ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Fifth Debate Roundup

[ Posted Thursday, November 21st, 2019 – 19:51 UTC ]

I'm veering away from the impeachment hearings today to write up my reactions to last night's fifth Democratic presidential debate. This morning's testimony was pretty powerful, and Adam Schiff's closing statement was one for the history books, but it'll all have to wait until tomorrow.

The Democratic field now has 18 people in it, as Wayne Messam formally dropped out but Michael Bloomberg formally took his place. Other than Bloomberg, the candidates who are still running but who didn't appear last night are: Deval Patrick, Michael Bennet, Steve Bullock, Julián Castro, John Delaney, Joe Sestak, and Marianne Williamson. The ones who did appear on last night's debate stage: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and Tom Steyer. Hopefully, by the next debate, that entire list will have shrunk a bit more, but these days you never know -- maybe it'll even get bigger!

Overall, last night's debate seemed a lot smoother all around. The moderators did a pretty good job of not being too controlling, but also never letting things get completely out of control. The candidates also seem like they've settled into the debating format, and we had a lot less "everyone talks over each other" moments. The answers given seemed a lot smoother, too, with far less "I memorized this quip, so here it is, everyone stand back!" moments as well. This is all to the good, because it made for better television than some of the more-awkward earlier debates. Perhaps this is due to the fact that almost all the gadfly candidates weren't on the stage last night, or perhaps it was because all the moderators were women, but for whatever reason things seemed to flow much better last night.

The questions asked seemed of a higher caliber as well. There were a few moments where the moderators essentially invited two candidates to have a fistfight, but for the most part the candidates refused to play along. Perhaps because they've seen that such aggressiveness simply hasn't paid off with the voters? Whatever the reason, it also made for a better debate all around. The format was slightly different as well, since there were no extended 20-minute sessions on a single subject -- for the first time, the debate didn't start out with a big Medicare For All fracas, where exactly the same questions were asked once again. This was also an improvement, and made for a much faster pace than previous debates. The event was only scheduled for two hours instead of three, which may also have contributed to the faster pace.

Perhaps it was due to smart-as-a-whip Rachel Maddow being one of the moderators, but I thought that the new, quicker format also led to a lot more interesting questions and responses, some of which I've been waiting a long time to see. There were several questions during the debate that I truly wanted to hear the candidates' answers, because the subject hadn't adequately been covered previously.

But enough of the general overview, let's take a look at how everyone did. Oh, my standard disclosure applies: all quotes are from hand-taken notes, so they may not be word-for-word accurate, but should be essentially correct.

 

Joe Biden

Joe turned in a standard debate performance (for him). It was pretty solid, but not without a few gaffes. His best answer was probably to a very interesting question (one of those ones I've been waiting to hear asked): "If you won, would you take the Gerald Ford route and pardon Trump to end our national nightmare, or would you sic your Justice Department on him and his crimes? Also, would you discourage your supporters if they broke into a chant of 'Lock him up!' during one of your rallies?" Biden answered that his attorney general would be absolutely independent, which would mean they'd be free to prosecute or not prosecute depending on their own judgment. Biden also said that "Lock him up!" chants should be discouraged. Biden's answer was so good that Bernie Sanders, who was also asked the same question, merely responded: "Joe's right," and then went on to reinforce what Biden had just said.

Biden wasn't above taking potshots at other candidates, but his first one was to a man far down in the polling. Biden hit Tom Steyer for "making more money off of coal than all of Great Britain," which is one of those statistics guaranteed to stick in your mind. I had no idea Steyer used to make money off of coal, so this was news to me. It was an effective attack, but a little strange because Steyer has little chance of ever directly challenging Biden's standing.

Biden had another good moment when he spoke of Donald Trump's foreign policy, noting that Kim Jong Un had just called him "a rabid dog that should be beaten with a stick." Biden got a laugh from the audience by then pausing before delivering the punchline: "Other than that, I like him fine."

Biden had two major gaffes, but only one of them seems to have been noticed by the media today. The first came right after Biden took credit for writing the original Violence Against Women Act, when Biden used perhaps the worst possible metaphor for fighting for women's safety: "[We have to] keep punching at it and punching at it and punching at it." Punching at a problem can be a political metaphor, but when the problem itself is people punching women in the first place, it's really not the one that should be used.

But Biden got a lot more grief for his second gaffe, which came during a dustup with Cory Booker (that I'll get into later, as it was perhaps the most interesting disagreement during the debate, at least for me). Biden bragged that he had the support of "the only African-American woman to ever be elected to the Senate," referring to Carol Moseley-Braun, to which Kamala Harris incredulously broke in to remind Biden that there were now two such women in American history, and one was standing on the stage next to him. Biden tried to later claim he had said "first" but he clearly had said "only."

All around, a pretty standard performance for Biden. He made exactly the point he's been making all along, that he's the most experienced candidate and that he's also the most electable, according to the polls.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren had a pretty good night last night, mostly due to (as Sherlock Holmes would have said) the dogs not barking in the night. In the previous debate, Warren was the one with the big target on her for incoming attacks from other candidates, but this time around that designation had moved to Pete Buttigieg. Also, as mentioned, there were fewer such attacks all around last night, which also helped Warren.

Warren rolled out her new Medicare For All implementation plan, which (much to my surprise) got almost zero pushback from the other candidates. This means her gamble has likely paid off, because her slow implementation schedule has pretty much taken away the big complaint some of the other candidates had about it. Bernie didn't attack her from the left for her insufficient Medicare For All purity, and none of the other candidates wanted to get down into the weeds of Warren's new implementation plan, so she essentially pulled it off without a hitch.

Warren also showed some leadership right from the start, when she challenged all the other candidates to forswear allowing millionaire donors to get ambassadorship awards as a prize for donating so much money. This is a stance that goes farther than the others would agree to, but after seeing Gordon Sondland's testimony this week, it was a very timely move. Warren did get some pushback on her wealth tax idea from Booker, but she weathered it well and pointed out that it was wildly popular with the voters.

Warren handled herself well all night, and as usual she already has a plan for just about every issue raised. She proposed a Civilian Conservation Corps sort of project, to employ 10,000 people to spruce up national parks and federal lands, for instance. That's an interesting idea, but nobody else took her up on it. She had her statistics at the ready, as when she pointed out that a few years after graduating college, white students had paid off 94 percent of their student debt while African-American students were struggling and had only paid off five percent. This was well-received by the Atlanta audience. She also got a big hand when asked about anti-abortion laws by pointing out: "If abortion is made illegal, rich women will still be able to get them, while poor people won't." She also wouldn't agree to shun Democrats like John Bel Edwards, who is pro-life. "I'm not here to drive people out of the party," explained Warren.

All around Warren had a pretty good night. She made the points she wanted to make, she was effective, and she promoted her anti-corruption platform well.

