ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points -- And Here We Are

[ Posted Friday, November 22nd, 2019 – 19:30 UTC ]

That title comes from Fiona Hill's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings this week. When Hill confronted Gordon Sondland over the quid pro quo Trump was forcing Ukraine into, she angrily told him: "This is all going to blow up." To which she added, to the congressmen questioning her: "And here we are."

Here we are indeed. We've had a marathon week of impeachment hearings (which we personally watched from gavel to gavel, meaning also that we're now really looking forward to next week's vacation), and we've only just begun. We've seen all of the Republican excuses collapse one by one (and there have been a whole passel of them, to date). We've seen the best of the civil service this week, which is a world that the public rarely catches a glimpse of. To a person, they all appeared serious-minded and highly intelligent. Well, except for the one political appointee with no diplomatic experience, but he was actually the guy who stated unequivocally:

I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a "quid pro quo"? With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.

He's also the guy that admitted that "everyone was in the loop -- it was no secret" that Donald Trump was subverting American foreign policy to his own political wants and needs. On the one hand were the "three amigos" who were "involved in a domestic political errand," as Fiona Hill testified, while on the other hand there were the professionals who were "involved in national security foreign policy." Trump, obviously, didn't "give an [expletive] about Ukraine." He just cared about investigations into the Bidens and into a non-existent server.

Republicans tried desperately to cover for Trump, to no avail. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the committee, mightily tried to build a case that Ukraine was just as guilty of interfering in the 2016 election as Russia -- a talking point straight out of the mouth of Vladimir Putin. One might even say: "It sounded better in the original Russian." But this bore no relation to what Trump wanted at all, which Trump once again just proved this morning, on an almost hour-long unhinged phone call to Fox News. Here's how Trump sees it, and you'll notice that he never brings up any of the conspiracy theories Nunes was pushing all week, in favor of his own pet conspiracy theory -- which, tellingly, Nunes never even tried to defend:

[PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP]: Lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine.

[HOST BRIAN KILMEADE]: But Mr. President...

[TRUMP]: You know, it's very interesting. It's very interesting. They have the server, right, from the D.N.C. -- Democratic National Committee.

[KILMEADE]: Who has the server?

[TRUMP]: Now, the F.B.I. went in and they told them: "Get out of here. You're not getting -- we're not giving it to you." They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it's called, which is a country -- which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the F.B.I. has never gotten that server. That's a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?

[HOST STEVE DOOCY]: Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

[TRUMP]: Well, that's what the word is. That's what I asked, actually, in my phone call, if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we're looking for corruption. There's tremendous corruption. We're looking for -- why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there's this kind of corruption?

[KILMEADE]: Right.

[TRUMP]: And if you look at my call, I said, you know, corruption. I think he said it to me. He's looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.

It's hard to even count the lies in this brief statement, but let's make the attempt. (1) The D.N.C. server was sent to CrowdStrike, which is not a country. (2) CrowdStrike turned over disc images (a bit-for-bit copy of what was on the server's hard drive) to the F.B.I., who had full access from that point on. (3) Nobody ever told the F.B.I. either: "get out of here" or: "you're not getting -- we're not giving it to you." (4) The company is not owned by a Ukrainian, wealthy or not. (5) The server was never sent to Ukraine. (6) Trump never did say the word "corruption" on either of his phone calls to the Ukrainian leader, because he did not care about corruption, he just wanted that non-existent server, which (in his mind) has all the dirt on Hillary Clinton. Period. Even the Fox News hosts were uncomfortable with Trump's insistence on this conspiracy theory, as you can see. But neither they nor Nunes will ever shake Trump from his belief in the non-existent server. To put it bluntly (sorry, Devin), Trump doesn't care about Alexandra Chalupa, he only cares about the chalupas from Taco Bell.

Or let's take another laughable attempt by Trump to explain away his actions. Trump maintains that he withheld the military aid to Ukraine as some sort of protest against the European Union not giving the Ukrainians enough aid on their own. As Trump put it: "I don't like being the sucker country."

There are only two things wrong with this, but they're both doozies. The first is that Trump is flat-out wrong (and monumentally so) about the aid levels. David Holmes testified this week that the embassy in Ukraine had researched this burden-sharing in August. Here's what they found: since 2014, the United States has provided Ukraine with about $3 billion in foreign aid. The European Union, during the same period, provided a combined $12 billion -- a full four times what we gave them.

The second thing wrong with Trump's formulation is that if he were actually telling the truth, what's astounding is that he didn't tell anybody about it. There simply was no pressure on Europe, because nobody knew why the aid was being withheld. If Trump's story were even slightly believable, then the core question would be: Why didn't Trump even tell Gordon Sondland -- his buddy and his ambassador to the European Union -- what he was doing? There is no answer to this, because Trump is not being even slightly honest with this excuse.

Where the impeachment process goes next is still up in the air at the moment. But what's interesting to us is that John Bolton seems actually to be really eager to tell his story -- even to the congressional committees. He's ostensibly ignoring their request to testify, but at the same time he has said that he'll follow the courts' lead when it comes to the fight between executive branch orders and legislative branch orders. And a federal judge has indicated that he's going to make a ruling on Monday on one of these cases -- involving Don McGahn -- which predates the impeachment inquiry. If the judge rules that the congressional subpoena is valid and overrules the White House's instructions not to testify, it might just convince Bolton that it's time to do the same. We'll have to wait and see, but if there's a bombshell "Judge Rules McGahn Has To Testify" story on Monday, we wouldn't be surprised if it is followed by a "Bolton Agrees To Testify" story soon afterwards. And Bolton knows where all the bodies are buried, when it comes to Trump. Plus, he's seriously pissed off at Trump. So it'd certainly be worth holding another few hearings in the Intelligence Committee to hear from him, don't you think?

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We're going to hand out a few Honorable Mention awards before we get to the main one, because this week also contained the fifth in a series of Democratic presidential debates. We wrote up our reactions to the debate in full yesterday, so if you'd like an extended version of this, please check it out.

Every candidate who focused on beating Trump deserves recognition, to begin with. For all of the "here's what I'll do on Day One" happy talk from the candidates, some of them seem to almost have lost sight of the fact that their "Day One" is never going to happen unless and until they beat Trump in the election. This is dangerously naive, so it's good to hear some of them realize what a hard fight it's going to be. Think all of Trump's Hunter Biden attacks are bad? Just wait to see what he unloads on the eventual nominee. It's going to get really, really ugly, folks, and we'd better be well prepared for it.

Elizabeth Warren deserves an Honorable Mention for her transition plan to Medicare For All. It defused the issue to such an extent that she actually made it through her first debate without getting attacked over Medicare For All once. That's an improvement, meaning her gamble on going public with her transition plan has now handsomely paid off.

Amy Klobuchar deserves to be awarded as well, for one poignant line: "If you think a woman can't beat Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi does it every single day."

Pete Buttigieg also gets an award for a single one-liner. He pointed out -- with pride -- that Forbes magazine had published a list of the wealth of all the Democratic candidates, and he was "literally the least wealthy person on this stage." That's a great line to use, seeing as how the contest has shaped up this time around.

And finally, Cory Booker gets an Honorable Mention, for correctly framing how the issue of marijuana legalization has now changed. He castigated Joe Biden for an earlier statement that we still needed to study whether weed was a "gateway drug." Booker took Biden on directly over the issue, with a very memorable quip: "I have a lot of respect for the vice president -- he swore me into my office, he's a hero. This week, I hear him literally say that I don't think we should legalize marijuana. I thought you might have been high when you said it."

Best stoner joke we've heard during the campaign to date.

OK, one more minor award before we get to the main event. Because Representative Patrick Maloney certainly deserves recognition for being possibly the best questioner on the Democrats' side of the Intelligence Committee during the hearings. During the questioning of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, it was Maloney who made him re-read the final paragraphs of his opening statement, where Vindman talked about speaking with his father -- who had fled the Soviet Union to provide a better life for his children. Vindman reading: "Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth," and: "This is America. This is the country I've served and defended. That all of my brothers have served. Here, right matters." were some of the most emotionally poignant moments of any of this week's hearings.

Maloney knows how to hold the audience's attention. He knows how to be righteous and emotional in making his arguments. He never got lost in the weeds, he always made broad and thought-provoking points. Although he was near the end of the long line of questioners, we began anticipating his five-minute period, because we knew it would be one of the best of the entire day. So he's definitely worthy of at least an Honorable Mention, and we hope to see more good things from him in the future in the House.

But, once again, we have to hand the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to the committee's chairman, Adam Schiff. Schiff was absolutely brilliant all week long, turning in a performance that any normal person could only have managed with a steady supply of Xanax close at hand. Schiff was absolutely unflappable throughout, and he managed the clock brilliantly during the whole week. His lineup of witnesses was pretty flawless as well, as the Democratic storyline unfolded all week long and just got stronger and stronger, right up to the end where Fiona Hill absolutely shamed the Republican idiocy on the committee, to their faces and in no uncertain terms.

All of that is true, but the real reason we're giving Schiff another MIDOTW award is because of his closing statement on Thursday. If you haven't seen any of the actual testimony this week and only want to spend ten or twenty minutes or so watching, then this is the clip to watch. Seriously, it was that good. For the first and only time in the past two weeks, Schiff let his own emotions show through. He expressed righteous indignation over what Trump has done, and laid out a case for impeaching him using Richard Nixon and Watergate as his guide. He concluded over and over again that what Trump did was much worse than what Nixon had done.

His entire closing statement is one for the ages, in fact, which is why we so strongly recommend everyone take the time to watch it. Few saw it live, since it came at the end of three days of deposing nine witnesses for hours and hours and hours. So we imagine there weren't all that many people who stuck it out to the very end. But even if you haven't seen a single minute of anyone else's testimony, we urge you to take the time to view Schiff's closing statement.

It was so good that, on its own, it was more than worthy of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, we've got to give Joe Biden a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for his incredibly outdated comments on marijuana. Here's exactly what Biden said, when asked whether he supported legalizing marijuana at the federal level (he doesn't, although he is for decriminalization and letting the states decide on legalization):

The truth of the matter is there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug. It's a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it. It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it's a gateway drug or not.

The "gateway drug" propaganda has indeed been thoroughly debunked. However, Biden seems not to have gotten the memo. Biden used to be a drug warrior who complained in 1989 that: "...the war on drugs, which led to mass incarceration around the country that disproportionately affected communities of color, was 'not tough enough' or 'bold enough.' Biden called for longer prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders and demanded to 'hold every drug user accountable.' Biden wrote many of the federal laws which critics claim exacerbated mass incarceration in subsequent years."

Now, it's one thing for us to hold politicians accountable for positions they took decades ago. This is somewhat unfair, because what really should matter is how much they've "evolved" since then. But by giving credence to the "gateway drug" myth, Biden just showed that he's still got a whole bunch of evolving to do on the issue. Now, this used to be the fallback position of cautious Democrats (especially those who lived through the "Just Say No" years, where Democrats were beaten up for not being sufficiently in favor of "law and order"), as evidenced by Hillary Clinton saying during her last campaign that she wanted "more study" of marijuana before she'd consider any legalization efforts at the federal level. "More study" is a political code-word phrase meaning: "I'm never going to do anything about this, so don't expect me to."

But the days when this dodge was acceptable should be over. Something like seventy percent of the American public want to see weed legalized now. That is not a fringe position -- that now is the mainstream political opinion. Some politicians have caught up to this movement, yet plenty of others remain mired in the past. Sadly, this still includes Joe Biden.

But this week, we're giving the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to former mayor of Baltimore Catherine Pugh. One day after federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against her for fraud and tax evasion, Pugh decided to spare the taxpayers the cost of a trial and instead pleaded guilty to multiple counts. She had already stepped down as mayor, months ago, when the investigation was made public.

Here's the update on the story:

Pugh admitted Thursday to running a sham business dating to 2011 that she used to sell her books in schemes that involved skimming part of customers' paid orders for her own promotions and also churning sales by reselling books that already had been purchased but not delivered or that were being held in storage. The conspiracy Pugh acknowledged includes using $35,800 from book sales as illegal straw donations to her mayoral campaign. She also spent some of the money to buy and renovate a house in Baltimore. The two tax-evasion counts include underreporting thousands of dollars Pugh owed in 2015 and 2016 on sales of her "Healthy Holly" series about an African American girl, Holly, as she follows a healthy lifestyle.

. . .

Most of the books in Pugh's transactions were marketed and sold directly to nonprofit organizations and foundations, many of which did business or tried to get business with the state and city of Baltimore. Among the books diverted and resold were thousands purchased and donated for use by Baltimore public school students.

In all, court records show, Pugh took purchase orders for roughly 124,000 books but had printers produce only 63,210.

Pugh basically used her self-published book as a political slush fund. It's a creative way of laundering campaign cash and money she spent on herself, but creative as it may have been, it's still illegal. Pugh admitted as much, as she pleaded guilty to four of the 11 counts filed against her. Her sentencing is set for February, when she could get up to nine-and-a-half years in prison.

She's not a national politician, but the severity of her crimes elevated her to being the obvious choice this week for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, for obvious reasons. Democrats can only take the high road on corruption if they consistently denounce it when it crops up within their own ranks. Which is exactly why we're doing so with ex-mayor Pugh.

[Catherine Pugh is now a private citizen, and it is our standing policy not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 552 (11/22/19)

Today, we've got a rant instead of discrete talking points. It's been that kind of week, obviously.

We really don't have anything else to say about the following, other than it is our humble attempt to interject a newfound sense of shame into the Republican Party. As such, it is quite likely doomed to fail, but we felt it was worth the attempt anyway.

Oh, and one editorial note before we begin: there will be no Friday Talking Points column next week, as we'll be recovering from Turkey Day instead. Columns will return the week afterwards.

And with that, let's move on to the rant, shall we?

