Did Trump Commit an Impeachable Offense?

  
Via:  goodtime-charlie  •  3 weeks ago  •  157 comments

Did Trump Commit an Impeachable Offense?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In their delusive demands for the impeachment of President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are substituting partisan politics for the commands and intent of the U.S. Constitution. This became self-evident when Pelosi announced her impeachment folly the day before she even set eyes on the alleged evidence, which turned out to be no evidence at all.

The usual gaggle of misanthropes like Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff of California and Jerrold Nadler of New York have been searching for a reason – any reason – to impeach Trump ever since his improbable election in November 2016.

With a shove from the chronically vapid Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Pelosi and her confederates have now settled on the most implausible of all their impeachment schemes peddled during Trump’s presidency – that his conversation with Ukraine’s president somehow constitutes an impeachable offense. It does not. Not even close. 

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated. 

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did  not  intend. This is what they  feared . They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Yet, Ford’s misguided thesis has now been warmly embraced by legions of Democrats who despise Trump. They have dishonestly conjured up a pretext to undo the 2016 election result and drive him from office.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

As I argued in an  earlier column , Trump’s request that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky assist in an official and ongoing Justice Department investigation launched by Attorney General William Barr is neither criminal nor unusual.

Indeed, Trump’s appeal for help from Kiev conforms with a treaty  two decades old that obligates Ukraine to cooperate with U.S. investigations or prosecutions in any criminal matters by furnishing relevant evidence upon request. This is what Trump did.

Moreover, asking for Ukraine’s help was no clandestine maneuver. On May 24 the president reminded assembled reporters on the White House lawn that Barr was investigating the origins of the Russia “collusion” hoax

“And I hope he looks at the U.K., and I hope he looks at Australia, and I hope he looks at Ukraine,” Trump said of Barr. “I hope he looks at everything, because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country.”

The president made it clear that Ukraine was suspected of having been involved in election meddling, along with other foreign actors. Much of this is described in my book,  “Witch Hunt.

In several hearings in April and May, Barr candidly informed Congress that he was conducting this investigation. He appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead the probe.

We now know that Barr asked Trump to initiate introductions between him and foreign leaders in furtherance of his probe. The president did so by approaching Ukraine’s president, while Australia initiated contact with the U.S. on its own accord.

Barr personally contacted officials in Great Britain, and he twice traveled to Italy to solicit assistance. His most recent trip occurred last Friday in the company of Durham.

There was nothing inappropriate about any of this. It was logical, sensible, and not at all uncommon. Other presidents have done the same thing. Our Justice Department has enlisted foreign help in numerous investigations over the years. It is pure sophistry for Democrats to declare such an endeavor is an impeachable offense.

Did Trump mention former Vice President Joe Biden and his son toward the end of the conversation?  Of course he did. He was right to do so.

If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds. It is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate.

Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again. 

Lost amid the cacophony of condemnation of Trump is the fact that the Criminal Division of the Justice Department examined the official record of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call and concluded there was no crime, not even a violation of campaign finance laws. “All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion,” said the Justice Department.

Some constitutional scholars have ventured that a president’s abuse of his official powers might rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even though it may not fall under the conventional statutory definitions and strict language of crimes and misdemeanors.

This is not an entirely misbegotten argument. Yet, it has no application to what President Trump is accused of doing. He had every right to ask for foreign assistance in his attorney general’s official investigation. This was not an abuse of power, but a proper exercise of power.

Conversely, it is Democrats who are abusing their power of impeachment by deliberately contorting its constitutional meaning to serve their own political purpose.

Barr is determined to get to the bottom of how the “witch hunt” against Trump began. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the conclusion of the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Barr posed an imperative question:

How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent?” Barr asked. “And the evidence now is that it was without a basis.”

Americans deserve to learn the truth of what happened. A handful of foreign governments may help provide the answers.

It is not an impeachable offense to ask. 

Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Goodtime Charlie
1  seeder  Goodtime Charlie    3 weeks ago

Keep your comments civil derogatory name calling will not be tolerated

 
 
 
Ronin2
2  Ronin2    3 weeks ago
Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Unfortunately both Ford and the framers have been proven right. 

The Democrats are setting a dangerous precedent. They fail to grasp that all future presidents now fall under the same guidelines for impeachment.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago
The Democrats are setting a dangerous precedent. They fail to grasp that all future presidents now fall under the same guidelines for impeachment.

This inept out of control President has set the precedent, congress is simply holding him to account. And if they didn't, Trump would be the new low bar for Presidential behavior.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
2.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1    3 weeks ago

I am not sure being a bafoon is an impeachable offense.  Neither is setting the bar lower than we would like to see.  That's what elections are for, not impeachment.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

I agree.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1    3 weeks ago
This inept out of control President has set the precedent, 

Unlike those other Presidents named Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, etc, etc, etc.

 congress is simply holding him to account. And if they didn't, Trump would be the new low bar for Presidential behavior.

Repeating the same bullshit over and over will not make it the truth. If Congress had integrity Biden would be shaking in his shoes right now.  So would 3 Democratic Congressmen that had the temerity to threaten Ukraine in writing that they would withhold their vote for funding if Ukraine didn't reopen their investigations into Trump administration officials.

If Trump had done what Biden or any of the 3 Democrats did the House would already have him impeached and be screaming at the Republican Senate to do the same.