 

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders also had a pretty good night. He promoted his own agenda well, and was mostly left alone by the other candidates last night. His best line was probably in response to the Violence Against Women Act segment, when he pointed out something poignant, when he referenced all the so-called small-government conservatives and their abject hypocrisy when it came to inserting the government into such a personal decision for a woman.

Bernie did make one new suggestion last night, but it was so optimistic it fell into the "rosy-tinted glasses" realm. When asked how he would handle Saudi Arabia, Bernie essentially called for America to set up summit meetings between Saudi Arabia and Iran, "bring them into a room" and force them to work their problems out. He added he'd do the same thing for Israel and Palestine, as well. This sounds good on paper, but actually making it work might be impossible in the real world.

All around, Bernie put in what I would call a standard debate performance, for him. He wasn't the target of as many attacks as on previous debate nights, but because of this he tended to fade into the background to some degree.

 

Pete Buttigieg

The conventional wisdom in the media, before last night's debate, was that Mayor Pete was going to be the big target this time around. I also felt this was a distinct possibility, but for the most part it really didn't materialize.

Towards the end, two other candidates did attack Pete, but none of the frontrunners even bothered to. Kamala Harris hit Buttigieg for his inexperience, and tried to brag about all the bills she was working on in the Senate. Buttigieg was ready for this, and pointed out that there was 100 years of combined "Washington experience" present on the stage, and yet there were still plenty of problems still left to tackle. Then Tulsi Gabbard got into the weirdest fight of the night with Mayor Pete, over "sending American troops to Mexico to fight drug cartels." Buttigieg reacted with astonishment and a bit of anger, claiming Gabbard was wildly taking him out of context (which turned out to be true). Pete asked with incredulity: "Do you really think anyone on this stage wants to invade Mexico?" and then hit Gabbard on her judgment for meeting with the Syrian dictator. Gabbard seemed prepared for this, and listed past summits such as J.F.K. and Khrushchev, but Pete really got the last zinger in by interrupting her list with: "Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un?" which got a laugh from the audience.

Buttigieg, to me, seems like he might make a great vice-presidential candidate for someone else. Maybe this is my own bias talking, because for the past week or so I've been struck by one possible scenario: wouldn't it be interesting to watch a vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Pete Buttigieg? Since they're both from Indiana, they both have a much longer history together than most candidate matchups, and while the national media has largely forgotten about Pence's record in the state, Mayor Pete definitely has not. In fact, of all the Democrats running, I think Buttigieg-versus-Pence would be the best matchup imaginable. But, again, maybe that's just me.

I don't have anything against Pete, but he just seems to come off rather glib, at times. He's always got an intelligent answer, but sometimes it doesn't fit the actual question. This is true for any politician, of course, but with Buttigieg it seems more noticeable to me. When asked how he'd deal with Republicans in Congress, he responded he wanted to "galvanize, not polarize" -- but made no mention of how he'd go about doing that. Buttigieg tiptoed up to a very dangerous line for him, when he almost kinda-sorta equated racial discrimination with the anti-gay discrimination he has had to face (although he did so without once uttering the word "gay").

The only time his rather polished answers struck a chord was when he was asked about farmers. Rachel Maddow pointed to an interesting statistic -- Trump has spent more taxpayer money bailing out farmers due to his trade wars than the country spent bailing out Detroit in the Great Recession. Buttigieg's answer was a good one, that he'd depend on farmers to help with the climate change problem, with a "carbon-negative farm" policy. I've been saying all year that Democrats need to talk to and about farmers a lot more, because there are a lot of them who voted for Trump only to become disillusioned and disenchanted after Trump has essentially destroyed their livelihood, so I welcomed Pete's answer here.

All around, Mayor Pete had a better night than anyone expected him to, due mostly to the fact that he weathered fewer attacks than were predicted.

 

Kamala Harris

The rest of this list doesn't deserve the same lengthy scrutiny as the frontrunners, so I'm going to pick up the pace here, just to warn everyone.

Kamala Harris got in a few notable attacks last night, the most memorable being when she pointed out that Tulsi Gabbard essentially spent four years on Fox News beating up Democrats. She also, as mentioned, took a shot across Biden's bow when he mixed up "only" with "first." The audience was delighted at her standing up for her historic status, that's for sure. But not all her attacks went so well. She took a potshot at Buttigieg for his inexperience, and then tried to brag about all the bills she's working on in the Senate, while expecting us all to ignore the fact that Mitch McConnell isn't going to let any of them ever come up for a vote.

Harris had a few zingers saved up ("Donald Trump got punked!" by Kim Jong Un, and "all he got was a photo op"), which were less awkward than usual, for her. One final word about her performance -- she's got to stop with the "on again, off again" Southern hick accent. At some point during every debate, she starts to sound like she's "jest a gal from the sticks, y'all" and to me at least it's just as grating as when Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama tried the same thing. It just sounds fake, so please stop it.

 

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar, much like Harris, had fewer "here comes a snappy saying I've memorized" moments, mostly due to her sounding a lot more natural and less forced than before (her "I raised $17,000 from ex-boyfriends" line got a big laugh, for instance). She also had a good one when the subject of women's rights came up: "If you think a woman can't beat Trump, well Nancy Pelosi does it every day." She didn't stick every landing, though, and a few of her lines fell flat, such as the one she had about not wanting to give everyone a free car.

 

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang wasn't called on in the first 30 minutes of last night's debate. He had one rather funny moment in an otherwise forgettable performance. When he was asked what he'd say to Vladimir Putin, he wisecracked: "I'm sorry I beat your guy." This got a rather big laugh from the audience, and it was delivered well. His other good moment came when asked about racism, when Yang strongly said: "I'd call domestic terrorism what it is," which was also appreciated by the audience. But other than a few moments such as these, Yang once again was an afterthought last night.

 

Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard attended the fifth Democratic debate. 'Nuff said....

 

Cory Booker

Cory Booker tried to stand up for the wealthy last night, when he disagreed with Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. But it's a rather strange demographic to be courting, because if you are a voter that wants to see the Democratic Party nominate a multimillionaire to protect their precious rights, you actually have had four separate candidates to choose from: John Delaney, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, and, now, Michael Bloomberg. So Booker is not likely to win this competition, to be blunt.

The problem with Booker (and, to be fair, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden to some degree or another) is that he's much more interested in the (as he put it) Kumbaya "let's heal the country after we beat Trump" storyline, but this ignores the fact that Trump is going to be very hard to beat because he is going to play so dirty during the general election campaign. The Democrats have to nominate someone who can directly take on Trump toe to toe, and all of these "can't we all just get along the way we used to" candidates just don't seem up to the task, in my opinion at least.

Booker had one of his best moments last night against the moderators, when he asked why he didn't get the chance to answer the racial question. He closed well, too, by giving a big shoutout to John Lewis, who was in the audience.