 

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

There may be those too young to remember it, but at one time the Republican Party billed itself as the party of unshakeable bedrock morality. It and it alone was the party of "family values." Republicans stood for the rule of law, and fought for law and order against Democrats who were either "secular humanists" or "moral relativists" or just plain amoral.

Does anyone else remember those days? It doesn't seem that long ago, really.

One of the strongest lobbying groups on the right used to be the Moral Majority, whose very name was an inherent warning to politicians: Americans as a whole were so upstanding and righteous that any politician who didn't listen to their concerns did so at the peril of being tossed out of office. Later, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Republican Party made the argument against "moral relativism," or the argument that there is no absolute right and wrong. Republicans rejected this argument and stood foursquare for immovable definitions of what was right and what was wrong. According to them, Clinton's behavior was so wrong it merited removing him from office. There were no grey areas, there was black and there was white and no nuance could be permitted.

Does any of this ring a bell? Or has everyone just plain forgotten these social wedge issues?

These days, the Republican Party has been reduced to a cult of personality built around the most immoral man to ever occupy the Oval Office. Things that the GOP moralizers of past years would have been absolutely apoplectic over are dismissed with barely a shrug. A president who was on his third wife? Well, the moralists used to be staunchly against divorce, but that ended after they fell in love with Ronald Reagan -- the first president who had ever been divorced and remarried.

Once again -- this used to be a huge political issue. Factions of Republicans swore up and down they'd never vote for someone who had divorced his wife. Until Reagan.

Now, Republicans follow a man who has cheated on his three wives, who has bragged about sexually assaulting women, who has had over a dozen sexual assault complaints lodged against him, who had sex with a porn star around the time his wife was pregnant, who paid that porn star six figures of hush money to cover it up, and who has expressed sexual interest in his own daughter.

Any one of these things would have automatically disqualified any politician from consideration by the moralists of days gone by, and yet the Christian evangelicals still love Trump.

Now, they blindly follow a man who lies (on average) 13 times a day to the American public. They cheer him on as he pardons war criminals. Time was, Republicans stood up for law and order and also stood up for military honor, but both of those have been left by the wayside in their blind worship of Trump. This week, a Republican actually dishonored a serving member of the military for daring to wear his uniform in public. Some of them tried to smear him as a traitor or a double-agent just because he spent the first three years of his life in another country. Boy, that's a real sleeper agent, to get all his nefarious spy indoctrination before he was even in nursery school.

Speaking of infants, Trump also instituted a policy of ripping babies from their mothers' arms and tossing them in cages. Church leaders used to speak up against governments being cruel to any human being, but they've been noticeably silent on this one over on the right. Because fealty to Trump outweighs even the most basic humanity we all are supposed to share -- which used to be one of those bedrock morals that Republicans believed in.

Donald Trump stands next to Vladimir Putin and accepts his word that he didn't meddle in the 2016 election, even though every single intelligence agency in the United States has told Trump that they did. This week, as Fiona Hill pointed out, Republicans spouted talking points originally written by Putin in a desperate attempt to paint Ukraine as the ones who interfered in our election -- all evidence to the contrary. Hill said so in no uncertain terms: "This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services." And yet, Republicans continued parroting the lies that Russia has been sowing. Somewhere in California, that righteous Cold War fighter Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

But Republicans don't care, because they seem hellbent on proving that there is absolutely no moral flip-flop that they won't engage in to explain away the indefensible actions of their Dear Leader. This goes far beyond moral relativism, folks, and enters into downright Orwellian territory. There's always an explanation, because the Dear Leader simply cannot be wrong or do anything wrong, period. Much like Mao, Stalin, and the leaders of North Korea, Trump has now become the object of worship of a cult of personality. That's all that remains of the Republican Party, in fact. They are beyond shame. They are beyond any considerations of law and order. They are so far beyond determining what is right and what is wrong that they can't even see it in their rearview mirror anymore. The new definition is: Trump is always right, and everyone else is always wrong.

I haven't heard it yet, but I don't doubt that pretty soon now we'll hear the excuse made for all of Trump's minions that they were "only following Trump's orders." This was the Nazi defense attempted at Nuremberg, of course. But, as I said, Republicans are so far beyond shame that they won't hesitate to use it -- that's my guess, anyway.

It's not just Trump, after all, it's his entire administration. How many of Trump's cronies are now behind federal bars? Five? Six? Seven? I've lost count, I have to admit. Just this week it was revealed that the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services -- a Trump appointee, of course -- had spent $3.3 million of taxpayer money to hire image consultants to make herself appear good in the press. During this time, she was giving speeches "about the importance of fostering individual responsibility and self-reliance among the nation's needy." That's about as immoral as can be imagined, and yet it wasn't even noticed due to all the other shocking news.

Remember when Republicans excoriated Barack Obama for not openly supporting a protest movement in Iran? "If only Obama would publicly support them," the Republicans bemoaned, "then it would have the same effect as Ronald Reagan's 'tear down this wall' speech in Berlin!" For months now, brave protesters in Hong Kong have been defying the Chinese authorities to demand democracy. Trump has been silent. This week, Congress passed a bill supporting the protesters and allowing for sanctions against China. The vote was unanimous in the Senate, and only one House member voted against it. Out of 535 members of Congress, only one voted against it. Trump has indicated that he'll probably veto the bill, because he is so desperate to cut a trade deal -- any deal, at this point -- with China that he doesn't want to risk upsetting the Chinese leader. Where are the Republican denunciations of Trump over his refusal to stand up for democracy movements? They are non-existent, because no one dare utter a discouraging word about the Dear Leader. No, not the Chinese one -- ours.

Maybe this fever will break, eventually. Maybe if Trump is defeated at the ballot box the rest of the Republican Party will come out of their daze and realize how far they've fallen on the moral scale of living. Maybe they'll all have an epiphany and realize how they've been hoodwinked into not just following, but strongly defending some of the most immoral behavior ever exhibited by any American politician, ever.

Some Republicans haven't completely lost their moral compass, even now. There's a group called Republicans For The Rule Of Law now running ads on Fox News castigating Trump for, according to the group's director: "Rather than fulfilling his oath to defend the Constitution, he tried to use the power of the government to strong-arm a friendly government into interfering on his behalf in the 2020 election. If the Republican Party claims to stand for national security, law and order, the rule of law, and accountable government, they can't let this abuse stand."

Consider for just one moment what the Republicans are now defending. According to them, it is absolutely acceptable for an American president to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government. This means that any future president -- of either party -- will be fully allowed to either solicit or just merely accept political dirt from any country on the planet. This will doubtlessly lead to countries wanting favors from us bending over backwards to subvert their own legal systems to either provide or just manufacture such dirt. George Washington and the Founding Fathers feared exactly this type of foreign influence, and warned us all against its evils, repeatedly. And yet, according to Republicans, this is now the new normal, there's nothing wrong with it, and the rest of us should all just "get used to it."

How far the mighty have fallen.

Now, it's one thing to argue that moral relativism does exist to some degree. Ethics classes are full of such dilemmas like the father with starving children who steals a loaf of bread to feed them. There are mitigating circumstances, at times. But that's a far cry from a knee-jerk response which proclaims that one man simply cannot do anything morally wrong and then editing your own personal morality to square with whatever it is he's done or said now. That's where the Republicans now find themselves, and it's a pretty far cry from the days when they used to lecture us all on the evils of moral relativism.

Donald Trump is a cheat, a con man, a failed businessman, a bully, a woman-hater, a xenophobe, a racist, a grifter, a fraud, a serial adulterer, a blasphemer, and a consummate liar. This is painfully obvious to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. It is, in fact, inescapable. And yet this is who the party that used to ride a moral high horse has decided to worship? This is the best they can do? Really?

So much for family values. So much for morality. So much for being able to look yourself in the mirror. So much for the Republican Party's ability to make a moral case about anything, ever again. With Donald Trump, they have sown the wind, and they are now reaping the whirlwind. The moral high road is lost to them now. They have instead followed Trump into the swamps of delusion, where morality is whatever he says it is -- if he even knows the meaning of the word (or, for that matter, how to spell it).

Some day today's Republicans may look back in shame at their own actions defending the indefensible. Some day, they may repent of their behavior. Some day, they may ask for forgiveness and try to atone for the absolute loss of their own moral compass.

But we're not there yet. In fact, we're sill a long way away from it, as Republicans continue to prove, on a daily basis.

How the mighty have fallen, indeed.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

140 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- And Here We Are”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    CW: Righteous rant!

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Of note after this weeks hearings:

    Viewership of the impeachment hearings rivals that of "Monday Night Football" or "NCIS"

    https://twitter.com/nytmedia/status/1198076801882427392

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: It's hard to even count the lies in this brief statement, but let's make the attempt. (1) The D.N.C. server was sent to CrowdStrike, which is not a country. (2) CrowdStrike turned over disc images (a bit-for-bit copy of what was on the server's hard drive) to the F.B.I., who had full access from that point on. (3) Nobody ever told the F.B.I. either: "get out of here" or: "you're not getting -- we're not giving it to you." (4) The company is not owned by a Ukrainian, wealthy or not. (5) The server was never sent to Ukraine. (6) Trump never did say the word "corruption" on either of his phone calls to the Ukrainian leader, because he did not care about corruption, he just wanted that non-existent server, which (in his mind) has all the dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    (7) The Trump campaign hired CrowdStrike in 2016 when hackers attacked their server, and easily searchable FEC records show that the House Republicans' campaign arm known as the National Republican Congressional Committee uses CrowdStrike and has been doing so for years to protect data on its servers. This CrowdStrike conspiracy theory bullshit is the perfect illustration of how the GOP are wittingly pushing Russian conspiracy theory propaganda they know to be false.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2019/11/04/the-cybersecurity-202-gop-house-campaign-arm-uses-crowdstrike-despite-trump-conspiracy-theories/5dbf22d488e0fa10ffd20b34/

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris (from yesterday's column),

    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 …

    Of course, Biden was referring to the time - granted, long ago - when he was serving in the Senate.

    You want to call that a gaffe? Go for it!

    Can you seriously imagine any of the candidates other that Biden who can do a better job of fixing the Trump messes - domestically, of course but, internationally, in particular - better than Biden?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you can, then you are dreaming.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Biden is the one who can do this, then the white community had better get on board and, instead of focusing on the ill-perceived gaffes in a, let's face it, FAKE debate, start highlighting why it is that your country is in desperate need of a Biden presidency.

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No cause for concern yet, Liz. Biden is still doubling his competition at the polls, and after the third primary, will probably walk away with it.

    Bernie is holding at 18% - exactly where he was in 2016.

    The question for liberals is: if it happens, will they walk away again, and hand it all to Trump?

    I sincerely hope not.

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CW: Great column today. You're right. Schiff's closing argument is the best non-scripted speech that I've heard in a long time.

    I wouldn't worry too much about Biden's struggle with marijuana. After all, HE was the one that broke the dam about gay marriage. He can evolve!

  9. [9] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    I remember when groups like the Moral Majority were starting up. They claimed they wanted to put God back into politics, but it was pretty clear to me at the time that what they were actually doing was putting right-wing politics into religion, and virtually making that their God. With a pretty big helping of racism. I could see this happening among people I knew and loved, and it was painful to see them turning their backs on the very religious principles some of them had taught me as a young person.

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: So it'd certainly be worth holding another few hearings in the Intelligence Committee to hear from him, don't you think?

    Bolton? Absolutely... and we're going to also need in the chair testifying under penalty of perjury: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, and Devin Nunes.

    Watchdog group American Oversight has received a cache of State Department documents under FOIA by order showing a paper trail from Giuliani to the Oval Office and to Mike Pompeo, and we now know that Pompeo didn't defend Masha Yovanovitch from Giuliani's smear campaign because he was part of it. The White House helped arrange a call between Giuliani and Pompeo after the handover of Rudy's dossier about Biden. Rudy's Russian propaganda was distributed to the known conspiracy theorist writer John Solomon.

    Those documents have been made available to the public, and you can view them here:

    https://www.americanoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/AO_State_Ukraine_Docs_11-22.pdf

    Ignorant Tool Devin Nunes had meetings in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden. Devin got caught and is compromised; it seems Devin was on the taxpayers' dime in violation of federal law. #Compromised

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    {factless hysterical rant}

    And after all that, guess what??

    President Trump is STILL your President..

    He will STILL be your President after this fact-less hysterical faux impeachment coup collapses and he will still be your President after he wins re-election in 2020..

    :D And no amount of hysterical Trump/America hate will change that simple fact.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    You go on and on about President Trump's lies..

    But when it's a DEMOCRAT who blatantly lies, you award him the coveted MIDOTW award..

    Ya don't even TRY to sugarcoat the hypocrisy anymore.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Fact-less? How so?

    And what makes you think he will win in 2020?

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what makes you think he will win in 2020?

    First of all, because the Dem candidates are so far Left they will NEVER appeal to the Independents and NPAs that actually decide elections..

    As to the House, Democrats have NOTHING to show for their 2 years of governing except for 2 failed coups..

    Therefore, control of the House will revert back to the GOP..

    It's all easy to understand if one is not a Party slave, blinded by ideology..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, you're right there.

    Of course I am...

    Lots left to do. It's a good thing that we have patience.

    Yea. You said the same thing during your Russia Collusion delusion..

    Tell me, how did that "patience" work out for you then?? :D

    You see, this is EXACTLY why ya'all are so hilarious...

    Ya'all are acting EXACTLY like ya'all did during ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    All the same hysteria.. All the same fact-less bullshit..

    And the end result is going to be the exact same thing as well..

    Ya'all will LOSE and President Trump will win..

    And what makes it even MORE hilarious is that ya'all ADMIT ya'all are going to lose..

    You, CW, JL, etc etc ALL concede that the ***ONLY*** way this faux impeachment coup ends is with President Trump still in office... :D

    And yet, ya'all STILL go on and on with your hysterical "rants" (Your word, not mine)...