Instead we get more innuendo and read between the lines bullshit from the Dems. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.4  WallyW  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
I am not sure being a bafoon is an impeachable offense.

Using the office of the President to pressure foreign governments into interfering with an election is.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
Using the office of the President to pressure foreign governments into interfering with an election is.

That should shake everyone to the core. Do we stand by the principles as outlined by our Constitution, or do we look the other way in the name of transitory political expediency? Odd that the traditional 'law-and-order' party leads the charge in enabling a sitting POTUS to subvert the warnings of our first President, who was wise enough to see the dangers...

"There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate, upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." ~ George Washington

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.7  WallyW  replied to  WallyW @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

The left can't seem to win elections anymore. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
The left can't seem to win elections anymore. 

Forgotten the last one Wally?  You may want to see a doctor for that degree of memory loss.

 
 
 
PJ
2.2  PJ  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

[If you see a violation, flag it.  But you already know that.]

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.1  WallyW  replied to  PJ @2.2    3 weeks ago

No, that's a legitimate opinion, based upon observable facts

 
 
 
PJ
2.2.2  PJ  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

No, it's a sweeping generalization based on a biased opinion.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.3  Kathleen  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago

That’s true, personality or whether you simply do not like them does not make a president impeachable.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3  Snuffy    3 weeks ago

No, I don't believe what Trump has done reaches the level of an impeachable offense and it seems to me that the Democrats in the House are making this too much about Party politics rather than the Constitution or the Law.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @3    3 weeks ago

No, I don't believe what Trump has done reaches the level of an impeachable offense and it seems to me that the Democrats in the House are making this too much about Party politics rather than the Constitution or the Law.

So using the office of the President, to pressure foreign governments into interfering in American elections, is not an impeachable offense in your mind?

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.1  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    3 weeks ago

That's not what happened here.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

That's not what happened here.

All evidence shows that you are wrong, again.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.3  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

Then show us the evidence, ozzy

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
 
 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    3 weeks ago

Conspiring with a foreign government to look into an American citizen who happens to be running for president, yes, it's an impeachable offense.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @4    3 weeks ago

No real proof of conspiracy has been given. Only conjecture and suspicion on the part of the Democrats.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1    3 weeks ago
No real proof of conspiracy has been given.
  • His fake transcript shows it. 
  • Trump has admitted it on television.
  • Trump has gone to lengths to hide additional evidence.

How much more do you need?

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.2  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

That's not what happened here.

Read the transcript.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
Read the transcript.

We haven't seen the transcript.  Trump moved it to a different server to hide it.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.4  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

It's been released in its entirety...look for it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

It's been released in its entirety...look for it.

YOU look at it.  Read the transcript ( link below ) in its entirety, time yourself reading it.

After you've done that explain how a transcript for a 12 minute conversation takes 30 minutes over the phone. 

Phone call was logged for 30 minutes, even reading the transcript unnaturally slow, accounts for maybe half that time.

Read the Trump-Ukraine phone call readout

SENATOR KING SUGGESTS AT LEAST 20 MINUTES ARE MISSING FROM TRUMP UKRAINE CALL TRANSCRIPT

Odd markings, ellipses fuel doubts about the rough transcript of Trump’s Ukraine call

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lady in black @4    3 weeks ago
Conspiring with a foreign government to look into an American citizen who happens to be running for president, yes, it's an impeachable offense.

Conspiring, colluding, coercing, jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif didn't happen. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2    3 weeks ago

I guess you missed him essentially telling China to investigate the Bidens.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

Been through this on another thread. He did NOT TELL China to do anything. 

"Asked if he had sought Chinese President Xi Jinping’s help, Mr. Trump said: “I haven’t, but it’s certainly something we can start thinking about.”

And in his "statement" it was "I think China should look into.........."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

Are you aware that Trump and Joe Biden are running for the same office?  In other words they are running against one another.

It is astonishing that you think it is appropriate for the president of the United States to call for an investigation of his political opponent during the election season.  Especially since there is no evidence to support his allegations. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

If I knew how paste a video, I would do the one with him saying both China and the Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
4.2.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2    3 weeks ago

Yes, but they really really really don't like him.  I think by the time you get to three reallys you can impeach someone.  Isn't that in the constitution someplace?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

In other words Obama was protected for unleashing the intelligence agencies against Trump & his campaign because Obama wasn't actually running against Trump. Got it!

 
 
 
WallyW
4.2.7  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

It is astonishing that you think it is appropriate for the president of the United States to call for an investigation of his political opponent during the election season.

Obama and Hillary were investigating Trump from the get-go. All kinds of evidence supports this

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @4.2.7    3 weeks ago

'Obama and Hillary were investigating Trump from the get-go. All kinds of evidence supports this'

Then you can provide the evidence?jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.6    3 weeks ago

'for unleashing the intelligence agencies against Trump & his campaign' 

NEVER HAPPENED

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.4    3 weeks ago
If I knew how paste a video, I would do the one with him saying both China and the Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.

Do you know if it's on YouTube? Because if it is, all you have to do is copy and paste the URL into your comment...the video just shows up

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
4.3  seeder  Goodtime Charlie  replied to  lady in black @4    3 weeks ago
Conspiring with a foreign government to look into an American citizen who happens to be running for president, yes, it's an impeachable offense.