But to me, Booker really nailed it on a pet issue of mine, when he castigated Joe Biden for recently coming out against full legalization of marijuana because (as he put it) it was unclear whether it was a "gateway drug" or not. Such 1980s, "Just Say No" era thinking has (thankfully) mostly gone the way of the dodo, which Biden apparently hasn't figured out yet. Booker's best clip of the night was saying to Biden: "I thought you might have been high when you said that." Booker is clearly where the Democratic base is on this question, and Biden is not. Biden got so flustered by the attack that this is where he forgot about Kamala Harris being the second black female senator, which shows how effective Booker's comment was.

 

Tom Steyer

Tom Steyer also, for some reason, attended last night's debate.

 

Conclusions

We've got five of these under our belt now, with a whole bunch more to go. Next month the criteria for entry get tougher, which might mean a single debate with (gasp!) fewer than 10 candidates on the stage. One can only hope....

The Democratic National Committee is currently deciding what rules to adopt for the January and February debates, and they now face an interesting problem. While newbie Deval Patrick is quite likely never to qualify for any of these debates, there is one hurdle that may keep Michael Bloomberg out that the D.N.C. appears to be reconsidering (if rumors are true) -- that of having a certain number of small donors. Bloomberg has stated he's going to self-finance his entire campaign, which means this might keep him out of any future debate. But changing this criterion to something else may indeed be justified, because as the D.N.C. chair pointed out, once people start actually voting and we can see the results of some primaries, it might make sense to use these results as a better gauge of which candidates truly have a viable chance. The decision on the January debate won't be affected by this, so we'll have to wait and see what they come up with.

All around, last night's debate was a good one, with intelligent moderators asking very good questions (for the most part) and the candidates feeling much more comfortable on the stage as they have in any previous debate. There were fewer fireworks, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, as all voters don't necessarily want to see a cage match. So on the whole, I enjoyed the fifth debate a lot more than the first four (although, admittedly, my brain was rather numb after just watching more than 12 hours of impeachment hearings -- that could well have had something to do with my reaction).

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

81 Comments on “Fifth Debate Roundup”

  1. [1] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    What interesting times we live in.

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    BTW I'm relatively new to this forum. How, CW, does one properly pronounce your last name?

    Is it "WHY gent?"
    Or "WEE gent?"

    Please advise, and keep up the thought provoking commentary.

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    U'm, where IS everybody?

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    Sadly, I have gone back ten years and I am still looking for what Michale was pining about without any success.

    WOW!! You spent ALL THAT TIME on lil ol' me!!???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Maybe you can be like Daddy's Little Cockholster and pay those web-based research companies to investigate me..

    Thank you for proving beyond ANY doubt that I am completely in your head..

    Researching **10 YEARS** of comments??

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That REALLY cracks me up!! :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    @ MC,

    U'm, where IS everybody?

    Haven't you noticed??? When there isn't a commentary about slamming President Trump or hating on President Trump, the haters and bigots don't really give a rat's ass..

    But, obviously the haters and bigots didn't actually READ CW's commentary (they just look at the title and move on) because there is PLENTY of irrational and non-reality based Trump hate to be found..

    BTW I'm relatively new to this forum. How, CW, does one properly pronounce your last name?

    Is it "WHY gent?"
    Or "WEE gent?"

    It's pronounced "WEE gant"..

    Hope this helps ya out.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, let's take stock..

    Democrat candidates are flailing, trying to get some media time with all this faux impeachment coup going on..

    The faux impeachment coup is flailing, doing focus group after focus group trying to find SOMETHING... ANYTHING.. that will inflame the passions of ANYONE besides the Trump/America haters and bigots..

    All in all, Democrats are losing and losing BIG TIME..

    Just like they lost in their Russia Collusion delusion... :D

    Weds is a big day for me.. I hope I see the faux impeachment coup fall apart before then.. I have added the faux impeachment coup fail to my bucket list.. :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    while expecting us all to ignore the fact that Mitch McConnell isn't going to let any of them ever come up for a vote.

    That's funny.. When *I* mention that, ya'all claim it doesn't matter...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    But to me, Booker really nailed it on a pet issue of mine, when he castigated Joe Biden for recently coming out against full legalization of marijuana because (as he put it) it was unclear whether it was a "gateway drug" or not. Such 1980s, "

    Really?? Marijuana legalization is a pet issue for you??

    Hadn't noticed.. :D

    One thing we can say about the debate...

    It proves that the Democrat Party convention is going to be brokered.. :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not a single mention of the DNC putrid and dismal fund raising???

    Ya see.. Another difference between old fun happy Weigantia and new HHPTDS We Can't Say Anything Bad About Democrat Party Weigantia..

    Since campaign finance is such a huge part of Democrat Party platform, one would think a mention of how badly Democrats suck at it would happen at least occasionally.

    But looks like ya'all have adopted and bastardized Saint Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment..

    "Thou shalt not speak ill of Democrat Party"

    So much for reality-based..

    I'm just sayin'....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA doc; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection

    Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser -- enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.

    The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. "That's locked," Graham said.

    The new evidence concerning the altered document, which was related to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.

    The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/horowitz-finds-evidence-fbi-employee-altered-russia-probe-document

    The Great Dumbocrat Comeuppance is at hand!!! :D

    Now we're going to see some actual criminal activity!! :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country..

    And yet, there is another crowd based mass shooting at a California high school..

    California HS shooter used untraceable 'ghost gun,' sheriff says
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-high-school-shooter-used-untraceable-ghost-gun-sheriff-says

    When are Dumbocrats going to learn that hysterical ANTI GUN LAWS are not the answer...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The evidence that bribery was committed has become OVERWHELMING...

    The Evidence That Joe Biden Committed Bribery
    November 19, 2019/ Francis Menton
    Over here at Manhattan Contrarian, I have now had five posts detailing the lay-down case that Joe Biden committed the federal crime of bribery (18 U.S.C Section 201(b)) with respect to the conduct of himself and his son in Ukraine. Those five posts consist of the four-part series “The Bidens: ‘Stone Cold Crooked,’” sequels (2), (3) and (4) to same, plus Sunday’s post “Biden v. Trump: Which One Is The ‘Bribe’?”

    Meanwhile, over in what we continue to call the mainstream media, there has developed a mantra that there is “no evidence” that Joe Biden acted to help his son collect a bribe in Ukraine. Just yesterday, Eric Felten over at RealClearInvestigations put together a nice roundup of these ridiculous statements, including:

    CBS News on November 9: “There is no evidence to support that claim.”

    From The Hill: “There’s no evidence that Joe Biden was acting with his son’s interests in mind.”

    From Esquire on November 9: [There is] no evidence Joe Biden made any effort to protect his son’s interests as Vice President.”

    From the New York Times, September 22: “[N]o evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor’s dismissal.”

    Felten has even more of these if you are interested.
    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-11-19-the-evidence-that-joe-biden-committed-bribery

    Joe Biden is definitely guilty of bribery..

    But of course, the Trump/America haters can't admit that for it will expose their hatred and bigotry...