    It's like ya'all are BEGGING to be bitch-slapped to the ground over and over...

    Well, for the next few days, I'll be happy to oblige ya'all... :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ya'all are STILL ignoring the FACT that, during the Senate trial, it will be the GOP firmly in control..

    *SIX* Democrat candidates are going to have to suspend their campaigns and sit for the trial..

    Joe Biden will have to suspend his campaign to be interrogated by the Senate..

    McConnell can likely drag this out calling all sorts of Democrat witnesses and interrogating them mercilessly...

    It will be completely and utterly President Trump's show..

    And just IMAGINE what these Democrats are going to testify to..

    What's that?? They'll just ignore the subpoenas??

    Totally wrong.. Because the Senate subpoenas will have the teeth of impeachment behind them.. Unlike the paltry bullshit subpoenas that the Dims are issuing now..

    As I said yesterday, Pelois's best course of action is to not hold the AOI vote and just let the matter die..

    Oh sure, the Dumbocrat base will whine and squeal..

    But that would be a small price to pay to avoid giving the floor totally and completely to President Trump..

    I just hope I can see it..

  17. [17] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You're just fantasizing. Keep it up!

    It'll make our victory that much sweeter.

  18. [18] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, this was a terrific rant. Many of those points should be incorporated in the stump speech of every Democratic candidate for President. (IMO every person attacked by Trump should reply with a question about his $130,000 check to Stormy Daniels.)

    Especially important is that Republicans in the House, when they vote against the articles of impeachment - and surely almost 100% of them will - are giving their seal of approval to Trump's secret campaign in Ukraine. 'This means that any future president -- of either party -- will be fully allowed to ' (fill in the blank) based on his/her personal whim, with no Congressional oversight. They are declaring that the U S legislature is NOT an 'equal' branch of the government.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    (IMO every person attacked by Trump should reply with a question about his $130,000 check to Stormy Daniels.)

    Of course, you don't give a rat's ass about all the checks that Bill Clinton had to right to cover up his rapes and sexual assaults.

    Why is that??

    Aaahhh yes.. Bubba has a -D after his name so you give him a pass.. :eyeroll:

    Especially important is that Republicans in the House, when they vote against the articles of impeachment - and surely almost 100% of them will

    Of course they all will.. It's a coup..

    are giving their seal of approval to Trump's secret campaign in Ukraine.

    What "secret" campaign is that?? Oh.. You must mean ODUMBO's secret campaign where he refused to help Ukraine militarily so as not to ruffle his BFF's, Putin, feathers.

    Now we know what Odumbo meant when he said he could be "flexible" for Putin..

    They are declaring that the U S legislature is NOT an 'equal' branch of the government.

    They're not.. "equal" branches of the government don't attempt a coup.. TWICE..

  20. [20] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    And in an instance of "this couldn't have happened at a better time": 'Schecter dismissed those arguments in March 2018, writing that "no one is above the law."
    In her ruling, she cited the 1997 Clinton vs. Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, in which the US Supreme Court held that a sitting president is not immune from being sued in federal court for unofficial acts.'
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/politics/summer-zervos-trump-defamation-case/index.html

    Republicans SHOULD BE cringing with regret, but have shown a remarkable ability to forget the past.
    NB: If the Trump administration succeeds in even one of its court challenges, that sets precedence for any future President's ability to block Congressional oversight.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're just fantasizing. Keep it up

    Yea.. That's what you said when I told you that President Trump will be COMPLETELY and 1000% exonerated.. :D

    Turns out I was dead on ballz accurate and you were WRONG.. AGAIN.. :D

    It'll make our victory that much sweeter.

    What "victory" would that be?? You have already conceded you are going to lose the faux impeachment BS..

    I have proven beyond all doubt that Democrats do not have the candidate to beat President Trump and absolutely NO accomplishments to keep the House...

    So, by every litmus test possible.. Ya'all are going to lose.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    NB: If the Trump administration succeeds in even one of its court challenges, that sets precedence for any future President's ability to block Congressional oversight.

    On this particular issue (executive privilege) President Trump has succeeded in ALL of the cases..

    I have to say, I admire yer pluck...

    You keep getting kicked in the teeth over and over and over again..

    And you STILL keep coming back for more..

    I am betting ya will STILL be hating on President Trump and this country.. Even after he leaves office in Jan of 2024... :D

  23. [23] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    More than one news outlet has highlighted this irony (or is it karma?):
    'Three of the 12 witnesses who testified before the House intelligence committee highlighted their immigrant backgrounds in compelling opening statements. They told how their families’ experiences led them to public service and a patriotic sense of duty to defend America’s national security.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/23/trump-impeachment-inquiry-immigrants-vindman-hill
    From the same article; worth noting and repeating to all your wing-nut friends and family members:
    'Alina Polyakova, founding director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, said she was appalled by the innuendo over dual loyalties. “I find it incredibly disturbing, especially coming from a Jewish background, to hear these tropes come back into our public discourse in a way I never hoped to see.”'

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    More than one news outlet has highlighted this irony (or is it karma?):
    'Three of the 12 witnesses who testified before the House intelligence committee highlighted their immigrant backgrounds in compelling opening statements. They told how their families’ experiences led them to public service and a patriotic sense of duty to defend America’s national security.'

    So, being from immigrant families somehow makes them better than anyone else?? More honest??

    What about the 10s of millions of Trump supporters who ALSO come from immigrant families??

    From the same article; worth noting and repeating to all your wing-nut friends and family members:
    'Alina Polyakova, founding director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, said she was appalled by the innuendo over dual loyalties. “I find it incredibly disturbing, especially coming from a Jewish background, to hear these tropes come back into our public discourse in a way I never hoped to see.”'

    Funny how I don't hear you complain when Democrats accuse Israeli supporters of dual loyalties..

    I guess those with a -D after their names get a pass, eh??

    You see how I TOTALLY decimated your comment with facts?? :D

    It's my superpower.. :smirk: :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    In Trump impeachment trial, Senate Republicans could turn tables on Dems

    House Democrats are entering what may be the final phase of their impeachment inquiry, after wrapping up a spree of hearings where witnesses tied top officials -- including President Trump -- to efforts to pressure Ukraine on political investigations while military aid was being withheld.

    But the tables could turn, should the House approve impeachment articles and trigger a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate. There, Trump’s allies are already indicating they will look more closely at allegations involving Democrats.

    "Frankly, I want a trial," Trump declared Friday on “Fox & Friends.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/in-trump-impeachment-trial-senate-republicans-could-turn-tables-on-dems

    Democrats are really stepping on their wee-wees giving President Trump a forum where he A> has carte blanche and B> is all but guaranteed to win..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    How Republicans Won Phase One Of Impeachment

    The first phase of impeachment did not go well for Democrats. It needed to be a time when support for the inquiry and impeachment grew. Instead, it shrank.

    With the likely conclusion of Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment proceedings, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at how things went for the majority Democrats and minority Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

    Democrats ideally would have started their inquiry with credible bipartisan support and run things in such a way that public opinion developed in their favor. Public opinion would build pressure on Republican members toward an impeachment vote that had even stronger bipartisan credibility.

    That did not come even close to happening. To begin with, not only was the vote to begin proceedings not bipartisan, there was bipartisan opposition to it. Polling initially looked promising for impeachment, with media outlets attempting to claim significant bipartisan support for inquiry and removal, but then the polling moved in the wrong direction for Democrats.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/22/how-republicans-won-phase-one-of-impeachment/

    Democrats are running this "impeachment" in every way they said NOT to run it..

    A Partisan impeachment is NOT legitimate..

    Biden said it.. Schiff-head said it.. Pelosi said it..

    Funny how ya'all ignore that basic FACT...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Emerson polling showed that support for impeachment flipped since October from 48 percent support with 44 percent opposing to now 45 percent opposed and 43 percent in support. Among key independents, the switch was even more pronounced. In October, 48 percent supported impeaching President Donald Trump, with 39 percent opposed. Now, 49 percent of independents oppose impeachment, while only 34 percent support it.

    A new Marquette University Law School poll found that 40 percent of registered voters in the swing state of Wisconsin think that Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 53 percent do not think so. Another 6 percent weren’t sure.

    A new Gallup poll shows that Trump’s approval has ticked up two points since the impeachment drama began, with 50 percent of Americans opposed to it and 48 percent in support. Henry Olsen notes that Gallup polls all adults, not just registered voters, meaning that a poll of registered voters would have Trump’s job approval even higher and impeachment opposed by closer to a 52-46 margin.

    And not only are no Republicans expected to join with Democrats in an eventual impeachment vote, some members expect the bipartisan consensus against it to grow.

    Republicans, by contrast, needed to aim for bipartisan opposition to the impeachment proceedings, keep their members in line, make the case that the impeachment proceedings lacked fairness, and that concern about Ukrainian corruption was legitimate. They managed to do all that.

    Here’s why things went well for Republicans in phase one of impeachment:

    No matter which poll you want to look at, all the current ones say the same thing..

    This faux impeachment coup is being realized for the partisan hit job it is..

    It's going to get worse for Democrats, not better..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, the tip off that Democrats have no case is the **FACT** that they had to Focus Group a charge...

    I mean, honestly how utterly moronic is that??

    Normal people allow that FACTS determine an accusation..

    Dumbocrats?? They FOCUS GROUP what their accusation should be!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Question 3: What’s the rush?

    So much attention has been devoted to Trump’s motives and the contested evidence for them that very little has been paid to how grave the alleged crime is (assuming it can be proven) and why the president needs to be removed immediately.

    “Gravity” and “urgency” are closely related here. The graver the offense, the greater the need to remove the president quickly. It’s up to the Democrats to make that case. As yet, they’ve hardly tried.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and progressive members of the Democratic caucus have certainly shown that they are in a hurry. What they haven’t shown is why independent voters and centrist Democrats should be, too.

    Two key pieces of evidence indicate the public is prepared to wait until November 2020 and decide for themselves whether Trump is fit for office. The first is polling. Trump’s overall popularity has remained remarkably steady in national polls. It’s in the low- to mid-40% range and edging up. In battleground states, it is slightly better. What must trouble Democrats is not only the battleground numbers but the trend, which favors the president, not Pelosi. The second clue is that Democratic presidential candidates are not emphasizing impeachment or the urgent need for it. They offer the usual formulaic answers when MSNBC debate moderators ask about it, but the candidates themselves don’t bring up the topic. They must be looking at internal polls and focus groups that show even partisan audiences in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have other, more pressing concerns.

    The voters are saying, “Where’s the fire?” Schiff and Pelosi must be wondering the same thing and asking, “Where do we go now?” Unfortunately, they have already pulled the fire alarm. It’s the second time they’ve done it, and the first responders are getting grumpy.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/23/impeachment_3_crucial_questions_3_answers_so_far.html

    Democrats are petrified that President Trump will coast to re-election..

    "We have to impeach President Trump or he will win re-election"
    -Democrat Al Green

    There is absolutely NO RATIONAL REASON that Democrats can't wait and just let the people decide..

    The reason Democrats won't wait is because they KNOW that the American people will decide to give President Trump 4 more years..

    As CW has said:

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

    Considering how hysterically desperate Democrats are to impeach, it's clear they know that no Dem candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of beating President Trump in the election...

  30. [30] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    You guys really wanna hear what's wrong with members of the "Democratic party" (aka 'Democratics'), and especially the Weigantian branch of the party, it can all be epitomized by one brief phrase, "a paucity of cynicism"!

    You're "surprised","shocked", and "dismayed" to discover that all politicians are venal greedy bastards only in the game for personal gain.

    Reminds me of the Police Captain in Casablanca who was "surprised, shocked and dismayed" to discover there was gambling going on in the back room of Ricks Bar.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're "surprised","shocked", and "dismayed" to discover that all politicians are venal greedy bastards only in the game for personal gain.

    I would dispute that..

    It's not that Weigantians think that ALL politicians are venal greedy bastards..

    They only think that of politicians who have a -R after their names..

    THEIR politicians, the ones with the -D after their names, they think are pure as the driven snow..

    Why else would they whine and cry and stamp their feet about President Trump's alleged lies and then turn around and award the BLATANT liar, Shiff-head, a MOST IMPRESSIVE DEMOCRAT award..

    They try to play it off by pretending "lying is bad"... But what they REALLY believe is that only GOP lying is bad.. Democrat lying is meant to be applauded and rewarded...

    Textbook definition of hypocrisy..

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Of course, you don't give a rat's ass about all the checks that Bill Clinton had to right to cover up his rapes and sexual assaults.

    Deflection means Mike can't defend the current POTUS for behavior he found infinitely impeachable in Clinton. Calling someone else a hypocrite shines a beacon on his own hypocrisy. Same shit different day.

    Why is that??

    Mike's simple arguments are superfluous. Mike can't defend Trump for what he castigates in Clinton in his diversionary rants. Attacking another poster for behavior you're exhibiting isn't political debate... it's deflection and projection. Same shit different day.

    Of course they all will.. It's a coup..

    Doesn't meet the definition. Mike has proven nothing here except his repeated ignorance regarding definitions.

    What "secret" campaign is that?? Oh.. You must mean ODUMBO's secret campaign where he refused to help Ukraine militarily so as not to ruffle his BFF's, Putin, feathers.

    Mike is lying about issues that have been debunked multiple times on this board already, but he continues right on posting his lies in repeated fashion. All he has accomplished here is proving he's a liar who can't defend Trump so again has to resort to deflection and prattling on and on about Obama.

    Now we know what Odumbo meant when he said he could be "flexible" for Putin..

    Now we know Barack Obama lives rent free in Mike's head on a permanent basis. Mike needs Obama like a junkie needs a fix. Mike is again deflecting and shining a beacon on his own hypocrisy in the process because he can't defend Trump.

    They're not.. "equal" branches of the government don't attempt a coup.. TWICE..