From the article:

Lost amid the cacophony of condemnation of Trump is the fact that the Criminal Division of the Justice Department examined the official record of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call and concluded there was no crime, not even a violation of campaign finance laws. “All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion,” said the Justice Department.

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.3.1  pat wilson  replied to  Goodtime Charlie @4.3    3 weeks ago

Would that be the Justice Department headed by William Barr ?

examined the official record of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call and concluded there was no crime,

Big surprise there. s/

 
 
 
squiggy
4.3.2  squiggy  replied to  pat wilson @4.3.1    3 weeks ago

If you're going to give a personality to Justice, then give one to Whistleblower.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

The only way Americans are going to learn the truth of what happened is to impeach Donald Trump.  An impeachment trial can't be conducted in closed session as Democrats are doing with their political investigations.  During an impeachment trial all the sources and evidence must be publicly disclosed.

Democrats need to accept that the intelligence community must be publicly sacrificed since the intelligence community has been the source of complaints and evidence.  And if House Democrats refuse to vote on articles of impeachment, at this point, then Democrats will be sacrificing their own credibility.  The public isn't going to accept a political parody of impeachment; that's only going to be viewed as more dirty politics.

 
 
 
squiggy
5.1  squiggy  replied to  Nerm_L @5    3 weeks ago

That seems to be McConnel's tack in guaranteeing he'd drop all for a speedy trial.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6  Sunshine    3 weeks ago

No...and as one Democrat Senator admitted they have to impeach him or he will get re-elected.  This is about the Democrats inability to win an election.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @6    3 weeks ago

I guess you forgot the mid terms where we took back the house, but I guess that doesn't count

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @6.1    3 weeks ago

No, it doesn't count.  It's over. 

Do you not believe the Senator?  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lady in black @6.1    3 weeks ago
I guess you forgot the mid terms where we took back the house

How can we? It shows and that isn't necessarily a good thing with the shit show they are pushing. The Senate however...................you know. The ones with the last say in most cases? 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @6.1    3 weeks ago

I guess you forgot the tide washed out on the doors of the Senate. I believe the House is pretty impotent on impeachment if they cannot get things past the Republican controlled Senate.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
Do you not believe the Senator?

No, I don't believe anyone who is so silly as to imagine Trump will be re-elected whether or not he is impeached. The impeachment is needed to prevent setting this mob boss wannabe Presidents abnormal behavior and criminal coercion of foreign governments for his own political gain as precedent.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.5  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

It counts, you just don't want it to count.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.6  lady in black  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

The senate has to take it up if the house brings it.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.4    3 weeks ago
Do you not believe the Senator?
No, I don't believe anyone who is so silly as to imagine Trump will be re-elected whether or not he is impeached.

Actually, you should believe it.  Although, unless there is another who indicated the same thing, Sunshine might have made a minor error.  The man I KNOW that said that was Representative Al Green of Texas (Houston).

NEXT!!

PS:  Just a quick follow-up and EVIDENCE:

Rep. Al Green: Congress Must Impeach Trump

Rep. Green said on MSNBC:

I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected . If we don’t impeach him, he will say he’s been vindicated. He will say the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the house and didn’t take up impeachment. He will say we H constitutional duty and we didn’t. He will say he’s been vindicated. Here’s what I say, we’re confronting a constitutional crisis as I speak to you. As I look the people of America in the eye, I’m telling you, we have a constitutional crisis. The chief executive office of the president of the United States refuses to comply with subpoenas and says he will order others to do so, this creates a constitutional crisis but this isn’t the genesis of it.

Source:  https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/04/rep-al-green-warns-if-trump-isnt-impeached-hell-get-reelected.html

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @6.1.6    3 weeks ago
The senate has to take it up if the house brings it.

And do you REALLY think that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to remove President Trump from office?

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.9  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @6.1.5    3 weeks ago

Why does it count? 

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.10  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.9    3 weeks ago

Trump supporters la_la_la_gif_shane.gif?w=180

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.11  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.8    3 weeks ago
And do you REALLY think that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to remove President Trump from office?

They will not, unless he continues down the current course of inviting other foreign governments to undermine our election process, making it politically impossible to ignore. The House will impeach, the Senate will not convict, and the GOP candidate in 2020 will have that albatross around his neck. The results of this election will tell us more about the state-of-the-union than any investigation ever will. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.12  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.4    3 weeks ago
mob boss wannabe

You guys do have a quite the imagination.  First he is a Russian Agent Man, know he is America's mob boss. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.13  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

lol...

Can you not answer the question?  

Why do mid-terms count?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.11    3 weeks ago
The results of this election will tell us more about the state-of-the-union than any investigation ever will.

That seems to be implying that regardless of what an "impeachment" hearing uncovers, Trump will be impeached for political purposes and effectively usher in a bloodless coup.

Maybe had Democrats not been screaming IMPEACH since before Trump even took the oath of office, they might be taken more seriously.  However, to date, all of the talk the Democrats have spewed regarding Trump has proved to be, well, empty charges amounting to nothing.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.15  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.13    3 weeks ago

You claimed dems can't win elections....I guess you forgot we won the house, but you don't think it counts...why doesn't it count.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.16  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.14    3 weeks ago
In remarks in Arizona , Vice President Mike Pence backed Mr. Trump, saying, “I think the American people have a right to know” if Mr. Biden or his family profited from his position as vice president.