    Keep in mind, this faux impeachment coup ONLY ends ONE WAY..

    With President Trump still in office.

    And THAT just burns ya'all, eh?? :D

    I have to admit. It provides me no end of amusement to see ya'all go on and on hysterically only to know that, in the end, it will all be for naught.

    Ya'all lose... That's the ONLY outcome here.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I am still looking for what Michale was pining about without any success.

    Of course you can't find anything...

    Yer a hater...Yer a bigot..

    Duh.....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now let’s apply this to the Biden/Ukraine situation. You will quickly see that the entire question of whether Biden is guilty of bribery comes down to his motive in demanding the firing of a prosecutor and threatening to withhold U.S. aid to get that to occur. That’s because, as discussed in Sunday’s post, the other two of the three elements of federal bribery (18 U.S.C. Section 201(b)) are definitively established as to the Bidens: The “thing of value” received is Hunter’s $3+ million from Burisma; and the “official act” is Joe’s threat to withhold aid leading to the firing of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. (Please don’t think that the fact that the money went to Hunter rather than Joe is any defense. If you have any doubt, ask Dean Skelos, currently serving a four year term for a federal bribery conviction, where the money went entirely to his son Adam.) So all that’s left is the third element, namely whether the thing of value was “in return for” the official act. In other words, this is the question of motive.

    Joe Biden says as to his motive, “I was just legitimately trying to get rid of the corrupt prosecutor; my son’s position had nothing to do with it.” OK, but should we believe him? We’re talking here about what’s going on in Joe’s head. How can we get any information on that other than what he says? The answer is that we must look to see whether there is evidence that is inconsistent with what he is saying and therefore supportive of the hypothesis of corrupt motive.

    Unfortunately for Joe, there is indeed evidence that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that he acted for pure motives, and not to help his son. I have identified two pieces of such evidence in prior posts:

    Biden failed to direct his son to resign from the Burisma board prior to threatening to withhold the aid and demanding the firing of the prosecutor. This was an extremely easy step that Biden could have taken to avoid any questions about his corrupt motive. Unfortunately, this step would have cost his son several million dollars. And thus Hunter remained on the Burisma through the aid withholding/firing process in late 2015/early 2016, and indeed for three more years thereafter. These facts are completely inconsistent with any theory that Biden was free of motivation to help his son.

    The prosecutor was not fired at the time Biden made the threat to withhold U.S. aid a few hours before departing the country (December 9, 2015), but only over two months later (February 16, 2016), after the prosecutor had suddenly closed in on Burisma by getting a Ukrainian court to order seizure of the property of Burisma’s owner and chairman Mykolo Zlochevsky (February 4), and Biden had made a further call to the Ukrainian president (February 12). These facts cry out that the immediate motivation was to stop the prosecution of Burisma.

    On Sunday’s post, commenter James Shuey notes that it would be interesting to get a transcript of Biden’s February 12 call with the Ukrainians. Yes, it would. But if you think about it, for these purposes, it almost doesn’t matter what Biden said. Suppose he demanded the immediate firing of Shokin. Coming right after Shokin’s seizure of Zlochevsky’s property, that would be damning. But suppose Biden doesn’t mention the subject of firing Shokin at all. That would only tell you that, at a time the Ukrainians understood that they must immediately get rid of Shokin for the benefit of Hunter, Biden did nothing to disabuse them of that idea. Damning again. Really the only thing that Biden could have said that would be exculpatory was, “I need you to fire Shokin, but kindly wait a few days until my son has resigned from the Burisma board.” Clearly, he did not say that.

    Bottom line: those who say that there is “no evidence” that Biden got Shokin fired to help his son collect millions only show their own ignorance. Ignorance not necessarily of the facts, but of the whole nature of evidence and proof of questions of motivation and causation.

    Yep.. Joe Biden, not President Trump, committed bribery... And likely extortion as well. DEFINITELY quid pro quo...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well... One thing is clear..

    We now can see why Schiff-head wanted all the faux impeachment coup hearings to be in private, hidden from the public..

    Because the PUBLIC hearings are proving beyond any doubt that President Trump has done nothing impeachable..

    According to the polls (and I KNOW ya'all swear by polls) Americans are now losing interest and are against this faux impeachment coup...

    It was so much easier to control the message when the hearings were private and only Schiff-head could release cherry picked info..

    Now that the American people can actually see and hear what's what??

    It's a big huge nothing burger.. A yawn-fest..

    Dumbocrats should have taken their lumps with their Russia Collusion delusion and concentrated on beating President Trump at the ballot box..

    Oh, that's right.. Democrats CAN'T beat President Trump at the ballot box..

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

    Typical Dumbocrat maneuver.. No matter WHAT they do, Dumbocrats lose!! :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    The big giveaway that Dumbocrats are floundering with their faux impeachment coup is the FACT that they had to resort to FOCUS GROUPS to get their message!!

    Hell, even our own JL (who is the second wisest Weigantian here.. :D) couldn't believe that Dumbocrats would use FOCUS GROUPS!!!

    When confronted with the facts, even JL conceded that it was "stupid" for them to do that....

    Jurisprudence, like science, is NOT Focus Group-able..

    If you have to Focus Group a legal case, it's NOT legitimate..

    And what do we know about legitimacy??

    That this faux impeachment coup is ANYTHING but legitimate..

    How do we know??

    Democrats say so..

    "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

    “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

    There you have it.. From the mouths of Dumbocrats..

    This faux impeachment coup is NOT legitimate..

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Wee-gant?

    So I have been thinking of the commenters here as whiners when it should be weeners? :D

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    On the bright side, with all the attention focused on the impeachment and the Dem primary we were spared the usual fallback distraction of a threatened government shutdown.

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    funny, i always thought it was pronounced like "why-can't" with the hard G.

    as for don, if you're going to be a weener, may i suggest:

    https://youtu.be/tkzY_VwNIek

    JL

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    So I have been thinking of the commenters here as whiners when it should be weeners? :D

    Touche' :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Richard Jewell’ Review: Low-Key Clint Eastwood True Drama Belongs to His Canon of Misunderstood Heroes
    The director gets out of his own way to deliver a no-frills, solid-as-oak, competently mounted slice of biopic.

    https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/richard-jewell-review-clint-eastwood-1202190791/

    Perfect timing for this movie about media hysteria and FBI malfeasance and incompetence..

    It's easy to see the Jewell/Trump parellals in the media's and FBI's insane and hysterically irrational attempts to target an innocent, nay a HEROIC man.....

    Definitely a movie of our time..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.instagram.com/p/B5DxmE2p133/

    Hehe A guy does this on the streets of America, he is likely to get shot! :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    as for don, if you're going to be a weener, may i suggest:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9t-slLl30E

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    as for don, if you're going to be a weener, may i suggest:

    "Yer a psycho weener..."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9t-slLl30E

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Editorial: Trump shreds military justice by excusing SEAL misconduct
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Trump-shreds-military-justice-by-14853539.php

    No.. President Trump simply understands that, out in the real world, on the battlefields that the actions of these operators in securing freedom count for FAR MORE than some moronic Left Winger sitting in a cushy office, sipping xe's latte and worried about politically correct bullshit..