    We have co-equal branches of government in this country, and anyone denying it is a moron of the highest order.

    Nobody cares that Bubba Trump (Mike) in his trailer thinks they're a hypocrite because Mike does an excellent job of shining a klieg light on his own hypocrisy when he doesn't even attempt to defend Trump (because he can't) and simply deflects to his Obama/America hate. Same shit different day.

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    16

    McConnell can likely drag this out calling all sorts of Democrat witnesses and interrogating them mercilessly...

    It would be great for McConnell to make such an overreach and debasement of the impeachment process during an election year. Abusing the impeachment process would signal the GOP learned nothing from the past.

    It will be completely and utterly President Trump's show..

    Executive overreach (by the person on trial, no less) would look great to the electorate during an election year since it's part of what brought us that Red Tsunami in the midterms... oh, wait!

    And just IMAGINE what these Democrats are going to testify to..

    I do hope it's Putin's conspiracy narrative they're questioning Biden about. The GOP pushing Putin's narrative in a trial would be awesome. Nothing like an impeachment trial to confirm to the whole world the GOP is complicit in Russia's efforts at destabilizing democracy around the world.

    As I said yesterday, Pelois's best course of action is to not hold the AOI vote and just let the matter die..

    *laughs* Unless there are intervening events, Your Orange Worship is going to be impeached and go down in history for all posterity with your BFF Bubba. He's left the People's representatives with no choice whatsoever because of his conduct in Ukraine. There's more going on there than meets the public eye. There's a reason Rick Perry was sent to Ukraine and a reason he's resigning. We haven't even got to the graft part yet.

    But that would be a small price to pay to avoid giving the floor totally and completely to President Trump..

    I do hope your right-wingnut overreach fantasy plays out. You've just basically conceded that the person who is on trial will corrupt the process, and that makes you okay with Trump abusing his office for corruption. Now pathetic is that?

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    17

    You're just fantasizing. Keep it up!

    Yes, sir. Mike's fantasy is that Trump will corrupt the impeachment process, and he's okay with that. Tells you everything you need to know.

    Biden is an afterthought to the corruption that Trump is attempting in Ukraine. #Pathetic

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    22

    On this particular issue (executive privilege) President Trump has succeeded in ALL of the cases..

    Wrong... wrong... spectacularly wrong.

    You keep getting kicked in the teeth over and over and over again..

    You're not kicking anyone in the teeth, Bubba Trump, you're simply highlighting your own lack of dental hygiene.

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    24

    So, being from immigrant families somehow makes them better than anyone else?? More honest??

    Your chronic inability at connecting the dots is hysterical.

    What about the 10s of millions of Trump supporters who ALSO come from immigrant families??

    The comment wasn't about them or you because not everything is about you.

    Funny how I don't hear you complain when Democrats accuse Israeli supporters of dual loyalties..

    Not funny how you totally missed the point and resort to your standard operational deflection and lame bullshit.

    You see how I TOTALLY decimated your comment with facts?? :D

    Not a single fact, in point of fact, simply the same old standard rote deflection and bullshit ad nauseam.

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    25

    "Frankly, I want a trial," Trump declared Friday on “Fox & Friends.”

    He's lying, lying, lying out his ass. No way in hell does Trump want to be impeached or a trial. Things can be established in testimony under penalty of perjury in a trial which would be a permanent record of criminal activity for which Trump could actually go to prison when he leaves office.

    Don't let the bullshit artist fool you; Trump does not want a trial.

    Democrats are really stepping on their wee-wees giving President Trump a forum where he A> has carte blanche and B> is all but guaranteed to win..

    You're missing the giant forest for the tiny little trees, Mike... missing the really big picture, and it's hysterical to watch your flailing. *laughs*

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Focus Group'ed Articles Of Impeachment

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Only Dumbocrats could come up with something so utterly un-American and lame..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't let the bullshit artist fool you; Trump does not want a trial.

    Yea, and you know this because you read his mind??

    Of course President Trump wants a trial.. The Focus Group'ed Articles of Impeachment are a joke..

    VERY easy to refute those..

    And the ADDED BONUS is that President Trump can drag ANY Democrat into the trial and have them interrogated UNDER OATH....

    Of course President Trump wants a trial.. How could he pass up such an opportunity to question ANY Democrat he wants and Democrats won't be able to call anyone.. :D

    Hell yes, President Trump wants a trial..

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    30

    You guys really wanna hear what's wrong with members of the "Democratic party" (aka 'Democratics'), and especially the Weigantian branch of the party, it can all be epitomized by one brief phrase, "a paucity of cynicism"!

    So you're apparently not reading Don Harris's comments too closely or CW's articles or other comments for that matter. Also: What kind of moron would come to the hysterical conclusion that just because people don't express something in the comments section means it doesn't exist in their thoughts?

    Oh, right... the kind of moron who would constantly claim to have knowledge about what everyone is thinking.

    You're "surprised","shocked", and "dismayed" to discover that all politicians are venal greedy bastards only in the game for personal gain.

    Well, that's a load of bullshit, and we know this because not all of them are men or even Trumps.

    Reminds me of the Police Captain in Casablanca who was "surprised, shocked and dismayed" to discover there was gambling going on in the back room of Ricks Bar.

    Reminds me of the moron who was "surprised, shocked and dismayed" to learn that there really is no such thing as magic underwear. Idiot. *laughs*

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Since a lot of people are saying really mean things about Biden (myself included), here's a bone...

    Joe Biden has stood the test of time. He should be the next president: Tom Vilsack

    A former Iowa governor says Joe Biden can help heal our nation and return a sense of normalcy and decency to the White House.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/23/joe-biden-tom-vilsack-endorse-democratic-primary-iowa-column/4271673002/

    Don't say I am never nice.. :D

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Focus Group'ed Articles Of Impeachment

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Only Dumbocrats could come up with something so utterly un-American and lame..

    You don’t know what “focus groups” are, do you?

    They are your average citizens....they are “We, the People”.

    Town Halls, the type where politicians go back to their districts and hold a Q&A for their constituents, are used as focus groups.

    It’s listening to the opinions of those constituents and putting their suggestions to use... kinda what you hope for in a representative democracy!

    It’s not shocking that you find this ridiculous, but it is sad.

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    31

    It's not that Weigantians think that ALL politicians are venal greedy bastards..

    They only think that of politicians who have a -R after their names..

    Your standard operational rote bullshit is both repetitive and hysterical in its rube-like simplicity. Of course, I would wager that the vast majority of real Weigantians are pleased with the indisputable fact that in your eagerness to spew your hatred toward our group, you're either a lying degenerate bastard or you have identified yourself as not a Weigantian because not only do you not hate those with an -R after their name, you are their prostrating sucker.

    True Weigantians everywhere would like to thank you ever so much for that admission for all posterity that you're either a bottom-dwelling lying scum sucker or you're not a Weigantian.

    THEIR politicians, the ones with the -D after their names, they think are pure as the driven snow..

    Do you ever read the MDDOTW or are you just content to lie -- even in the commentary where Weigantia highlights a Democrat busted for bribery -- or are you so demonstrably ignorant that you're claiming that Chris isn't a Weigantian? That is some special kind of dipshittery stupidity.

    True Weigantians everywhere would like to thank you ever so much for that admission for all posterity that you're either a bottom-dwelling lying scum sucker or you're claiming that Chris Weigant isn't a Weigantian.

    So to recap: Either you aren't a Weigantian or you've labeled Chris Weigant not a Weigantian or you are a bottom-dwelling pathological lying scum sucking dipshit of the highest order.

    Let's let Weigantians decide... meaning: You don't get a vote, Bubba Trump, unless you're willing to concede you're a bottom-dwelling pathological lying scum sucking dipshit. :)

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Of course President Trump wants a trial.. The Focus Group'ed Articles of Impeachment are a joke..

    VERY easy to refute those..

    There are no Articles of Impeachment at this time, so the joke must be you!

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    [43] Kick drops the microphone and walks off stage to thunderous cheers and a standing ovation from the crowd!

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    It’s listening to the opinions of those constituents and putting their suggestions to use... kinda what you hope for in a representative democracy!

    Really??

    You mean, like listening to the opinions of people who LIKE President Trump and VOTED for him??

    You morons didn't LIKE the "representative democracy" when it elected President Trump.

    NOW you claim to want to listen to them??

    You are such a moron..

    Regardless of all that, impeachment... a REAL impeachment should be based on FACTS..

    Not what's popular in a Dumbocrat Focus Group..

    Again.. Yer such a moron..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    [43] Kick drops the microphone and walks off stage to thunderous cheers and a standing ovation from the crowd!

    Yea.. Odumbo tried that when he claimed that Trump would never be President.

    It's gonna work out the same for Daddy's Little Cockholster when this faux impeachment coup completely and utterly FAILS..

    As EVERYONE here knows it will..

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another fun point about the Senate Trial...

    The Democrat Plant/Stooge (who ya'all moronically call a "whistle blower") will be FORCED to testify!!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Cannot WAIT for the Senate Trial.. :D

    It's going to be AWESOME to see President Trump totally ream Dumbocrats up one side and down the other.

    And Democrats will be able to do NOTHING about it but sit there and take it!!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    39

    Yea, and you know this because you read his mind??

    Your straw man argument is as pathetic as you are ignorant. No, moron, we know this because the last thing a criminal wants is testimony by witnesses under penalty of perjury that can be used in a court of law wherein they can be held accountable by law in a later trial. To make it simple for you, stupid: Criminals aren't fond of trials. Also: You're a fool if you think Donald Trump wants to be impeached, and the only way Trump gets a trial is to be impeached.

    This may come as a shock to those who believe that Trump was attempting to be a crime-fighting POTUS, but claiming to be a corruption fighter in Ukraine by requesting the investigation of the Biden's and Burisma (one of the smaller businesses in Ukraine) and investigations into Hillary Clinton/CrowdStrike and advancing that false narrative of Vlad Putin's doesn't constitute fighting corruption when there are a myriad of other larger companies that you're interested in in order to make money for your cronies. That's not fighting corruption, dipshit; that's promoting corruption.

    Of course President Trump wants a trial.. The Focus Group'ed Articles of Impeachment are a joke..

    Another straw man argument not relevant. I would think that a so-called law enforcement officer like you claim you are would have the sense enough to know that criminals don't want trials, and presidents of the United States don't want to be impeached and have to go to trial.

    VERY easy to refute those..

    Enjoy your fantasy, Bubba Trump; you're simply not thinking if you really think that Trump wants a trial.

    And the ADDED BONUS is that President Trump can drag ANY Democrat into the trial and have them interrogated UNDER OATH....

    Trump will be the one on trial, dipshit, but enjoy your right-wingnut fantasy that it'll be one-sided. It'll go nicely beside your QAnon fantasy you've posted on this forum multiple times wherein Horowitz is going to arrest Comey, Clinton, and Obama for investigating Your Worship. Your ignorance regarding legal issues is side-splitting comedy.

    Hell yes, President Trump wants a trial..

    Hell, yes, you're an idiot. :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    42

    Yep!

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    And because President Trump wants a trial so much and because a GOP Senate trial will be completely and utterly DECIMATING to Dumbocrats...

    That is why Pelosi will not allow this faux impeachment coup to leave the House..

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    44

    Of course President Trump wants a trial.. The Focus Group'ed Articles of Impeachment are a joke..

    VERY easy to refute those.. ~ Bubba Trump a.k.a. Mike

    There are no Articles of Impeachment at this time, so the joke must be you!

    And Russ drops the mic on Bubba Trump.

    Hey, Russ, I've never seen a law enforcement officer worth a shit who'd believe a person who has provided his own confession wants a trial, and how stupid do you have to be to believe that any POTUS would want to be impeached? Mind-boggling ignorance on display there!

    I guess now that the QAnon fantasy about "Horowitz" that Mike keeps posting about and the perp walks for Obama, Comey, Clinton, and lots of Democrats the dipshits were telling us all about aren't going to materialize so they have to hang on to the utter asinine new fantasy that a POTUS wants to be impeached and a criminal wants a trial!

    ROTFLMAO... Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Rubes!

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    46

    You mean, like listening to the opinions of people who LIKE President Trump and VOTED for him??

    You keep deflecting, Mike, it's flailing. Also: You keep flailing in your deflection to yourself as if everything is about you.

    Breaking News: Everything isn't about you. Try to stay on topic and not flail hysterically.

    Regardless of all that, impeachment... a REAL impeachment should be based on FACTS..

    It was nice of Sondland to provide some... but wait! There's more! :)

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The Republicans’ Benghazi report boasted that it had access to 107 witnesses, including 57 from the State Department, 24 from the Pentagon, 19 from the CIA, the national security adviser and her deputy, and Clinton herself. They received 75,000 documents (on top of 50,000 from previous batches): 71,640 from State, 300 from the CIA (including messages not “generally made available to Congress”), 1,450 from the White House, 179 from Sidney Blumenthal, 900 from the Pentagon and 750 from the National Security Agency.

    Trump has allowed zero documents to be released in response to congressional subpoenas and has instructed all government employees to ignore subpoenas from the investigating committees... corrupt cowards!

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    47

    Yea.. Odumbo tried that when he claimed that Trump would never be President.

    You're off topic again, Mike, and flailing hysterically!

    Blah, blah, blah... Obama!
    Blah, blah, blah... Obama!
    Blah, blah, blah....Obama!

    Bubba Trump loves him some Barack Obama!

    It's gonna work out the same for Daddy's Little Cockholster when this faux impeachment coup completely and utterly FAILS..

    And there it is!

    Bubba Trump performs on cue now, y'all! He's admittedly not a Weigantian because he's Weigantia's Bitch!

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick

    I guess now that the QAnon fantasy about "Horowitz" that Mike keeps posting about and the perp walks for Obama, Comey, Clinton, and lots of Democrats the dipshits were telling us all about aren't going to materialize so they have to hang on to the utter asinine new fantasy that a POTUS wants to be impeached and a criminal wants a trial!