A serious question here. Why is it ok for our top executives to pressure other countries into investigating their political rivals. They are not even trying to hide it anymore, even adding now they want China to investigate Biden.

Why is it ok for one side to Imo abuse the power of their office for political gain yet it is not ok for people to investigate them.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.17  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.14    3 weeks ago
That seems to be implying that regardless of what an "impeachment" hearing uncovers, Trump will be impeached for political purposes and effectively usher in a bloodless coup.

No, that only implies that involving now multiple foreign entities into subverting our election process is grounds for such an inquiry and the daily evidence of such, from the alleged perpetrator himself, may be incontrovertible. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.18  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @6.1.15    3 weeks ago
You claimed dems can't win elections...

No..I said an election.  There is a Presidential election coming up in 2020, in case you haven't heard.

I guess you forgot we won the house, but you don't think it counts...why doesn't it count.

Historically, which ever party wins mid-terms does not affect the next Presidential election. 

I answered your questions, now you answer mine.

Why does it count?

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.19  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.18    3 weeks ago

I was an election...a mid term ELECTION

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.20  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.1.16    3 weeks ago
A serious question here. Why is it ok for our top executives to pressure other countries into investigating their political rivals.

Please indicate where there is any pressure?

Did Trump or Pence tell any leader that if someone wasn't fired they would not get the aide?   Or was that the VP of another administration that did that?

I don't agree with any of it to be quite candid, but should Trump just sit back and let the Democrats use him as a punching bag as they have since before he even won the election? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.21  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @6.1.19    3 weeks ago

Yes it was. But, if you read the comment in context, I wasn't speaking about mid-terms.

I see you are not going to answer the question.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lady in black @6.1.19    3 weeks ago
I was an election...a mid term ELECTION

If that's your chosen identity, who is anyone to question.............

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.23  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.17    3 weeks ago
No, that only implies that involving now multiple foreign entities into subverting our election process is grounds for such an inquiry and the daily evidence of such, from the alleged perpetrator himself, may be incontrovertible. 

So, should he have asked them to investigate potential illegalities behind closed doors using former MI-6 agents?

Would a Steele 'dossier" be preferable?

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.24  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @6.1.16    3 weeks ago
Why is it ok for our top executives to pressure other countries into investigating their political rivals.

I presume Obama doing it is satisfactory.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.25  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.20    3 weeks ago

Of course it can be pressure, if for nothing else than getting access to the top office.

If allowed to do this, now the next Dem president can run to other countries and ask them to investigate their rep rivals.

Is this really a road some want to defend and throw the gauntlet down on...

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.26  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.24    3 weeks ago

So Obama is running around trying to pressure other countries to investigate trump? News to me.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.27  lady in black  replied to  Ender @6.1.26    3 weeks ago

Whataboutism at it's finest

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.28  igknorantzrulz  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.11    3 weeks ago

i totally get where your coming from on the GOP, but, sooner or later, imho, they are going to be forced to actually decide , if they wish to continue to put their traitorous party above our Country.

.

i for see more rats jumping ship.

i believe there will be other whistle blowers as well.

Some peoples consciences are going to eventually become too loud.

and last, when they see even his most ignorant fevered defenders, defending the indefensible, they are going to realize, the GOP is self destructing, and deservedly so, after ignoring the criminal in the WH.

If they don't remove him, i see a ridiculous Democratic wave come 2020  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.29  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @6.1.15    3 weeks ago

Yeah, but the Democrats only managed to win control of the House. They did not win the whole enchilada because they because they failed to win the Senate.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.30  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.23    3 weeks ago
Would a Steele 'dossier" be preferable?

Constantly looking in the rear-view mirror lead to ignoring the hazards that lie ahead and eventually careening off the road. 

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.31  lady in black  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.29    3 weeks ago

A win is a win is a win

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.32  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @6.1.26    3 weeks ago
Lutsenko told me he was stunned when the ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The list included a founder of the AntAC group and two members of Parliament who vocally supported the group’s anti-corruption reform agenda, according to a source directly familiar with the meeting.
It turns out the group that Ukrainian law enforcement was probing was co-funded by the Obama administration and liberal mega-donor George Soros. And it was collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine.
The implied message to Ukraine’s prosecutors was clear: Don’t target AntAC in the middle of an America presidential election in which Soros was backing Hillary Clinton to succeed another Soros favorite, Barack Obama, Ukrainian officials said.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016

Ukraine was heavily involved in the 2016 election with Obama's blessing.  

His FBI and CIA where happy to comply.  

All this will be reported soon from current investigations.  You do know that is what the continuing shit shows from Democrats is all about?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.32    3 weeks ago

You are regurgitating conspiracy theories. John Solomon is a crackpot. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.34  r.t..b...  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.28    3 weeks ago
the GOP is self destructing

The GOP, so beloved by my late father, cast their lot in backing their 2016 candidate, albeit one they could not believe became their standard-bearer. The death knell was rung with their incessant, purely partisan efforts to excuse his behavior in the constant castigation of previous candidates and administrations. Effective governance takes much more than to be mired in the 'swampy' politics of retribution. We'll see what rises from the muck, but it will look much different than the party we see today if they are to remain relevant. Dad would be disappointed. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.35  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.32    3 weeks ago

BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.33    3 weeks ago

I just skimmed through about 50 links for the story that the embassy pressured Ukraine to not go after a Soros related group. 