    So, some dead scumbag terrorist was made fun of.. Big woop..

    But leave it to hysterical and bigoted Dumbocrats making such a big frakin' deal out of it..

    Chief Gallagher's heroic actions should be the yardstick by which he is measured.. Not some morale-boosting antic that people who have never seen a real battlefield outside of TV or a movie find morally questionable..

    :eyeroll:

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    As commander in chief, Trump has sway over military matters. But he’s breaking with past White House custom by dipping into personnel issues usually left to service leaders to handle. The upshot may cheer die-hard defenders of brutal conduct, but it will also chill the morale of military officers wondering who is in charge of battlefield conduct.

    The COMMANDER IN CHIEF, President Donald Trump.

    THAT is who is in charge..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Schiff’s impeachment hearings wasting time when Congress must do real work

    Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee has now heard all its announced public-hearing impeachment witnesses, yet all those hours of televised testimony plainly failed on their announced goal: to change Americans’ minds.

    Part of the problem is that Democrats had already released (or leaked) the best evidence they had, so the public hearings brought zero drama, unless you count the grandstanding on both sides.

    More important: Not one witness offered any direct evidence that President Trump did anything clearly impeachable. No one heard him order a quid pro quo, in which Ukraine would gin up “dirt” on Joe Biden in exchange for US aid or a White House meeting.

    Not one offered a convincing reason why Trump’s interest in having Ukraine probe potential corruption warrants impeachment, even if it was part of quid pro quo.
    https://nypost.com/2019/11/21/schiffs-impeachment-hearings-wasting-time-when-congress-must-do-real-work/

    This faux impeachment coup is on it's last legs.. That is all Democrats have for hearings...

    Now all that's left is the vote on the articles of impeachment... If they ever happen.. Democrats are gone on vacation now and when they come back, they'll find the American people have moved on..

    This faux impeachment coup will fail.. Just like the Russia Collusion delusion coup failed..

    And Dumbocrats will have NOTHING to show for 2 years being in control of the House.. :D

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    weeners gotta ween

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think at this point, based on the evidence presented, it's basically a foregone conclusion that articles of impeachment will be drafted and passed, just like it's equally probable the senate will hold a trial and vote to acquit. the only real question is what (if any) impact this whole drama will have on the 2020 elections, both primary and general.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    the only real question is what (if any) impact this whole drama will have on the 2020 elections, both primary and general.

    When one considers that Democrats will not be able to give Independents and NPAs ANY REASON to vote Democrat, the impact on the 2020 elections is clear...

    President Trump wins election and Democrats lose the house..

    Easy Peezy, Lemon Squeezy

    :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would also dispute your contention that the vote on the actual articles of impeachment is a foregone conclusion..

    On the previous vote, at-risk Democrats could argue, "I didn't vote TO impeach.. I simply voted to TALK about impeaching."

    It's a chicken-shit distinction, but it does have a somewhat rational, albeit cowardly, foundation.. It DOES give those at-risk Democrats cover..

    But THIS vote yanks that cover away completely and unequivocally..

    At-risk Democrats will have NO WHERE to hide for this AOI vote, if it even comes up..

    Ya already have a few Democrats going on the record as opposing this impeachment..

    Any more join those few and impeachment will fail..

    As you have pointed out, Pelosi won't hold the vote if she knows she doesn't HAVE the votes..

    So, if Pelosi refuses to schedule the vote, by your own admission, that means the AOI vote will fail..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk

    :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    But wait..

    Weren't ya'all crowing and back-slapping that Bolton would testify??

    What happened???

    Once again, ya'all's wishful thinking got WAY out ahead of the FACTS and REALITY..

    Once again, ya'all confused what you WANTED to happened with the FACTS and what actually happened..

    Ya'all seem to do that a lot.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is what is likely to happen..

    Pelosi, realizing that Democrats might lose the Articles Of Impeachment vote and not wanting to give President Trump a HUGE win in the Senate...

    She will announce that the Democrats ONLY goal was to get this information out into the public..

    Having accomplished that goal, Pelosi will announce that the Democrats have accomplished everything they set out to do and, therefore, a vote on the AOIs is no longer necessary..

    You heard it here first.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi, realizing that Democrats might lose the Articles Of Impeachment vote and not wanting to give President Trump a HUGE win in the Senate...

    That came out kind of clunky...

    To re-phrase..

    Pelosi, realizing that Democrats might lose the Articles Of Impeachment vote and, even if Dems did win the AOI vote, it would still give President Trump a MUCH bigger win in the Senate...

    Better..

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    that's very possible. as i mentioned before the process vote, nancy generally doesn't hold a vote unless she already knows what the outcome will be. if the votes aren't going to be there, she won't vote on the articles. however, if the vote happens, you can bet that at least some articles will pass. presumably the "cover" for democrats in conservative districts would be to vote yes on some articles but no on others.

    JL

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    however, if the vote happens, you can bet that at least some articles will pass.

    All things equal, if the vote does happen, I would conditionally agree that it will likely pass...

    presumably the "cover" for democrats in conservative districts would be to vote yes on some articles but no on others.

    I don't think that will be acceptable to Trump supporters and, consequently, won't save those Democrat jobs come Nov 3, 2020...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am guessing that President Trump is ITCHING for a Senate trial..

    The ability to call ALL the witnesses that Schiff-head refused to allow the GOP to call??

    Having the ability to pull Joe Biden OFF the campaign trail, in addition to all those Senators that are running??

    I am betting President Trump is chomping at the bit to do that...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think ya'all understand just how bad this is for Democrats??

    The BEST that Democrats can realistically expect is a damn good outcome for President Trump.. :D

    In other words, even if Democrats "win" (by impeaching) they LOSE big-time and President Trump comes out vindicated and exonerated...

    AGAIN...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having the ability to pull Joe Biden OFF the campaign trail, in addition to all those Senators that are running??

    McConnell can maneuver things and schedule things so that Biden and the (wha??) 4 Senators running for POTUS can be tied up in witness and jury duty up to, and maybe even PAST, Iowa and New Hampshire..

    That's gonna put a HUGE dent in Biden's, Warren's, Sanders', Booker's and Harris' campaigning... :D

    Ya gotta marvel once again how Democrats have maneuvered themselves into ANOTHER LOSE-LOSE situation..

    :D

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    if there's a senate trial, i don't think it will go quite as favorably as you or donald think. the house has finished the investigative phase, and will probably vote before the end of January. that being the case, i doubt CJ Roberts will allow a trial he's presiding over to become a circus, or to run over into February. donald would near certainly be acquitted by the senate, but his standing in public opinion would be a lot less certain.