    You beat me to this! I was about to ask Michale if he was excited that Horowitz’s report would finally show us how corrupt the whole Trump/Russia investigation had been... for someone who claims to always be right, I am curious to hear how he wasn’t wrong about this...should be a doozy!!!

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    51

    And because President Trump wants a trial so much

    Nope.

    and because a GOP Senate trial will be completely and utterly DECIMATING to Dumbocrats...

    For what? Working in Ukraine? Utter dipshit fantasy... particularly when Rick Perry was there to get some graft on behalf of his and Trump's cronies in the United States. Trump had the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine fired to please Putin and corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs who are trying to take over their country. Biden is the side issue here, dipshit; although I have no doubt whatsoever that Trump's lawyers will attempt to create a circus as part of their defense strategy because when the facts are against you, you definitely pound the table and scream and blind the gullible rubes with deflection and distration.

    That is why Pelosi will not allow this faux impeachment coup to leave the House..

    The Trump administration's use of his personal lawyer and Lev and Igor (yes, he knows them) associates of Firtash and the GOP's attempted corruption of Ukraine has left Pelosi no choice but to impeach Trump.

    They were caught dead to rights, and if Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Bolton had any exculpatory evidence that would clear Trump, he'd allow them to testify... but they don't... so they can't.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Trump administration's use of his personal lawyer and Lev and Igor (yes, he knows them) associates of Firtash and the GOP's attempted corruption of Ukraine has left Pelosi no choice but to impeach Trump.

    They were caught dead to rights, and if Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Bolton had any exculpatory evidence that would clear Trump, he'd allow them to testify... but they don't... so they can't.

    Yea.. You were also this sure with yer Russia Collusion delusion..

    And you were completely and utterly WRONG!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    After all this Dumbocrat faux impeachment coup runs it's course, do you know what the final result will be?

    President Trump will STILL be in office!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You will completely and utterly LOSE!!

    AGAIN!!!! :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hell, even CW concedes that Trump will remain in office..

    :D

    Anyone who thinks that President Trump will be removed from office over this faux impeachment coup??

    Is a Party slave and moron.. :D

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    58

    Yea.. You were also this sure with yer Russia Collusion delusion..

    If you are so damn dipshit ignorant that you can't figure out that this issue isn't a separate issue from those covered in the Mueller report, then I cannot help that kind of hysterical rube dumbfuckery.

    Also: You're flailing and deflecting again, and you sound like an ignorant dipshit on a permanent loop of stupidity.

    And you were completely and utterly WRONG!!

    Imagine how comical it is to everyone else that a dipshit like you keeps deflecting every single subject into the same tired rote bullshit of yours wherein you repeat yourself over and over like a catatonic zombie wherein you refer to everyone else as wrong... meanwhile you'll always be that ignorant so-called "law enforcement officer" who got bitch slapped into his trailer in the swamps for his own easily searchable public record mind-boggling dumbfucking stupidity, and there is simply nothing on Earth that you can proffer that changes either your pathetic bitch slapped situation or the fact that everybody couldn't care less when morons like you call them "wrong." You're hysterical!

    ROTFLMAO

    Bless your demonstrably ignorant heart, Bubba Mike! *laughs*

  61. [61] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You mean, like listening to the opinions of people who LIKE President Trump and VOTED for him??

    I am more than happy to hear from people who voted for Trump on the actual issue.

    Hell, if you ever bothered to address the points directly instead of deflecting and trying to change the focus to unrelated past events involving someone other than Trump, it would be great! Like on Wednesday, I pointed out multiple times that Trumpkins disappointed me...

    I hate to admit this, but you are partially correct that I have been wrong about something when it comes to Trump’s long list of illegal, immoral, and highly unethical acts since taking office. Every time these things occur, I tell myself that this will be the line in the sand that Trump supporters will not cross in allowing Trump to destroy our nation’s government and our standing as leader of the free world...and each time you have proven me wrong!

    Trump lies about paying off a porn star to keep her silent before the election — you argued that there was no proof that it ever happened, until there was proof... and still you thought he’d done nothing wrong. Bill gets a BJ and lies about it and you were screaming like a raving lunatic that had to be impeached!

    I honestly did not think you and the other Trumpkins would be such hypocritical partisans, and I was wrong.

    Trump’s sons admitted years ago that Russia was where they were getting the majority of their funding for investments, yet you do not think Trump should release his tax returns so we can all see just how indebted to them he might be.

    Trump lied about Russian interference in our 2016 election, and I thought that people who always claim to be so patriotic would never accept that from anyone in the White House, but you sided with Putin over our own intelligence agencies and proved me wrong!

    And yes, I was wrong when I believed that there was no way that anyone who claimed to love our country and to support those who defend it would ever support a president who confessed to the world that he was trying to get foreign governments to dig up dirt on his political rivals to help him get re-elected...but here we are.

    So, yes, I am sick and tired of being proven wrong by you. Every time that I think you are going to finally say that enough is enough and choose to fight to remove this traitorous idiot before he can do anymore damage to our country, you surprise me by wanting him to do more — and once again prove me wrong!

    I pointed out all of these acts by Trump that deserved being addressed, but you couldn’t defend him so you jumped to asking completely unrelated facts:

    Shall we ask black Americans how they are enjoying their LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT EVER??

    Maybe we should ask hispanic Americans how THEY are enjoying their LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT EVER...

    I’m happy to ask them those questions, but that is a discussion for another day. Today, right now, we are discussing Trump’s actions regarding his demand for Ukraine to provide him with what he wants if they want military aid to be released.

    You complain that we aren’t willing to listen to the opinions of Trump supporters, but don’t you discount everything the Democrats say? Trump says something stupid, the Democrats call him out for it, and you scream that anyone who points out when Trump lies is an “America-hater”. You are the one who isn’t discussing what is happening each day.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    59

    Hell, even CW concedes that Trump will remain in office..

    That's just an admission that the GOP have sold out to Benedict Donald and are now spineless dipshits who will choose their Party over their sworn oaths to the United States of America and We the People.

    Anyone who thinks that President Trump will be removed from office over this faux impeachment coup??

    I haven't seen anyone on this forum saying that... so you must be posting that to soothe yourself. I would wager that most everyone here thinks the GOP are spineless liars who are quite content to push Putin's narrative like they've been doing all during these impeachment hearings and knowingly lying while witnesses are under oath in an attempt to rewrite the Mueller Report to clear Trump and company for any wrongdoing for his campaign's coordination with WikiLeaks (a cutout of Russia). Putin's goal has always been the takeover of Ukraine's energy resources and the easing of sanctions by Trump. Same old shit... different day!

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Time magazine should make their “Person of the Year” the Civil Servant.

    This week’s hearings have shown the country who it is in our government that they really should be placing their faith in. Those offering testimony were not acting out of partisan interests, they were doing their jobs and upholding their oaths to the Constitution.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    61

    Yep! A thousand times, Yep!

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump, GOP skeptical Pelosi will go through with impeachment..

    New polling showing public opposition to impeachment has some Republicans along with officials in the White House voicing skepticism that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will go through with a vote on articles of impeachment.

    Even President Trump, while insisting he wanted an impeachment trial, predicted Friday that Pelosi would not go through with impeachment.

    “No, I don’t expect it,” he said in an interview on “Fox & Friends.”

    “I think it’s very hard for them to impeach you when they have absolutely nothing,” he added.

    While Pelosi has not guaranteed there will be a vote, it’s hard to imagine she would risk a backlash from the Democratic base by cutting the process short after two weeks of public hearings. Many Democrats saw the hearings as providing damning testimony against Trump
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/471744-trump-gop-skeptical-pelosi-will-go-through-with-impeachment

    Dumbocrats are losing the PR war.. :D

    Pelosi will find some way to save face, saying something like "All we wanted to do was to get this information into the open. We've done that, so there is no need to have a vote."

    But it's universally agreed here (by those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together) that if Pelosi doesn't hold a vote, she KNOWS that the vote will fail..

    I predicted this outcome a day or so ago..

    Looks like it's coming to pass..

    Pelosi is running scared!!! :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Polling released last week showed rising opposition to impeachment.

    A new national poll from Emerson College showed that support for impeachment has slipped since October, when 48 percent of registered voters supported it and 44 percent opposed it. Now 45 percent of voters oppose impeaching Trump while 43 percent support it.

    The biggest swing was seen among independents, 49 percent of whom now oppose impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. Last month, 48 percent of independents supported impeachment, according to Emerson.

    A mid-November Marquette University poll conducted in the battleground state of Wisconsin found that only 40 percent of registered voters think Trump should be impeached and removed from office while 53 percent do not think so.

    This has fueled speculation among Senate Republicans that Pelosi may opt for a vote on a censure resolution and skip the prospect of a Senate trial that could drag on for a month or more, during which impeachment fatigue among voters could intensify. Pelosi has ruled out a censure vote.

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that the American people would turn against the Dumbocrats and their faux impeachment coup...

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says senior White House officials think there’s a better than 50-50 shot Pelosi decides to avoid a Senate trial.

    At the same time, Graham, who served as a House prosecutor in the 1999 Clinton impeachment, is advising White House lawyers to buckle up for a potentially lengthy Senate trial.

    “They think they've got a better than 50-50 [chance] that maybe this doesn't happen in the House,” Graham said after meeting with White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway Thursday.

    “I don’t know if they’re going to impeach the president or not but if they do, you need to be ready for that to happen,” he said.

    An impeachment trial could give Senate Republicans the chance to call witnesses to poke holes in the House Democratic case or play offense against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whom Republicans say need to be investigated for links to Ukrainian corruption.

    “There's a growing school of thought that rather give Senate Republicans or the White House an opportunity on a level playing field on a large stage, Democrats would be better off just saying, ‘we're going to look out for the country, not drag the country through this, we've made our point,’ and have a vote of censure-ship,’” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), one of Trump’s loyal allies in the upper chamber.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday guaranteed that Trump would be acquitted.

    Pelosi would be utterly and completely stoopid to give President Trump and the GOP an open forum completely under the control of President Trump..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:


    New polling showing public opposition to impeachment has some Republicans along with officials in the White House voicing skepticism that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will go through with a vote on articles of impeachment.

    Even President Trump, while insisting he wanted an impeachment trial, predicted Friday that Pelosi would not go through with impeachment.

    “No, I don’t expect it,” he said in an interview on “Fox & Friends.”

    “I think it’s very hard for them to impeach you when they have absolutely nothing,” he added.

    While Pelosi has not guaranteed there will be a vote, it’s hard to imagine she would risk a backlash from the Democratic base by cutting the process short after two weeks of public hearings. Many Democrats saw the hearings as providing damning testimony against Trump.

    A House Democratic leadership aide called it “fantasy land” to think there won’t be a vote on the House floor.

    “The hearings were nearly flawless and extremely damning for the president,” said the aide, who added that a decision to not go forward would be trumpeted by the president.

    “While no decision has been made to proceed with impeachment, the key facts are uncontested and not proceeding at this stage will be called a ‘total exoneration’ by the president,” the aide said.

    Polling released last week showed rising opposition to impeachment.

    A new national poll from Emerson College showed that support for impeachment has slipped since October, when 48 percent of registered voters supported it and 44 percent opposed it. Now 45 percent of voters oppose impeaching Trump while 43 percent support it.

    The biggest swing was seen among independents, 49 percent of whom now oppose impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. Last month, 48 percent of independents supported impeachment, according to Emerson.

    A mid-November Marquette University poll conducted in the battleground state of Wisconsin found that only 40 percent of registered voters think Trump should be impeached and removed from office while 53 percent do not think so.

    This has fueled speculation among Senate Republicans that Pelosi may opt for a vote on a censure resolution and skip the prospect of a Senate trial that could drag on for a month or more, during which impeachment fatigue among voters could intensify. Pelosi has ruled out a censure vote.

    “You’ve seen the polls over the last week. I’m going through the roof,” Trump told “Fox & Friends.”

    “If you look at the swing states, I’m way up in every one of them because of the impeachment thing,” he stated.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says senior White House officials think there’s a better than 50-50 shot Pelosi decides to avoid a Senate trial.

    At the same time, Graham, who served as a House prosecutor in the 1999 Clinton impeachment, is advising White House lawyers to buckle up for a potentially lengthy Senate trial.

    “They think they've got a better than 50-50 [chance] that maybe this doesn't happen in the House,” Graham said after meeting with White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway Thursday.

    “I don’t know if they’re going to impeach the president or not but if they do, you need to be ready for that to happen,” he said.

    An impeachment trial could give Senate Republicans the chance to call witnesses to poke holes in the House Democratic case or play offense against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whom Republicans say need to be investigated for links to Ukrainian corruption.

    “There's a growing school of thought that rather give Senate Republicans or the White House an opportunity on a level playing field on a large stage, Democrats would be better off just saying, ‘we're going to look out for the country, not drag the country through this, we've made our point,’ and have a vote of censure-ship,’” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), one of Trump’s loyal allies in the upper chamber.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday guaranteed that Trump would be acquitted.

    “It’s inconceivable to me there would be 67 votes to remove the president from office,” he said.

    Josh Holmes, a Republican strategist and former chief of staff to McConnell, pointed to polling showing that public sentiment appears to be turning against impeachment and noted that Pelosi initially resisted calls by liberal colleagues to begin impeachment proceedings earlier in Trump’s tenure.

    But Holmes said it would be very difficult to stop short of a final impeachment vote now that the House has spent so much time and energy on its investigation. Anything short of a vote to impeachment would be seen as an embarrassing failure, he said.

    “This is not going as planned,” Holmes said of reports that public support for impeachment is dimming.

    “I honestly think that Pelosi may have been skeptical about the political merits of this strategy from the beginning. She basically held the liberals off in her caucus for a year plus,” he said. “I can’t imagine she’s totally surprised by it.

