer swamps in Shithole and has himself and his "legal expertise" to thank for his own pathetic existence. What are you ingesting on Earth II where you are under the delusion that anyone would give two shits about your dumb fucking legal opinions? *laughs*

    Think, McFly!

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]