    JL

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    brain fart. the house has finished the investigative phase, and will probably vote before the end of NOVEMBER

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    4

    Maybe you can be like Daddy's Little Cockholster and pay those web-based research companies to investigate me..

    Your skank daughter paid somebody to investigate her fraud father? Oh, I shouldn't assume it was your daughter since your boys qualify as your cock holsters too. Which one of your skeevy daddy's little criminal cock holsters did that to you? Sucks to be you, Mike. It's bad enough to be trailer trash and fully aware how you landed there with your illegal pirating, but you really should have told all your little cock holstering spawn how that happened so they wouldn't be wasting their money on information that can be obtained for free via pubic record.

    Surely a self-described "career military" and "law enforcement officer" would have the basic knowledge that anyone with a keyboard and an Internet connection can search public records. How in the hell does a guy who claims to be a law enforcement officer not know about easily searchable information on the Internet. How in the hell does a supposed "law enforcement officer" not know that mugshots and lawsuits are searchable for free on the Internet and tell his ignorant cock holster children to save their money and search their criminal father for free? Also: If you were truly a law enforcement officer worth two shits, you'd have cultivated connections whereby you can just pick up a phone and get whatever information you wanted for free. So how pathetic is it that you wouldn't inform your skeevy cock holstering spawn that their multiple mugshots are searchable for free and show them how to do it? What kind of self-respecting law enforcement officer worth a shit doesn't know about public records?

    Anybody with two brains cells to rub together can see right through your bullshit, Mike, and anybody with a phone and a few connections can easily learn the facts and it won't even cost them a penny.

    I wouldn't think I would have to tell a real LEO this, but do me a favor, Dad, and let all your little criminal cock holstering spawn know that theirs and their Daddy's mugshots are free and easily searchable. The lawsuits are obviously public record too. I'm sure they'll be happy to stop spending their money on stuff anybody can get for free. It's really pathetic how you allowed them to waste their money trying find out about their criminal Dad. #Pathetic

    :D
    :D
    :D
    :D
    :D

    Mike, you're a fraud... the worst kind of fraud too: An ignorant fraud. *laughs*

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Really nice recap, CW; however, I have a simple request I hope you will consider:

    Next time, could you please not spend so much time on Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer? Thanking you in advance. :)

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    if there's a senate trial, i don't think it will go quite as favorably as you or donald think.

    Simply by virtue of it HAPPENING, it's going to be favorable..

    I misspoke before.. It's *FIVE* Presidential Candidates that are sitting Senators.. FIVE candidates that are going to be pulled from their campaigns to sit as jurors... Plus Joe Biden as a witness..

    Regardless of all else, a Senate trial is, BY DEFAULT, favorable to President Trump and the GOP..

    that being the case, i doubt CJ Roberts will allow a trial he's presiding over to become a circus,

    As has been WELL ESTABLISHED, Chief Justice Roberts is a mere figure-head and will have very little power..

    Allow me to explain how it will go..

    Chief Justice Roberts:"I don't think I can allow this evidence to be introduced"

    Senate Majority Leader:"All in favor of overruling the presiding judge??"

    AYE... AYE.... AYE..... AYE et al majority

    Senate Majority Leader:"The presiding judge is overruled. The witness will be allowed"

    This trial will go the way President Trump and the GOP wants it to go..

    It's THAT simple..

    donald would near certainly be acquitted by the senate, but his standing in public opinion would be a lot less certain.

    Except for the fact that the court of public opinion is turning AGAINST Democrats and is the negative attitude is gaining steam..

    By the time the actual Senate Trial rolls around, this faux impeachment coup will be as popular as the black plague...

    There is simply NO WAY that Dumbocrats will win this faux impeachment coup..

    The ONLY thing that is not sure is will it be as BAD as the Dumbocrats' Russia Collusion delusion thumping??

    Or much much MUCH worse than the Dumbocrats' Russia Collusion delusion thumping...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick wrote:
    Mike
    4

    Maybe you can be like Daddy's Little Cockholster and pay those web-based research companies to investigate me..

    He.. Even Victoria posts that she is Daddy's Little Cockholster...

    How funny is that!!???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Monday is when we learn whether or not we still live in a Democracy. That is when the court will decide whether or not to uphold congressional subpoenas.

    If not, well we can pack it in, there's no democracy left in America. Trump can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and there isn't shit we can do about it.

    If so, there are many subpoenas waiting. Don McGann would go first, with testimony relating to the Mueller investigation. Yeah, Barr didn't kill it, contrary to everything that Republicants believe. Then probably Bolton. The impeachment will gear up to see ALL of them.

    Now if the Court rules against us, there's always appeal to the SCOTUS. One hopes that they'd issue a short statement rather than dignify it, but there is no shortage of idiocy on the right.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senator Sanders..

    Senator Booker..

    Senator Klobaucher..

    Senator Harris..

    Senator Warren..

    Are going to be tied up for MONTHS with this Senate Trial... Their campaigns will crash and burn... :D

    Joe Biden as the GOP's top witness will ALSO be tied up for months.. But HIS campaign might do a bit better without him...

    Regardless, it's clear that Pelosi's best course of action is to stop the faux impeachment coup and take their lumps from the Democrat base...

    Democrats have **NOTHING** to gain and **EVERYTHING** to lose by going ahead with this faux impeachment coup..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Monday is when we learn whether or not we still live in a Democracy. That is when the court will decide whether or not to uphold congressional subpoenas.

    That question is settled..

    Until Dumbocrats actually START the impeachment??

    Those subpoenas don't mean jack shit..

    If not, well we can pack it in, there's no democracy left in America. Trump can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and there isn't shit we can do about it.

    Just like Odumbo could shoot someone on 5th Ave and the GOP were powerless to do something.

    So???

    Now if the Court rules against us,

    That's a forgone conclusion..

    there's always appeal to the SCOTUS.

    Yea.. Cuz you Dumbocrats have ALWAYS had good luck with the SCOTUS!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

    One hopes that they'd issue a short statement rather than dignify it, but there is no shortage of idiocy on the right.

    Says the guy who was against impeachment until Pelosi ordered him to change his mind..

    Which GUARANTEES President Trump a HUGE exonerating and vindicating win... :D

    So, if ya wanna see pure unadulterated idiocy.... Look in the mirror my friend.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senator Sanders..

    Senator Booker..

    Senator Klobaucher..

    Senator Harris..

    Senator Warren..

    Are going to be tied up for MONTHS with this Senate Trial... Their campaigns will crash and burn... :D

    And ya'all know what's even MORE HILARIOUS!!????

    As "jurors" in President Trump's trial, all those Senators will be BARRED from speaking against President Donald Trump!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    They will be completely and utterly neutered!!!

    How'z THAT for karma!!?? :D

    A Senate trial is ***THE BEST*** thing that can happen to President Trump.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    44

    He.. Even Victoria posts that she is Daddy's Little Cockholster...