Every one of those 50 links was to a far right source, many of them crackpot sources. 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=lutsenko+soros&PC=U316&first=1&FORM=PERE

comment restored, direct rebuttal to comment which was not flagged as off topic (6.1.32)

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.37  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.33    3 weeks ago

That whole thing was just a piece on Soros controlling the world.

comment restored, Soros introduced in 6.1.32 which was not flagged as off topic.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.38  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @6.1.35    3 weeks ago
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

Are you saying he is lying?

The Hill very liberal.

I guess if he wrote for CNN or MSNBC's it would be true!

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.39  Ender  replied to  Ender @6.1.37    3 weeks ago

So it is now off topic to talk about an article someone linked, yet let the article remain.

Bullshit.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.40  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.38    3 weeks ago
The Hill very liberal

Uh, no. Butt thanks for the laugh.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.41  Split Personality  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.38    3 weeks ago

The Hill is slightly liberal.

John Solomon is very conservative.  So much so that the regular staff at The Hill almost mutinied.

While he has won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism, he has also been accused of magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy.

...

In January 2018, it was reported that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon's reporting for the publication. [21] [22] [23] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon's reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill 's reputation. [21] [22] They also expressed concerns over Solomon's close relationship with Sean Hannity , whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months. [21] In May 2018, the editor-in-chief of The Hill announced that Solomon would become an "opinion contributor" at The Hill while remaining executive vice president of digital video.

wiki
 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.42  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.41    3 weeks ago

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked-memo-colleagues-unload-on-john-solomon-the-reporter-who-kicked-off-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy

Leaked Memo: Colleagues Unload on John Solomon, the Journo Who Kicked Off Trump’s Ukraine Conspiracy

SEPTEMBER 28, 2019

Beltway-centric newspaper   The Hill   employs a team of dozens of journalists from a variety of backgrounds. But only one has managed to alienate many of his colleagues, fuel the paranoia of Fox News viewers, and inadvertently play a key role in the whistleblower complaint and President Donald Trump’s potential impeachment.

Over the past several years, John Solomon, a long-time journalist with bylines at the   Washington Post , the Associated Press, and Newsweek/The Daily Beast, has pivoted to becoming the Trumpian right’s favorite “investigative reporter.”

And now, thanks to several mentions in the whistleblower’s complaint, his work has come under intense scrutiny following the revelation that a series of his stories about Ukraine, along with his Fox News appearances promoting them, may have led to the president asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to team up with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate the Biden family.

Over the past several months, and with the benefit of substantial airtime from Fox News primetime host Sean Hannity, Solomon has peddled a series of Ukraine-based conspiracy theories and allegations that have primarily taken aim at two of Trumpworld’s biggest targets: Biden and Hillary Clinton.

In the process, his questionable reporting, which often seems specifically tailored to stoke the flames of right-wing paranoia, has enraged many of his colleagues at   The Hill   who have for years seen his tactics and reporting as overtly ideological, convoluted, and often lacking in crucial context.

“He’s a lightning rod of anxiety for us,” one   Hill   insider told The Daily Beast.

Hired away from now-defunct news site Circa in 2017 to help launch   The Hill ’s over-the-top streaming service Hill TV, Solomon split his time between digital video strategy and running his own one-man conservative investigative unit, pumping out stories destined for Hannity’s show and—inevitably—the eyes of the president.

Before pivoting to Ukraine conspiracy theories, Solomon wrote a series of stories heavily suggesting the Department of Justice covered up a quid pro quo between Clinton and Russia during the approval of the Uranium One deal—a debunked scandal that nevertheless provided ammo for Trumpworld’s long-running narrative that the “real Russia scandal” centered on Clinton and the Obama administration. He also published an “exclusive” story saying that several women who accused Trump of sexual harassment sought payments from tabloid news outlets for exclusive rights to their stories as well as financial support from partisan donors.

While both questionable-at-best stories received the usual conservative media plaudits, Solomon’s reporting rankled colleagues and reportedly caused consternation among   Hill   middle management.

The Washington Post   reported   that more than a dozen staffers wrote a memo specifically criticizing Solomon’s handling of the story about Trump’s alleged harassment victims, which they said omitted the important context that seeking donor support is neither a new practice nor is it unique to one political party. The staffers also expressed dismay about other stories, including the Uranium One deal, and noted that Solomon’s work often negatively colored the way some important sources viewed engaging with   The Hill .

“I am disturbed that a reporter at a purportedly non-partisan publication is pumping out pieces that appear to be heavily slanted towards one side of the ideological spectrum, and I am especially disturbed that these stories appear to be repeatedly leaked to a close informal adviser of President Trump (Sean Hannity) ahead of their publication,” one staffer wrote, according to a copy of the 2018 memo obtained this week by The Daily Beast. “It is difficult to see myself having a future at this company if it continues to prioritize heavily-slanted reporting that appears to be designed to curry favor with one side of the aisle.”

As a result of the memo,   Hill   management tried to simultaneously assuage internal concerns and tamp down any perception of internal strife. Editors eventually sent around a social-media policy memo unsubtly warning staffers against publicly criticizing colleagues or talking about internal matters to outside media.