    “That being said, if you’re going to basically set aside the entire work of the American people to turn the House of Representatives into a circus over an impeachment hearing, anything less than driving that to a conclusion in the House has to put her speakership at risk,” Holmes added.

    Holmes said Pelosi faces a real risk that more Democrats wind up voting against articles of impeachment than there are Republicans who vote for it. Not a single Republican voted for the resolution formally setting out the rules for the impeachment inquiry while two Democrats voted against it.

    But he said the failure to put the matter to a final vote would be a bigger risk.

    “The idea that she couldn’t even bring it to a vote, I think it’s hard to express how bad that would be for her,” Holmes said.

    No matter which way they go, Dumobcrats and Pelosi will lose and lose BIG.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leave it to Pelosi and the Dumbocrats to be suckered into ANOTHER LOSE-LOSE situation by President Trump, the Jedi Master... :D

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    65

    Dumbocrats are losing the PR war.. :D

    Doesn't matter. They're doing what they have to do under the circumstances.

    Pelosi will find some way to save face, saying something like "All we wanted to do was to get this information into the open. We've done that, so there is no need to have a vote."

    We already think you're a dumbfuck; you needn't keep supplying the proof!

    Also: You've learned nothing whatsoever from JL... not a single damn thing.

    But it's universally agreed here (by those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together) that if Pelosi doesn't hold a vote, she KNOWS that the vote will fail..

    She's de facto already held the vote, dumbass, and based on the evidence they've uncovered against Trump's written obstruction of justice in ordering people not to cooperate, that vote will not vary by much... if at all.

    Pelosi was the one who didn't want to impeach Trump, and Trump was the one who left her no choice. Allow yourself to let that sink in, m'kay. Try not to remain an ignorant dipshit your whole life. *laughs*

    I predicted this outcome a day or so ago..

    What can we say, you are definitely an ignorant dipshit who seemingly can't learn that this is about the Constitution and the rule of law at this point and not about politics at all. Even when things are spelled out to you in the easiest of terms to grasp, you can't seem to catch on.

    Pelosi is running scared!!! :D

    Ask yourself this: Who is going to jail one by one?

    Ask yourself this: Who isn't going to jail like you were promised by Horowitz and the QAnon dipshits?

    Now ask yourself this: Between Trump and Nancy Pelosi, which one has more cause to be scared?

    If you think it's Nancy Pelosi, then you're not paying attention, and here's your sign -----> **STUPID**

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    63

    Time magazine should make their “Person of the Year” the Civil Servant.

    Thank you, Russ!

    **we blush**

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    They are your average citizens....they are “We, the People”.

    well, yes...

    https://images.app.goo.gl/xYAX7vkTVQF9VUqH8

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    67

    No one is likely to read your lifted article, Bubba Mike.

    Don't you have any control over your urge and propensity to lift these entire huge articles and publish them in the comments section of CW's forum?

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    69

    Leave it to Pelosi and the Dumbocrats to be suckered into ANOTHER LOSE-LOSE situation by President Trump, the Jedi Master... :D

    Trump didn't sucker anyone into anything, and Putin is the one pulling Trump's strings. Trump is a criminal... always has been, always will be.

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22

    One of my all-time favorite movies!

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Leave it to Pelosi and the Dumbocrats to be suckered into ANOTHER LOSE-LOSE situation by President Trump, the Jedi Master... :D

    that sort of manipulation would be more typical of a sith lord.

    "everything is proceeding as i have foreseen it"
    ~emperor palpatine

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    qualification:

    not that donald in ANY way, shape or form would ever be capable of such masterful planning and foresight.

    but if in some parallel universe of alternate facts he did, it would indeed make him sith, not jedi.

    JL

  78. [78] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [33] The GOP pushing Putin's narrative in a trial would be awesome.

    Did you see the NYT reporting yesterday evening (confirmed now by NBC News) that the IC briefed senators on evidence that the Ukraine meddling story was a Russian intel operation? It's going to be tough to just "fake news" that; neither NYT nor NBC is going to put out something so easily denied by senators.

    [39] The Focus Group'ed Articles of Impeachment are a joke

    Even if those were in fact drafted already, they would/will likely be reviewed by Constitutional lawyers (briefs) and the public (focus groups). This is high stakes bingo, baby, and they learned how to focus from Frank Luntz.

    Actually they learned it at the top Biz, Mass Comm, and Hard Knocks schools just like Frank did, but I needed a segue to Luntz. A couple of weeks ago, he commented how a majority of the public approves of what the President is doing for the country, but are very tired of his tedious and embarrasing language and his continuous fighting with, and demeaning of, everyone. And that's a good thing, because it means the deep state and the Wall Street cabal don't have to crash the economy. This is also why Trump will lose if the Democrats don't run an incarnation of McGovern. And they won't; that's what superdelegates (the opposite of a focus group) are for.

    [49] Horowitz is going to arrest Comey, Clinton, and Obama for investigating Your Worship.

    From official Senate Judiciary press release: "...deliver a detailed account of what he [Horowitz] found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better." (Google it for the source; it's during the last week)

    Let's think about this for a second. Does it make sense that the IG for the lawyers would come in and criminally refer two former FBI directors, a past DNI, a President, and assorted other senior [DS] actors (to use the Russian psyop* Q's abbreviation for Deep State), and then move on to a seminar on different ways everyone could up their games?

    *Just my opinion here. Could be legit.

    [59] Anyone who thinks that President Trump will be removed from office over this faux impeachment coup??

    It's not a coup, and it's not a faux. But I digress; I for one don't think that. I think the impeachment, first and foremost, is for the historical record. That will be augmented by the passage of time, declassification, and new actors, laying out all the supporting facts now shielded by shenanigans.

    But more immediately, the impeachment is to put the Republican senators in a pincer. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. A large majority of college+ educated and other high-information voters are just so tired of him. They are oozing contempt for him, and the trial will be a means to tranfer that contempt (some might call it derangement syndrome, but whatever) to senators, maybe even to ones that bring bailouts to bean farmers or aluminium plants to ol' Kentucky.

    Gerrymandering can't save somebody in a state-wide, and nothing drives turnout like visceral contempt, fear and loathing. That's how Trump won in '16, and that's how he, and enough GOP senators, are going to lose in '20.

  79. [79] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Democrats ideally would have started their inquiry with credible bipartisan support and run things in such a way that public opinion developed in their favor.

    That would require credible Republicans who could vote honestly without fear of being targeted by Trump and his base.

    Justin Amash was a member of the GOP who held very conservative views, but who was not willing to invalidate or exchange his oath to the Constitution for an oath of loyalty to Trump’s ego. Amash was run out of the Republican Party because he believed and said to the world that Trump had committed impeachable offenses!

    How can you have “credible bipartisan support” when the entire Republican Party has been corrupted into forced submission to whatever Trump wishes?

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Wow, last six posts were excellent. Guess we're giving Mike the Send-off Supreme...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay LB.. Good ta see yer still around.. :D

    Did you see the NYT reporting yesterday evening (confirmed now by NBC News)

    I wonder if you can appreciate the humor in that.. :D

    It's not a coup, and it's not a faux.

    Actually, it's both..

    Benjamin Franklin said that Impeachment is the legal form of presidential assassination..

    Presidential assassination is a form of coup.. By Democrats own words, this impeachment is illegitimate..

    Illegitimate is a form of illegal..

    An illegal impeachment is a coup..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    that sort of manipulation would be more typical of a sith lord.

    Apparently, you have never seen MISSION IMPOSSIBLE..

    The series, not the abysmal movies..

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justice Ginsburg hospitalized in Baltimore with possible infection
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Justice-Ginsburg-hospitalized-in-Baltimore-with-14858133.php

    Looks like President Trump is going to be getting his 3rd SCOTUS pick sooner rather than later...

    Democrats can chalk up another death to their hysterical Party slavery...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like President Trump is going to be getting his 3rd SCOTUS pick sooner rather than later...

    Can you imagine the utter demoralizing effect that a 3rd President Trump SCOTUS pick would have on the Trump/America haters in the run-up to Nov of 2020?? :D

    What a pleasing thought.. :smirk: :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's so hilarious about this whole faux impeachment coup is that there is NO PATH where this ends well for Democrats.

    The 3 possible conclusions go from VERY BAD to MUCH WORSE to CATASTROPHIC

    VERY BAD
    Pelosi, realizing she doesn't have the votes, pulls the faux impeachment coup from consideration and tries to write the whole thing off as a win by virtue of getting this all out in the open... Pelosi is humiliated...

    MUCH WORSE
    Pelosi, deciding to ride this to the bitter end, pushes the AOI vote and it promptly fails when 40 House Democrats join the GOP in opposing.. Pelosi is humiliated..

    CATASTROPHIC
    Pelosi pushes the vote and wins approval in the House. Which refers things over to a TRUMP/GOP Controlled Senate trial and all Democrat malfeasance and incompetence is laid bare for all to see... Pelosi is humiliated..

    There is simply no plausible scenario where this whole faux impeachment coup ends well for the Democrat Party..

    And ya'all wonder why I am such a happy guy.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    That's how Trump won in '16, and that's how he, and enough GOP senators, are going to lose in '20.

    So, yer saying that not only will take the White House, but will also take the Senate?? :D

    I admire such wolf-ish chutzpah... It's refreshing when amongst the mealy-mouthed meanderings and mewlings of the village sheeple..

    Assuming I survive the week, care to put a little wager on it?? :D

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i've seen both the original and the 80's reboot, but not the early episodes pre-peter graves. none of which has anything to do with the star wars universe. some jedi such as yoda had force foresight, but they did not use it to manipulate the actions of others, even for the greater good. that was against their code.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    none of which has anything to do with the star wars universe

    No..

    But it has EVERYTHING to do with your claim that awesome manipulation is solely the realm of evil..

    Which was my point..

    but they did not use it to manipulate the actions of others, even for the greater good.

    You mean like when Obi Wan manipulated the Storm Trooper into believing that those weren't the droids they were looking for?

    Like that?? :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    i've seen both the original and the 80's reboot, but not the early episodes pre-peter graves.

    I won a bet from my dad who swore up and down that there was never a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series without Jim Phelps at the head..

    Thankfully, the wonders of the Internet allowed me to introduce my dad to Dan Briggs.. :D

    They were pretty good..

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You mean like when Obi Wan manipulated the Storm Trooper into believing that those weren't the droids they were looking for?

    that's a short-term "mind-trick" - not interfering with another individual's free will. yoda knew what was coming, which is how he survived. but he didn't act to shape events to his own will, even though in retrospect doing so might have prevented the near extinction of the jedi order.

    JL

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so yes, it's okay to use the IM force as evidence that not ALL fictional manipulation of others was done to serve evil. however, there's a lot that characters considered "good" were allowed to do that the jedi simply wouldn't touch because of their code. like having love relationships, for example.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    so yes, it's okay to use the IM force as evidence that not ALL fictional manipulation of others was done to serve evil.

    THank you.. That's all you had to say.. :D

    "So? Scariest environment imaginable.. That's all you had to say.. Scariest environment imaginable. Thank you."
    -Oscar, ARMAGEDDON

    :D

    But getting back to President Trump as Sith Lord of Jedi Master..

    Would a Sith Lord work towards black & hispanic unemployment to be the LOWEST it's ever been??

    That's the problem with many Trump/America haters on the Left.. They are a caricature who would demonize or castigate President Trump if he cured cancer and brought peace to the middle east...

    That's why it's hard to take them seriously..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Secretary of Navy says Trump’s tweet is not a formal order
    https://apnews.com/fa25ecd5399b45529ece8f77ff71cfcd

    Gods, deliver me from ignorant civilians..

    An order from a commander doesn't have to be "formal" to be binding.. ESPECIALLY the Commander In Chief..

  94. [94] 
    John M wrote:

    How many times has Michale been wrong with his Democrats are toast predictions???

    1) Doug Jones elected Democratic Senator of Alabama 2017

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    2) Democrats win House in 40 seat landslide 2018 midterms

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    3) Andy Beshear elected Democratic governor of Kentucky 2019

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    4) Democrats take complete control of Virginia state government 2019

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    5) John Bel Edwards elected Democratic governor of Louisiana 2019

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yet, we are to believe Michale's predictions that A) Democrats will lose the House in 2020 B) Republicans will keep control of the Senate in 2020 and C) Trump will be elected president in 2020

    Given Michael's track record, doesn't seem very likely does it???

    Bless his heart! :-)

  95. [95] 
    John M wrote:

    [93] Michale

    "Secretary of Navy says Trump’s tweet is not a formal order

    Gods, deliver me from ignorant civilians.."

    Wrong again oh wise one!

    Richard Vaughn Spencer (born January 18, 1954) currently serves as the 76th United States Secretary of the Navy.

    Spencer served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1976 to 1981 as a Marine Aviator.

    So that makes him a navy veteran, not a civilian!

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Yes, I have had 5 wrong predictions since I hooked up with CW back in 2005...

    So, 5 Predictions wrong in 14 years...

    I am sure you can do the math...

    Regardless, how was your President Trump winning the election prediction?

    That was a bigger screw-up than all 5 of mine. Especially when you consider that I called the EXACT EC count perfectly..

    How was your prediction on yer Russia Collusion delusion. Another REALLY BIG one that you totally frak'ed up.. :D

    So, I'll be happy to compare my record to ya'all's...

    Especially when you consider that ya'all think that President Trump is actually going to be removed from office..

    That will be another win for me and utter decimating loss for ya'all.. :D

    You can run away now.. :D

  97. [97] 
    John M wrote:

    Hey C.W. Surprised you DIDN'T mention this!

    From Four day ago.

    For the First time EVER:

    A bill to remove marijuana from federal controlled substances lists, expunge federal convictions and arrests, and allocate resources to communities that have suffered under the U.S. government’s war on drugs passed 24-10 in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    So that makes him a navy veteran, not a civilian!