    Liar. Liar. Fraud. Liar.

    I asked why a Dad like you would allow his little cock holstering spawn to waste their money to obtain their Dad's public records. They're your little suckers, and I cannot fathom why a so-called "law enforcement officer" wouldn't inform his little criminal cock holstering chips off the old block about public records.

    What kind of LEO Dad wouldn't have used all that cock holstering time he had with his criminal spawn to teach them how to search public records?

    How ignorant is that!!???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    That question is settled..

    Until Dumbocrats actually START the impeachment??

    Those subpoenas don't mean jack shit..

    Why do you think Schiff-head stopped trying to enforce them??

    He knows he has no legal recourse until the House votes in the affirmative on the Articles of Impeachment...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mike
    44

    He.. Even Victoria posts that she is Daddy's Little Cockholster...

    And, once again, Victoria echoes that she is, indeed DLC.... :D

    Bitch-slapped again!!!! :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    "He.. Even Victoria posts that she is Daddy's Little Cockholster..."
    -Victoria, http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/11/21/fifth-debate-roundup/#comment-149690

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That question is settled..Until Dumbocrats actually START the impeachment?

    Do you want a gun to go off or something? Should Nancy Pelosi wave a flag, and say, "Okay, start!"? And does that mean that non-impeachment subpoenas don't count?

    Idiocy, thy name is Michale.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this..

    Even if the BEST thing that could realistically happen for the Democrats.. The VERY best that is actually possible.

    It's still 20X better for President Trump..

    So, even if Dumbocrats WIN...

    THEY LOSE!!! :D

    So typical of the Dumbocrat Party in the age of Trump.. :D

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you want a gun to go off or something? Should Nancy Pelosi wave a flag, and say, "Okay, start!"? And does that mean that non-impeachment subpoenas don't count?

    Actually, it was Pelosi herself who said a few days ago that Democrats haven't started impeachment yet.

    So, if you have a problem with that, blame her..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Idiocy, thy name is Michale.

    Says the idiot who STILL believes that President Trump colluded with the Russians.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    45

    If so, there are many subpoenas waiting. Don McGann would go first, with testimony relating to the Mueller investigation. Yeah, Barr didn't kill it, contrary to everything that Republicants believe. Then probably Bolton. The impeachment will gear up to see ALL of them.

    People are forgetting that Mueller designated Roger Stone's case as related to United States v. Netyksho et al. Mueller's suit against the 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking the DNC, but I would wager you haven't forgotten. As long as that case is alive and being investigated, anyone can be added as a related defendant. It's legal genius.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18223791/mueller-roger-stone-russian-hackers-related-case

    Now if the Court rules against us, there's always appeal to the SCOTUS. One hopes that they'd issue a short statement rather than dignify it, but there is no shortage of idiocy on the right.

    As I've said before, any member of the SCOTUS that would be fool enough to make a ruling that would place any POTUS above Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States would deserve whatever that dipshit they crowned would do to them for having done that. In other words, why would the SCOTUS hand a POTUS the rope with which to hang them?

    So we'll see. Nice to see a post of substance versus trolling bullshit. Thank you for that. :)

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    it was Pelosi herself who said a few days ago that Democrats haven't started impeachment yet

    ..and you still miss the point. Let me put it this way that you can understand: Linsay Graham's hearings won't go anywhere without any witnesses. Got it?

    And yes, I do believe that President Trump colluded with the Russians, especially given all that came out of Roger Stone's trial.

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick - You beat me to the Stone case. I guess that great minds think alike... or you're just that quick!

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Nice to see a post of substance versus trolling bullshit. Thank you for that. :)

    You're welcome. I try to please. :)

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    51

    And, once again, Victoria echoes that she is, indeed DLC....

    Bitch-slapped again!!!!

    Thank you for that acknowledgement of how you feel about your criminal spawn. I always say our children's lives are a reflection on their parents, and yours are criminals with multiple mugshots just like their Dad.

    I could give y'all criminals the links to your mugshots and lawsuits since for some reason you're a so-called career LEO without the knowledge of where they're located.

    I've never met a cop I had to educate before, Dad, but I'll be happy to educate you and your Daddy's cockholsters. They might be surprised just how much information is out there on the entire family, and I'm sure they'll thank you profusely with some more cock holstering for putting all their names on the Internet so that anyone with a keyboard and Internet connection can see their mugshots. Now that's not exactly what any LEO worth a shit would do, but then again, we're talking about a special kind of ignorant stupid gullible piece of ignorant dipshit in their Dad's case... ignorance on full display and archived for all posterity. *laughs*

    Fraud.
    Liar.
    Liar.
    Fraud. :D :D :D :D :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    58

    And yes, I do believe that President Trump colluded with the Russians, especially given all that came out of Roger Stone's trial.

    And what is going on with Julian Assange lately?

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/sweden-drops-julian-assange-rape-investigation-after-nearly-10-years-20191120-p53c68.html

    Hmmmmm. It almost seems they are freeing him up for other things. ;)

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    ..and you still miss the point. Let me put it this way that you can understand: Linsay Graham's hearings won't go anywhere without any witnesses. Got it?

    Still being stoopid, eh??

    We're talking about the Senate impeachment trial...

    NOT any Graham hearings..

    Even if we are talking Graham hearings, why would Graham have any problem securing witnesses??

    And yes, I do believe that President Trump colluded with the Russians,

    Yes you do. And THAT is idiocy.

    Especially when you said that the Mueller investigation would answer that definitively..

    And it did.. YOU just didn't like the answer...

    You lost.. Only an idiot doesn't accept the facts and reality..

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    59|60

    You beat me to the Stone case. I guess that great minds think alike... or you're just that quick!

    Heh! Now, about that "mind" thing... on this forum, it's so refreshing to find a comment from someone with critical thinking skills and the ability to connect the dots versus the wall-to-wall mindless trolling spam from the prolific illiterate idiot brigade... of one.

    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” — Isaac Asimov

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rut Roh, Dumbocrats.. :D

    Independents souring on Trump impeachment as House inquiry heats up, polls indicate

    Recent polling on impeachment indicates that independent voters are far from sold on ousting President Trump from the White House. In fact, the national surveys suggest support for impeaching and removing the GOP incumbent has deteriorated over the past month, even as the House inquiry has ramped up.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/independents-impeachment-polls

    You people swear by the polls.. When they say what you want to hear.. :D

    By the time Dumbocrats return from their vacation, the vast majority of Americans are going to be SOOOOO against this faux impeachment coup... :D

    Makes Democrats 2-time lusers in their pursuit to nullify a free, fair, legal, democratic and Constitutional election..

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sorry. When the polls come from someone OTHER than Fox, I'll begin to worry. You know that somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of people that call themselves independents are actually Republicants. True.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry.

    Yes, you are. Now apologize...

    When the polls come from someone OTHER than Fox, I'll begin to worry.

    Except ya'all have quoted even FOX polls, when they say what you want to hear..