But the company also tried in earnest to quell tension in the ranks, instituting a parental leave program—which staff had been seeking for months—and, in a victory for the paper’s reporting staff, labeling Solomon’s stories as “opinion” pieces. (Hannity, of course, has   continued to hype   Solomon as an “investigative reporter,” despite   The Hill ’s clarification.)

And yet even with his own employer openly downplaying the “reporting” aspect of his work, Solomon emerged this year as a key figure in jump-starting Team Trump’s Ukraine-Biden narrative that may now lead to impeachment.

In Solomon’s   March 20 interview   with Yuriy Lutsenko, the then-Ukrainian prosecutor general made a series of wild claims, including accusing Biden of pressuring the then-Ukrainian president in 2016 to fire the country’s top prosecutor—at the time, Viktor Shokin—to squash an investigation into a Ukrainian gas company connected to Hunter Biden. (Lutsenko would   later retract   some of the claims made to Solomon, eventually   walking back   his claims of wrongdoing by the Bidens, ultimately   concluding : “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws.”)

This specific interview with Solomon was featured in a U.S. government whistleblower’s complaint as one of the key circumstances that eventually led to Trump’s now-infamous request on a July 25 call with the Ukrainian president. Solomon also promoted the interview and its unfounded claims on Hannity’s show later that evening, prompting an approving tweet from the president.

Giuliani, meanwhile, had already met with Lutsenko twice by the time of the interview, in January and February 2019, according to the complaint. And following his Lutsenko chat, Solomon   published a piece   on April 1 claiming the investigation into the Biden-connected energy company had been revived—“Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare,” as Solomon blared.

That article, too, was referenced in the whistleblower’s complaint.

Besides reporting that Shokin claimed he “had made specific plans” to investigate the company’s board, “including Hunter Biden,” Solomon claimed that part of the probe was “reopened in 2018” and Lutsenko was now looking to share information with U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

Following the piece, Hannity and several of his Fox News colleagues ran wild with the story, with multiple on-air segments on it over the following days, including an April 3 broadcast in which Hannity declared that Solomon had caught Biden in an “international corruption scandal.”

And on the same day that Biden officially launched his presidential campaign,   Hannity interviewed   both Solomon and President Trump on his program. During that April 25 broadcast, Hannity cited Solomon’s reporting to claim Ukraine had evidence that Biden was “bragging about having gotten [the prosecutor] fired using American money” while Solomon said the prosecutor was actively investigating the junior Biden at the time. (The investigation into Burisma, the energy company, had long been dormant.)

Trump, meanwhile, said that Lutsenko’s “incredible” and “big” allegations laid out by Solomon—that Ukrainian officials leaked information on Paul Manafort to help Clinton—was something he “would imagine” Barr would want to look into. This was also highlighted in the whistleblower’s complaint.

Solomon’s connection to the Ukraine scandal re-opened old wounds at   The Hill , particularly among staffers who have long been troubled by Solomon’s reporting.

Following the Thursday release of the whistleblower’s complaint, many staffers privately grumbled about the fact that, although Solomon’s pieces were now edited by the site’s opinion editor, they were styled after regular news stories and were also occasionally reviewed by top news editors before they went live.

Earlier this month, Solomon announced that he will leave   The Hill   to create his own start-up media firm. In an email to staff obtained by The Daily Beast, he seemed to attempt to quash any suggestion that his departure was related to his reporting problems, saying that he had agreed with   Hill   CEO Jimmy Finkelstein months ago that he would depart but stay on as a consultant for Hill TV.

In a statement, a Hill spokesperson relayed that “Mr. Finkelstein says John Solomon’s has done excellent work for The Hill and wishes him success with his new media venture.”

And despite Solomon’s imminent exit, several   Hill   insiders told The Daily Beast that some staffers have discussed whether they should raise the Ukraine issue to management, or even issue a public response, noting how the whistleblower complaint had brought negative attention to the company and its reporters.

“This is the most press Hill TV has gotten,” one staffer quipped, expressing exasperation with Solomon.

On Thursday afternoon, Solomon responded on Twitter to being named in the whistleblower’s complaint, saying he stands “100 percent” by his “completely accurate and transparent” stories.

“So I'm fast at work writing my next column and will strive to make it as accurate and transparent as my past work,” he added. “As that work documented, the people and leaders of Ukraine have been trying to send a loud message to America about the conduct of our government.”

Solomon appeared on Hannity’s show on Thursday night to promote   his latest piece   for the outlet he will soon leave. (The article was essentially a recap of his previous columns packaged as a brand-new bombshell on the Biden-Ukraine ties.)

Somewhat acknowledging his omnipresence throughout the complaint, Solomon defended his work to Hannity’s viewers, claiming he’d gathered hundreds of pages of “once-secret memos” over the past 18 months that put Biden’s story in doubt, calling on the ex-veep to put out his own documents to challenge his work.

“Where are Joe Biden’s documents? Let’s put forth the proof that they really thought this guy had the evidence—he has not done that.”