    He is a civilian..

    And if he DID serve before, then he should realize that a "formal" order is not required..

    In the REAL military, even CO's "suggestion" is viewed as an order.

    I realize that you, being too much of a coward to serve this country in uniform, don't understand such concepts..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Sheriff John Williams
    Lowndes County Sheriff's Office, Alabama
    End of Watch: Saturday, November 23, 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

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Would a Sith Lord work against minority unemployment? Absolutely, if it served his larger designs. You've seen 'patterns of force' - you know some of the worst regimes in history put up some of the best economic numbers. Honestly you should just acknowledge that jedi was a poor analogy and replace it with mission impossible or something else that's more appropriate.

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale [83],

    The notorious RBG exudes decency, integrity, intelligence and she fights tirelessly and with a vengeance for what is right.

  102. [102] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    But does she fight like a jedi?

    ;p

    JL

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would a Sith Lord work against minority unemployment? Absolutely, if it served his larger designs.

    Correlation != causation..

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The notorious RBG exudes decency, integrity, intelligence and she fights tirelessly and with a vengeance for what is right.

    I completely agree..

    Which is why I wish the hysterical would let her retire in peace.. She has done her bit for King and Country..

    But the hysterical Left is going to hold her in place.. Even if it kills her..

    Which is appearing more and more likely to be the outcome..

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You think RBG wishes to retire? You're not making any sense, as per normal, of late.

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which is appearing more and more likely to be the outcome..

    What are you basing that assertion on, Michale?

    I left out strong as an ox in my reality-based description of her.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    You think RBG wishes to retire? You're not making any sense, as per normal, of late.

    Unlike practically everyone else here, I don't presume to know what is in RBG's heart or mind..

    What are you basing that assertion on, Michale?

    Did you read the link I posted??

    Your question is answered there..

  108. [108] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    agreed, correlation does not equal causation. but what on earth does that have to do with donald being completely un-jedi-like? he's also completely un-sith-like, although your inaccurate portrayal of him kind-of IS sith-like. not even like a hutt or a bounty hunter or han/lando (whatever they are). the whole star wars universe is just generally not a good match for him.

    JL

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    agreed, correlation does not equal causation. but what on earth does that have to do with donald being completely un-jedi-like?

    Simple.. You mention only ONE possibility that is the reason President Trump does what he does.

    You have to concede that there are DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of possibilities.. MANY of which are GOOD and sincere..

    "We can't discount a possibility, simply because we don't happen to like it."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    There are many reasons why President Trump would want to have minority unemployment at it's lowest level EVER..

    Very VERY few of them would be evil or nefarious reasons.

    I mean, it's not like President Trump said, "We'll have those niggers voting Democrat for 100 years!!"

    the whole star wars universe is just generally not a good match for him.

    I disagree.. President Trump would be a perfect Han..

    "Take care of yourself, Han.. I guess that's what you're best at."
    -Luke Skywalker

    Mace Windu as well..

    My point is, you automatically ascribe evil and nefarious reasons to President Trump when there is no evidence to support doing so...

  110. [110] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    79

    Dead on accurate!

    While impeachment of the POTUS obviously triggers a Senate trial of Donald Trump, it's also a de facto trial of the Senators of the GOP.

    It's obvious to anyone with one brain cell knocking around in their otherwise empty head that Donald Trump's strategy -- and by extension, the GOP's strategy -- is to impede Congress's responsibility of oversight by impeding their investigation... in legalese, obstruction of justice or in the vernacular, a cover-up.

    It is a crime to impede an investigation. Full stop. Trump and the GOP's standing in the way of the People's investigation by preventing key witnesses from testifying and by flooding the proceeding with bad-faith claims and Russian conspiracy theories they know to be false is plain and simple obstruction of justice and outright lying and corruption of the impeachment process.

    The President of the United States and Senators and Representatives and civil servants too, for that matter, are under an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. You're sworn by oath to protect the People and our rule of law and democracy. Anyone willing to break their oath and disseminate conspiracy theories they know to be propaganda has broken that oath and violated the public trust... so let's put them all on record whether they'll choose the rule of law or choose their Party over our People and the United States Constitution. Justice moves slow, but the facts will emerge; they eventually do.

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Simple.. You mention only ONE possibility that is the reason President Trump does what he does.

    correction: i mentioned one CATEGORY of possibility that is the reason a SITH lord does what he does. "larger designs" encompasses pretty much every single thing a sith lord wants to accomplish in the long-term. donald does absolutely nothing for that reason, because he doesn't have any long-term design for the future. based on all the data we have so far, donald does what feels right to him in the moment, completely disregarding any long-term consequences. the exact OPPOSITE of what either a sith lord OR a jedi would do. a sith would manipulate others to suit his vision, while a jedi would try to allow events to unfold according to the "will of the force" with minimal personal interference.

    you might be on to something with the pre-leia han solo analogy. or maybe jabba the hutt. probably a hybrid of the two. not remotely mace windu though.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    81

    Wow... a written demonstration of rube pretzel logic and a full-on written confirmation of why it is that Bubba Trump continually refers to it as "simple logic."

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    85

    And ya'all wonder why I am such a happy guy.. :D

    No one here wonders why you're happy, Bubba Trump, because we're very well aware that ignorance is bliss and that your unparalleled stupidity likely qualifies you as the most enraptured dipshit alive in the alternative universe over on Earth 2. *laughs*

  114. [114] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Benjamin Franklin said that Impeachment is the legal form of presidential assassination..

    Presidential assassination is a form of coup.. By Democrats own words, this impeachment is illegitimate..

    And by your own words, impeachment only occurs when the Senate votes in favor of the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment.

    And to put Franklin’s statement into context, you might want to look at all the other forms of government that existed during this period of history. The vast majority were monarchies, and death was the only way there could be a change in who ruled over a country. Franklin’s point was that while impeachment legally removed the person from office without bloodshed, it was meant to kill any future political ambitions or role in politics that the impeached might have had...just as if the person had actually been assassinated.

    Our Founding Father’s were obsessed with making sure that our government had ways to remove elected officials that had chosen to use their office for their own benefit and not for the good of their constituents. They would have hated Trump..

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    92

    But getting back to President Trump as Sith Lord of Jedi Master..

    Would a Sith Lord work towards black & hispanic unemployment to be the LOWEST it's ever been??

    Yes, Bubba Mike, they're called "stormtoopers."

    Bless your heart, you are dumber than a nerf herder.

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    96

    Yes, I have had 5 wrong predictions since I hooked up with CW back in 2005...

    You're such an inveterate liar. Right off the top of my head I can think of two more. Allow me to demonstrate... *be right back*

    [21] Michale wrote:

    Anyone gonna watch the SCOTUS LIVE of the big decisions today?? :D

    I'll be there...

    My prediction:

    SCOTUS will rule that the citizen question can be included in the census...

    The Gerrymandering case will be decided in favor of Democrats..

    That's my take...

    [Thursday, June 27th, 2019 at 03:20 UTC]

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/06/26/illinois-becomes-11th-state-to-legalize-marijuana/#comment-138363

    Your predictions there were WRONG and WRONG so that's two additional wrong predictions right there in one little ol' comment box, and I can assure you there are plenty more where those came from; however, I would advise an ignorant nerf herder like yourself not to mess with a Jedi Master of the mind and thereby force (pun intended) me to expose your pathological lying any further. :)

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    98

    He is a civilian..

    No, he isn't a civilian if he served and was honorably discharged. I hear he is unemployed now, but he is definitely and forever still a veteran.

    Why do you insist on lying all the time? Or are you just so bone-deep ignorant that you're a veteran who doesn't know what a veteran is?

    In the REAL military, even CO's "suggestion" is viewed as an order.

    Comey said virtually the same thing when Trump got him alone and said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” and you and Trump and darn near everybody else in the GOP insisted it was a suggestion and not an order. Y'all should really pick a lane.

    I realize that you, being too much of a coward to serve this country in uniform, don't understand such concepts..

    Said the dipshit who claims to be veteran but doesn't know what a veteran is, and thank you ever so much for that confirmation that Your Orange Worship is a coward in your eyes. *laughs*

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    114

    And by your own words, impeachment only occurs when the Senate votes in favor of the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment.

    I know, right!? Impeachment only gets you a trial in the Senate in America, and Bubba "Mike" Trump was "all in" when -- according to his definition -- the GOP "assassinated" his BFF Bubba Clinton... who is obviously still alive and well and living in Bubba Trump's head, as well as the great State of New York.

    Our Founding Father’s were obsessed with making sure that our government had ways to remove elected officials that had chosen to use their office for their own benefit and not for the good of their constituents. They would have hated Trump..

    Great points... and also, Franklin didn't say impeachment is the "legal form of presidential assassination." John Dickinson of Delaware and Governor Morris of Pennsylvania were against impeachment because they thought a terrible president could just be voted out at the next election, to which Franklin quipped:

    Anyone who wishes to be president should support an impeachment clause, because the alternative is assassination.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

    Wasn't he funny fellow? Anyway, an alternative to assassination means a substitute for it and not meant to be a comparison but an entirely altogether different possibility. So there's that too. :)

  119. [119] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Anyway, an alternative to assassination means a substitute for it and not meant to be a comparison but an entirely altogether different possibility. So there's that too. :)

    While I agree that Franklin was stating that impeachment was meant to be the preferred alternative to an assassination — and honestly, it is the only other alternative for getting rid of a corrupt president. But I don’t think that the comparison to “assassination” is wrong either. Assassination ends a person’s life and therefore ends their political life. Impeachment won’t physically kill a person, but it is meant to put an end to their political life.

    Zephyr Teachout was on Chris Hayes’ podcast recently and they had a fascinating discussion on “corruption”. The Founding Father’s were obsessed with making sure we had a way to exorcise corruption from our government. She talked about how some who were not for impeachment made the argument that the next election would serve as the people’s way of ridding themselves of a corrupt president. (Sounds strangely familiar, doesn’t it?). But the Founding Father’s recognized that if the election process had been corrupted by a president, then that would not leave the people with a way to remove the corruption.

    Trump was trying to corrupt our elections...once again! He has sought aid from foreign powers to assist him in this effort. That is why he needs to be removed for office immediately.

  120. [120] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Simple.. You mention only ONE possibility that is the reason President Trump does what he does.

    You have to concede that there are DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of possibilities.. MANY of which are GOOD and sincere..

    Donald J Trump is one of the most narcissistic sociopaths to ever exist.... everything he does is done to benefit him...end of sentence!

    There are many reasons why President Trump would want to have minority unemployment at it's lowest level EVER..

    Very VERY few of them would be evil or nefarious reasons.

    For him to take credit for it occurring! And please note that this occurred on its own accord — it is not the intended outcome of some great economic stimulus plan that Trump set into motion! The fact that you cannot name a single component of any legislation or executive order that Trump has signed that focused on helping fight minority unemployment is a good indicator that it was just a random unearned accomplishment.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooohhhhhh JM?? :D

    Defense Chief Esper Ousts Navy Secretary in SEAL Fallout

    Navy secretary ousted over handling of SEAL case
    The best red carpet looks

    (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Mark Esper asked and received the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer on Sunday over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq that angered President Donald Trump.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/defense-chief-esper-ousts-navy-secretary-in-trump-seal-fallout/ar-BBXh72X

    Looks like SecNavy was shit-canned because he didn't understand that there is no difference between a "formal" order and a "suggestion" from one's commander...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    you might be on to something with the pre-leia han solo analogy. or maybe jabba the hutt.

    Again, thank you.. Twice in one commentary.. Are you feeling OK?? :D

    Irregardless of all SW references, the simple fact is, President Trump has done some very good things for this country in general and black and hispanic Americans specifically..

    Ya wanna shoot for the trifecta and agree with that?? :D

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    And by your own words, impeachment only occurs when the Senate votes in favor of the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment.

    Nope.. I never said any such thing..

    Why do you insist on LYING about what I say??

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz Peek: Regretful Democrats locked into Trump impeachment – and paying a price for it

    Newsflash: Rep. Adam Schiff is dithering over impeachment! On CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, the House Intelligence Committee chairman claimed that grounds for impeaching President Trump are “not contested” but also said he wants to “discuss this with my constituents and colleagues before I make a final judgment on this.”

    Jake Tapper, the show’s host, asked how the leader of the House impeachment drive could possibly waiver. Schiff responded that he wanted to be sure that impeachment based on the evidence collected was what “the founding fathers had in mind.”

    Uh-huh. More likely, Schiff is panicked that his unfair inquiry has been a complete flop for Democrats. The public is turning against the drive to boot President Trump from office, causing speculation that Democrats will shy away from an official vote to impeach.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-trump-impeachment-liz-peek

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that Dumbocrats would come to regret their faux impeachment coup.....

    Oh.. Wait..

    "IT WAS ME!!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Liar Liar

    Nope.. I never said any such thing..

    Why do you insist on LYING about what I say??

    This is like the lie you keep saying where you claim I said I was never an LEO..

    Always bullshitting about what I say.

    Oh, I am sure you are gonna try and pass this off as an innocent misspeak or something like that..

    But, as usual, it's nothing but your bullshit lies..

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump added to that speculation, telling the hosts of "Fox & Friends" on Friday that he didn’t expect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to authorize such a vote. Given the inability of Democrats on the inaptly named Intelligence Committee to produce a compelling case, some think Pelosi might instead consider a vote to censure the president.

    If Democrats walk away from impeachment now, Schiff and his enablers will not just have egg on their collective faces, they will have an entire omelet.

    Not happening. If Democrats walk away from impeachment now, Schiff and his enablers will not just have egg on their collective faces, they will have an entire omelet. After two years of trying but failing to prove that Trump’s campaign had colluded with Russia, Democrats dove all-in on his purported misbehavior in Ukraine. To abandon their zealous prosecution (some would say persecution) of the president now would be devastating.