    You know that somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of people that call themselves independents are actually Republicants.

    Any facts to support?? No...

    Just your wishful Trump/America hate thinking?? Yes...

    Face reality, sunshine..

    You yourself have conceded that this only ends ONE WAY... With President Trump STILL in office..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH
    Police Officer Rasheen McClain
    Detroit Police Department, Michigan
    End of Watch: Wednesday, November 20, 2019

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

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

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    66

    Sorry. When the polls come from someone OTHER than Fox, I'll begin to worry. You know that somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of people that call themselves independents are actually Republicants. True.

    Fox Snooze: Where fauxviating foxtards go to get clusterfoxed.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats and their media allies don’t want America to see
    https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-ukraine-scandal-timeline-democrats-and-their-media-allies-dont-want-america-to-see/

    WOW!!!!

    In a Senate Trial, Biden and Democrats are TOAST!!!!

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    70

    Well, there's the name John Solomon right there in your link so that's as far as anyone with a brain needs to read since the bullshit that John Soloman is spewing and you're bringing to this reality based forum is: Russian Propaganda for Rubes.

    I think you've come to the wrong place; there's only one person on this forum gullible enough to fall for this Russian propaganda bullshit, and it's you. *laughs*

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Says the person who swore by her Russia Collusion delusion for 2 years..

    It's clear from the past 3 years and all yer bogus and bullshit Trump predictions that it's ya'all who fall for propaganda bullshit.. :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You have always been wrong... :D

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In a Senate Trial, Biden and Democrats are TOAST!!!!

    Strange. First I hear about John Soloman, and how he's been whipping up conspiracy theories, and then, bang! you lay some on us.

    And there's nothing there. Even in his telling.

    I have to agree with Kick: Russian Propaganda for Rubes.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there's nothing there. Even in his telling.

    It's all documented...

    Which fact do you deny??

    As I pointed out, ya'all have *ALWAYS* been wrong, so the FACTS clearly show that it is ya'all who is fooled by the bullshit propaganda that your Dumbocrats spew..

    How was that Bolton testimony??

    How was getting Trumps tax returns???

    How was getting your bullshit subpoenas enforced??

    How was reading the unredacted Mueller report??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You people have *ALWAYS* been ***WRONG*** and ya call ME a rube???

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to agree with Kick:

    Of course you agree with Daddy's Little Cockholster..

    Ya'all drink from the same bullshit fountain...

    And, as the FACTS show..

    Ya'all have ***ALWAYS**** been ****WRONG****

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I have to admit.. Come Weds, I am gonna miss bitch-slappin' ya'all into the ground time and time again.. :D

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    72

    Says the person who swore by her Russia Collusion delusion for 2 years..

    That's it? Same bullshit again? You're demonstrably illiterate, and you've got nothing because you literally say the same thing over and over like a catatonic zombie as if posting the same shit over and over means anything. It doesn't. It's nothing more than a repetitive display of mind-boggling ignorance.

    If you have anything to say besides spewing your same old trolling hatred upon hatred upon hatred doled out to each poster using the same rote words over and over like a brainless moron, please let the rest of us know because, ignorant dude:

    Nobody here gives a shit that Bubba Trump in his doublewide trailer in the swamps of Shithole thinks they're stupid. *laughs*

    You have always been wrong... :D

    And you're a repetitive dipshit who obviously has nothing to say beyond the same old mindless repetitive catatonic spew... signifying absolutely nothing but your demonstrable hatred and repeated nothingness.

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How was that Bolton testimony??

    How was getting Trumps tax returns???

    How was getting your bullshit subpoenas enforced??

    How was reading the unredacted Mueller report??

    Oh, you're right there. Lots left to do. It's a good thing that we have patience.

    Which fact do you deny?

    The (apparently) unwritten assertion that there's anything wrong. Facts without assertions are just facts. BTW, there probably ARE facts in here that aren't actually facts. It would figure.

    Come Weds, I am gonna miss bitch-slappin' ya'all

    hmmm. For how long?

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    74

    You people have *ALWAYS* been ***WRONG*** and ya call ME a rube???

    We don't have to call you a rube, Bubba Trump, because you do that to yourself every time you spew your same-old-same-old cut-and-paste garden-variety rote and spewed hatred over and over like a catatonic zombie dipshit permanently stuck on stupid with nothing to say... and saying the same old nothing to each poster over and over and over ad nauseam.

    Your pathetic repetitive spamming and flailing reeks profusely of rube, and the stench of your rote simplicity is overwhelming.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    75

    Of course you agree with Daddy's Little Cockholster..

    Nobody was talking about your tattooed little criminal spawn cock holstering their Daddy, Bubba Trump.

    Ya'all drink from the same bullshit fountain...

    They're your criminal spawn. If you didn't want them drinking from the same bullshit fountain, you shouldn't have raised a passel of criminals cock holstering their ignorant Dad.

    I have to admit.. Come Weds, I am gonna miss bitch-slappin' ya'all into the ground time and time again.. :D

    The fact that you seriously believe you bitch slap anybody by repeating the same rote dipshit routine over and over ad nauseam as if it means anything tells anyone everything they need to know. *laughs*

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Poor stupid QAnon dipshit rubes.

    Any day now, Horowitz is going to round up all the Democrats and throw them in jail. Dipshit rube fantasy!

    Poor stupid rubes!

    Ask yourself this rubes: Who's in jail or headed that way?

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    It is strange that you are arguing Trump’s innocence by pointing out all of the ways he is hiding the truth from being revealed — seriously, are you soooo determined to back Trump that you would choose to simply ignore his on-going attempts to obstruct justice?

    You keep saying that there is nothing to prove that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky agreed to say that he was investigating the Bidens and Crowdstrike.

    So here is Trump admitting it on Fox & Friends this morning:

    Trump made it even harder for Republicans to deny the obvious in an interview with Fox News by once against making the link between the military aid and the investigations explicit.

    Throughout the discussion, the hosts of “Fox & Friends” shifted uncomfortably, seeming to realize the president was just digging himself in deeper.

    He began talking about the Democratic National Committee’s “server,” which Trump believes — as a part of an elaborate and debunked conspiracy theory attempting to exonerate Russia for its 2016 election meddling — is in Ukraine. On his infamous phone call on July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump brought up this conspiracy theory when asking for the key part of the bribe, an investigation into the 2016 election.

    “They gave the server to Crowdstrike, or whatever it’s called. Which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian,” Trump said over the phone to the Fox hosts Friday. “Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?” (Again, this server theory is completely debunked nonsense that not even House Republicans will defend.)

    In other words: Why should Trump have given Ukraine its military funds until they promised to investigate his wild conspiracy theories?

    So there it is. For all of the Republicans who say there isn’t enough evidence to conclude Trump was withholding the military aid to get investigations he desired — i.e., soliciting a bribe — the president just put the whole story together on national TV.

Comments for this article are closed.