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.43  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.42    3 weeks ago

I doubt The Hill will rehire Solomon when his contract runs out, unless they wanted to be known as a joke news source like Fox News or Breitbart. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.44  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.43    3 weeks ago

Oh I see he is leaving to start his own site. Look out Alex Jones, you have competition coming. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.45  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @6.1.6    3 weeks ago

True, but no one says they have to convict.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1.46  Ronin2  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.30    3 weeks ago

And those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.47  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.4    3 weeks ago
This 'president' has an obvious history of contacting many foreign government leaders for 'favors'jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif
 
 
 
WallyW
6.1.48  WallyW  replied to  lady in black @6.1    3 weeks ago
I guess you forgot the mid terms where we took back the house, but I guess that doesn't count

No guarantee you'll keep it, considering the actions of the Democrats the last three years.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.49  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.42    3 weeks ago

Nice hit piece.

What does this have to do with the article I posted?

If you don't agree with the article, then debunk it instead of trying to smear the author.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.50  Sunshine  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.41    3 weeks ago

Liberals complaining about a conservative....shocker!

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.51  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.28    3 weeks ago
'i totally get where your coming from on the GOP, but, sooner or later, imho, they are going to be forced to actually decide , if they wish to continue to put their traitorous party above our Country.

.

i for see more rats jumping ship.

i believe there will be other whistle blowers as well.

Some peoples consciences are going to eventually too loud.

and last, when they see even his most ignorant fevered defenders, defending the indefensible, they are going to realize, the GOP is self destructing, and deservedly so, after ignoring the criminal in the WH.

If they don't remove him, i see a ridiculous Democratic wave come 2020'

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

I think the floodgates have finally been opened and now that we have this first whistle blower, other whistle blowers can be more confident in coming forward.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.52  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.51    3 weeks ago
other whistle blowers can be more confident in coming forward.'

"Whistlers" have been "Blowing" about Trump since 2016 !

Trumps STILL President !!!! jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.53  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.46    3 weeks ago
'And those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.'

How original and profound.  

 
 
 
WallyW
6.1.54  WallyW  replied to  lady in black @6.1.15    3 weeks ago
I guess you forgot we won the house, but you don't think it counts...why doesn't it count.

What useful thing has the House majority accomplished?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.55  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @6.1.31    3 weeks ago

But not the big one they expected.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

This entire seed and its premise is borderline ludicrous.  The author Gregg Jarrett is a conspiracy theorist whose premise for his book is that a "deep state" conspiracy tried to take down Trump over "Russia". Of course this individual is going to think it is hunky dory for President* Trump to have a fishing expedition in a foreign country against his political rivals. 

Not to be taken seriously. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago
The author Gregg Jarrett

Is a well educated attorney that has been proved correct numerous times as he separates emotional diatribes from legal briefs.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    3 weeks ago

I dont care if he's Albert Einstein III.

He has a book and columns that have the premise that Trump was the victim of a deep state conspiracy. Obviously he believes it is ok for Trump to demand an investigation about these things. 

It would be hard to find a more biased figure than Jarrett. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
I dont care

You could have stopped right there.  But I know factual information has never stopped you before, so you simply proved my belief.

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
7.1.3  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
It would be hard to find a more biased figure than Jarrett

We have one here on NT, you!!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

By the way, Politifact has evaluated 64 of Gregg Jarrett's statements. Only 17 out of the 64 have been rated as TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE. 

In other words he tells the truth appx once out of every four statements. 

https://www.politifact.com/search/statement/?q=gregg%20jarrett&page=1

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
7.1.6  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

Stormy!    Kavanaugh!  Golf Score!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago

SHOOT that messenger!!!!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago
Of course this individual is going to think it is hunky dory for President* Trump to have a fishing expedition in a foreign country against his political rivals.

Damn....   that's rich coming from someone who was proclaiming that the RUSSIA hoax perpetrated by the DNC and Clinton was all aboveboard and legit.

 
 
 
lib50
7.3.1  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @7.3    3 weeks ago
RUSSIA hoax

I don't know how to deal with someone who believes what they want regardless of facts.  You are pushing a false narrative that Russia didn't try to get Trump elected and actively worked to do it. Mueller's report is not what Trump says (which you are repeating).   Trump is pushing rightwing conspiracy theories, which are total bullshit, to quote the puppet.  Russia did help elect Trump and he wants them to continue, and add more foreign countries. 

 
 
 
MUVA
7.3.2  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @7.3.1    3 weeks ago

You have not stated one fact only the opinion of a Trump hater.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.3.3  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @7.3.1    3 weeks ago
You are pushing a false narrative that Russia didn't try to get Trump elected and actively worked to do it

I never said that did I?  Can you show me explicitly where I did?   

I have no doubt that Russia (and others) worked feverishly trying to disrupt and influence our election(s), and will continue to do so, much like we do the same.  However, what I am saying is that Donald Trump did not collude with any foreign government, organization or individual, which the DNC and Clinton operation actually did.