    Just like the impeachment investigation.

    Fundraising has exploded for the GOP, with the Republican National Committee reporting it hauled in $25.3 million during October and had $61.4 million in the hopper at month's end.

    In contrast, the Democrat party machine brought in a mere $9 million. At the end of last month, the Democratic National Committee was $7 million in debt and had only $8.7 million in the kitty.

    Like I said about my VERY BAD, MUCH WORSE and CATASTROPHIC outcomes above..

    There is simply NO PATH where this ends well for Democrats..

    NO MATTER WHAT Democrats do, they are royally scroo'ed..

    Courtesy of President Trump... :D

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO MATTER WHAT Democrats do, they are royally scroo'ed..

    Courtesy of President Trump... :D

    "I love it when a plan comes together.."
    -Hannibal Smith, THE A-TEAM

    :D

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Politico reports that Democrats in Trump-won districts, anxious the impeachment drive is destroying their reelection prospects, are begging for help from the national committee. The GOP has unleashed a slew of ads targeting vulnerable Dems, with little response so far.

    Guess what? The DNC is running short on ammo.

    Democrats are losing the PR battle on a multitude of fronts... :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Displeasure with the impeachment push is also showing up in the polls. While early surveys indicated widespread support for the investigation into Trump’s commerce with Ukraine, the tables have turned. A recent Emerson poll shows 45 percent of voters oppose the impeachment push while 43 percent support; a month earlier 48 percent supported impeachment and 44 percent were against it. Perhaps more significant for Democrats hoping to regain the White House in 2020, support among independents has nosedived. Some 34 percent approve of the push today, down from 48 percent in October.

    The Emerson poll is not an outlier. An NPR/Marist poll also shows support for impeachment dropping over the past month and, even worse for the showboating Schiff, interest in the proceedings waning. Only 30 percent of the nation saying they were following the proceedings “very closely,” down from 37 percent in September.

    Adding insult to injury, Trump’s approval rating has actually gone up, not down, over the past month. And, the stock market keeps hitting new highs.

    Dumbocrats are taking a beating in the polls... :D

    It's funny.. Ya'all were SOOO exuberant about the polls last week..

    Now, ya'all hardly mention them.. :D

    "Gee!! I wonder why that is!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    Notwithstanding these obvious red flags, Democrats are now preparing to take their case to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by the wobbly Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. Act one for Nadler was overseeing the hearings that featured Robert Mueller, after the special counsel concluded that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia.

    In advance of those hearings, Nadler told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" he hoped “it won't end up being a dud.” It was worse than a dud; Wallace later claimed it was a “disaster for the Democrats and I think it's been a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller.”

    Yea.. Let's let NADLER take over!!!

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong!!???? :D

    I think even CW remarked what a disaster for the Democrats the Mueller hearing was..

    Nadler can handle it... :D

    This Democrat faux impeachment coup has descended into a Keystone Cops routine.. The idea that this is an actual threat to President Trump is official LAUGHABLE... :D

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    That’s what we have to look forward to, as the Judiciary grabs the baton from the Intel Committee. They could call for more witnesses and more testimony. They may convince someone like former National Security Adviser John Bolton to appear, who might deliver new proof of wrongdoing by Trump. Otherwise, given the public’s growing disenchantment with the proceedings, Democrats would be crazy to prolong their misery. Voters have made up their minds.

    The Judiciary Committee is set to review a yet-to-be-written report by Schiff’s group, and will probably deliver articles of impeachment to the House in short order. In an unprecedented move, that body will likely vote exclusively along party lines to impeach the president. Then, the case will move to the Senate. Trump has said he wants a full-blown trial, which would allow Republicans to call witnesses like the infamous whistleblower and perhaps Hunter Biden. This would be a horror for Democrats.

    The GOP could dredge up plenty of unpleasantness about former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, and possibly about issues such as why a high-ranking Ukrainian politician gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

    President Trump is BEGGING for a trial.. He and the GOP will be able to bitch-slap Democrats six ways from Sunday!! :D

    And Democrats won't be able to do ANYTHING but sit there on their hands and take it!! :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, Democrats will have to contend with a base disappointed at a failed impeachment thrust; a front-runner, Biden, who is tainted by the appearance of Ukraine self-dealing; billionaires trying to buy victory in their primary even as progressives rail about the evils of "Big Money" in politics; a booming jobs market lifting up minorities and low-income Americans; and the radical left, which is undermining the party’s appeal in must-win states.

    Republicans should relax. Democrats are doing everything possible to secure another four years for President Trump.

    It's funny.. The more Democrats do to try and oppose President Trump, the better and better his chances of a landslide re-election.. :D

    "By bringing Spock back into the past, the Klingons set in motion the very sequence of events that they went back in time to prevent!!
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK-ISHMAEL

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    The more Democrats attack and vilify and demonize President Trump and his supporters....???

    Rust Belt voters on Trump: ‘I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat’
    https://nypost.com/2019/11/23/rust-belt-voters-on-trump-id-vote-for-him-again-in-a-heartbeat/

    The more set patriotic Americans are in voting again for President Trump..

    What Dumbocrats don't get is that they NEED Trump supporters to win elections.

    And attacking and demonizing those supporters is NOT the way to win them over..

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    JEFFERSON, Ohio — Bonnie Smith no longer sets her alarm for 1:45 a.m. so she could head into town to make her heavenly pastries, cookies and cakes. It’s the only thing she doesn’t miss about her bakery, which she had to close last June.

    “My eyesight was failing. I just couldn’t do it anymore, or at least until the doctors could figure out what was going on,” said Smith, who hopes that eye surgery will allow her to bake professionally in her home kitchen sometime next month.

    While Smith’s personal life has suffered a setback since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, her support for the first Republican president she ever voted for hasn’t budged an inch. If anything, she says her loyalty to Trump has increased since the Election Day result that seemed to take everyone by surprise — except people like her.

    Smith says she was born into the Democratic Party and voted for Barack Obama twice. For the 2016 Ohio primary, she said she even voted for Bernie Sanders to be the party’s nominee. But when it came time to pick a president, she voted with her neighbors in Ashtabula County, helping it swing from a 12-point victory for Barack Obama in 2012 to a 19-point win for Trump.

    Bonnie is the kind of Trump supporter that Democrats take great glee in attacking and demonizing...

  134. [134] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said:

    This is like the lie you keep saying where you claim I said I was never an LEO..

    Always bullshitting about what I say.

    Let’s start with your comments posted to CW’s FTP from February 23, 2018

    FTP 2/23/18
    [185] Michale wrote:
    Since Michael was never a state commissioned police officer but was a military police officer (which means he never dealt with anyone who wasn’t completely tied to the military’s rules),

    That's not factually accurate... I was a certified deputy sheriff and a graduate of a POST certified Police Academy..

    But, of course FACTS have no place here..

    [ Permalink ]   [ Monday, February 26th, 2018 at 12:35 UTC ]

    Graduating from a POST Police Academy and being a certified deputy is not the same thing as working as a LEO! Even if that much is true, and with as much as you lie I cannot be sure that it is true... it only means that you might have been eligible to apply for a job in law enforcement, but it does NOT mean anyone hired you!

    Then just a few weeks ago I asked you if I was lying when I said that you had told me that you were an MP in the service...


    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..

    [ Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 02:55 UTC ]

    But back in the comments from CW’s June 8, 2016 article, your comment [80] shows that I was not lying!


    [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said that, it WAS stupid for Tessig to reach into the car.. It was a rookie mistake...
    But that shouldn't result in Tessig being charged for the shooting... Just because Tessig reached in, doesn't give Dubose the right to murder him...

    Allow me to give you an example from a personal experience..
    While on Okinawa, I rolled up on a domestic one time. They drill into us at the academy, DO NOT RESPOND TO A DOMESTIC ALONE!!!... Once on scene, my backup was still 3mike out.. Things sounded like they were escalating inside so I thought my presence would calm the scene..

    Stoopid rookie mistake..

    I entered the residence and made contact with male subject who was getting the shit kicked out of him by a little Filipino woman... I got the two apart and shoved the woman back and she landed in the kitchen...

    I turned to the husband to check his injuries and he looked at me, his eyes got real wide.. I whirled around and saw the woman exiting the kitchen with the largest damn meat cleaver in the galaxy..

    I drew my weapon and shot her.

    Now, if I had waited until backup arrived, it's all but assured that the shooting wouldn't have happened...

    But the shooting was ruled a Good Shoot because I had no choice AT THAT MOMENT..

    Granted, I had my ass reamed six ways from sunday and was put on desk duty for 2 months... But it was STILL a good shoot...

    So it is with Tessig.. He made a rookie mistake that, had he NOT made it, it's entirely likely that Duboes would still be alive today..

    But THAT doesn't change the fact that it was DUBOES' actions that directly put Tessig's life in danger...
    It was a good shoot...

    And the ONLY reason that Tessig was charged was because, like Michael Brown, Duboes was black...

    Cops don't have the luxury of stopping time and analyzing every minute detail...

    "You don't have time to think. If you think, you die..."
    -Tom Cruise, TOP GUN

    Michale
    [ Sunday, June 12th, 2016 at 14:59 UTC ]

    Sure looks like you were claiming to have shot someone when you were an MP.

    Would you like for me to post your messages claiming to have been in law enforcement for over 25 years and some others???

  135. [135] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Quoted in [134]: Now, if I had waited until backup arrived, it's all but assured that the shooting wouldn't have happened...

    If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.
    Tuco (Eli Wallach) The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    119

    While I agree that Franklin was stating that impeachment was meant to be the preferred alternative to an assassination — and honestly, it is the only other alternative for getting rid of a corrupt president.

    Outside of the election held every 4 years, I believe you mean.

    But I don’t think that the comparison to “assassination” is wrong either. Assassination ends a person’s life and therefore ends their political life.

    I disagree, and I'll explain why using history. As you know, Abraham Lincoln was America's 16th president and the first POTUS to be assassinated (1865). Upon Lincoln's death by assassination, Vice President Andrew Johnson was sworn in within hours of Lincoln's death on April 15 and became our 17th president. Fast forward a few years later when Andrew Johnson was American's first president to be impeached... thus ending his political life on February 24, 1868? Nope. Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by a mere one vote and continued to serve as POTUS.

    Johnson didn't lose the 1868 election to Robert E. Lee because at the Democratic National Convention held in New York in July 1868, Johnson wasn't chosen by Democrats, who instead chose to nominate former New York governor Horatio Seymour on the 22nd ballot... thus ending Johnson's political career? Nope. On Christmas Day 1868, Johnson issued a final amnesty for war crimes covering everyone, including Jefferson Davis. In his final months in office he issued the usual pardons for crimes, including a pardon for the doctor convicted for his involvement in the Lincoln assassination for setting John Wilkes Booth's broken leg, Dr. Mudd (as in, "your name is Mudd"). Of course, Johnson then served until the end of what was originally Lincoln's term, until March 4, 1869... thus ending his political carerr? Yep, finally... just kidding.

    After a few years, Johnson mounted a political comeback, ran and was elected to the Senate in Tennessee and was sworn in on March 5, 1875 to the United States Senate. Impeachment didn't cause Johnson's political death... so what did? He died in office, though not by assassination. Senator Johnson's political career and his life were both ended due to a series of strokes in July 1875.

    Nixon wasn't impeached, but the impeachment process certainly caused his resignation, and the next President to undergo the impeachment process was William Jefferson Clinton, who was impeached in December 1998... thus ending his political career? Not really. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate and served for another approximately two years as President of the United States. Clinton could probably have been reelected to a third term were it not for the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951 declaring a person can only be elected to the office of the United States presidency two times... for which we can thank Franklin D. Roosevelt, Americas only president to be elected to a third term (1940) and Americas only president to be elected to a fourth term (1944). Clinton moved to New York and nothing precluded him running for Senate or other office where he likely could have mopped the floor with any Republican candidate... like his wife did.

    Zephyr Teachout was on Chris Hayes’ podcast recently and they had a fascinating discussion on “corruption”.

    She was also on a recent live show of Chris's, and she's awesome. I just generally love history and anybody who knows history, and she really knows her stuff.

    Trump was trying to corrupt our elections...once again!

    Yes, sir. Trump is definitely an asset of Russia, as you've said.

    He has sought aid from foreign powers to assist him in this effort. That is why he needs to be removed for office immediately.

    I agree, and I believe he will be impeached barring any currently unforeseen intervening events. Do I believe it will be the death of his political career? Nope! But that is because he has corrupted the entire impeachment process by instructing witnesses not to testify in violation of the law. He's also committed multiple other crimes -- before and during his presidency -- for which he can stand and likely will stand trial when he leaves office. One needs only to look at the plethora of Trump associates who are currently in jail or headed to jail soon in order to deduce Trump's likely future (barring any intervening events, of course) unless he cuts a deal with prosecutors... both federal and the State of New York.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We are living history. :)

  137. [137] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Correction: Upon fact check, the line in the film was "When you..." evidently improvised by Wallach in the take scene.

    Ruling on McGahn; no absolute immunity and he must testify. Won't change anything, but the SC is likely to get a backlog of appeals of these (imo) baseless immunity claims.

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    123

    Why do you insist on LYING about what I say??

    Poor "liddle'" Mike whining about lies and/or fake quotes?

    BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  139. [139] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I rarely watch Fox News. Michael and a good buddy of mine keep saying Trump is going to be reelected, often "in a landslide." Let's call that "Point B."

    Here we are at Point A. Trump has never broken even 50% job approval rating, his people keep ending up resigning in disgrace or in jail and recent poll shows 50% of us want Trump not only Impeached but Removed from office versus the same 43% who'll support Cheetogod no matter what.

    So where are the votes to reelect Trump, with or without a landslide? How do we get from Point A to Point B?

  140. [140] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [139]

    C'mon Michale! Your a smart guy who can argue his point. I need your reply here. I know you can do it!

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.]