So, if another pays someone to do something which is illegal, can we now surmise that if you're blamed for it, you will accept that accusation and go away, even when you know it wasn't you who did it?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago

Of course you would think that as Jarrett is not the card carrying progressive leftist liberal you demand to give you what you want to hear!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.4    3 weeks ago

Someone who wrote a book claiming Trump is the victim of a deep state "coup" attempt is not a fair decider of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are in this instance.  Sorry to burst your bubble. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago

I forgot which one of tRump's suck ups and kiss asses trotted out that 'Deep State' bullshit the other day.  jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
8  lady in black    3 weeks ago

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-diplomat-ukraine-crazy-withhold-security-sasistance-political/story?id=66039011&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed

'Crazy To Withhold Security Assistance' To Ukraine For Political Campaign: Top US Diplomat

In newly disclosed text messages shared with Congress, the top U.S. diplomat to    Ukraine    at the time writes to a group of other American diplomats that "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

The exchange, provided by former U.S Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker as part of his closed-door deposition before multiple House committees Thursday, shows what appears to be encrypted text messages he exchanged with two other American diplomats in September regarding aid money President    Donald Trump    ordered to be held back from Ukraine.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lady in black @8    3 weeks ago

From your source................

" "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensk'y promised during his campaign," Sondland says."

Sounds like the "crazy to......." statement was taken out of the full context and even then the rest of the "conversation" wasn't available. And ignorantzruz called ME out for parsing words?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

Oh, my, what a pickle the Democrats are in.  It would be political suicide for them to back away from this now.  Of course their simple majority in the House will get it passed there, but there is no doubt, is there, that the Senate would revoke it.  So it is merely an exercise that will strengthen the resolve of those who support Trump, most likely win over fair-minded indies who will apply a penalty to the Democrats for their useless wasteful and incompetent effort by voting for Trump, and there are more reasons than this for voters who normally vote for Democrats to sit home instead. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    3 weeks ago
most likely win over fair-minded indies who will apply a penalty to the Democrats for their useless wasteful and incompetent effort by voting for Trump, and there are more reasons than this for voters who normally vote for Democrats to sit home instead. 

Trump asked yesterday for China to help him win the election by conducting an investigation of Biden, and then you show up with this .   Who says there's no collusion? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    3 weeks ago
Trump asked yesterday for China

Bullshit!! Debunked yesterday in many places. He never asked China. He said "they should" merely a suggestion. Retire the BS talking point. It doesn't make you look very good.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

If he had just thought it and not expressed it, you would have a point. You don't. 

What is the practical difference between an "ask" and a suggestion?  Nothing. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    3 weeks ago

320

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    3 weeks ago

Did you forget the Blue Wave in 2018.  No Democrats are sitting home on their asses come election time you can bet your ass.  My ass will be out voting and it will be another BLUE WAVE.

I don't care for some of the candidates, especially Gabbard and Sanders (possibly, hopefully Bernie will drop out due to heart issues, he really needs to give it up).  But if they do turn out to be the nominee, I will hold my  nose and vote for them.

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO

WHETHER THE 'PRESIDENT' TURD IS IMPEACHED OR NOT, WE WILL VOTE BLUE.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @9.2    3 weeks ago

I believe the circumstances are different from 2018.  First of all, now there is "The Squad" that will turn off rather than encourage voters, and secondly, I don't think that any Democrat candidate has the charisma to beat Trump.  Don't think I am a Trump supporter - although I agree with what he has done for Israel (so far) I have reasons to disagree with almost everything else about him.  I also stick with my opinion in my previous comment.

 
 
 
WallyW
9.2.2  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @9.2    3 weeks ago
WE WILL VOTE BLUE.  

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OF YOU TO BEAT TRUMP.

WE'VE SUCCEEDED IN GETTING RID OF BIDEN

OLD SCOLD AUNNTY LIZ IS TOO EXTREME FOR AMERICA

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.2.1    3 weeks ago

Your belief, your opinion.  I BEG TO DIFFER.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @9.2.2    3 weeks ago

Don't bet on it Wally.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @9.2    3 weeks ago
My ass will be out voting and it will be another BLUE WAVE.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Is that like the blue wave rotating the toilet bowl?

 
 
 
WallyW
9.3  WallyW  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    3 weeks ago

That's it wrapped up in a nutshell, Buzz.....

and that's exactly what's going to happen.

 
 
 
lady in black
10  lady in black    3 weeks ago

71758877_2728780573879605_76009436053053

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @10    3 weeks ago

That's fantastic lady!

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.2  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @10    3 weeks ago

Ok...   even I have to admit that's cute.

Bullshit, but it is cute.

 
 
 
PJ
11  PJ    3 weeks ago

We are watching in real time Trump and his supporters stage a coup against the Constitution and our republic.  The country is imploding within.

This is a turning point in our country.  We are changed forever.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @11    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  PJ @11    3 weeks ago
This is a turning point in our country.  We are changed forever.

that is a fact. we are done with the lefts BS

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2    3 weeks ago

The gop are dead and burying themselves.

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
PJ
11.2.2  PJ  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
11.3  Sunshine  replied to  PJ @11    3 weeks ago
stage a coup

lol...oh my.

 
 
 
WallyW
11.4  WallyW  replied to  PJ @11    3 weeks ago
We are changed forever.

Yep, the Democrats have pretty much succeeded in committing political suicide

 
 
 
PJ
11.4.1  PJ  replied to  WallyW @11.4    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.5  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @11    3 weeks ago
stage a coup against the Constitution and our republic

Actually, that would be the Democrats and their minions working withing the federal government.

Fortunately, they are being discovered and removed as quickly as possible.

 
 
 
PJ
11.5.1  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @11.5    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.5.2  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @11.5.1    3 weeks ago
removed for context

Really?  Explain exactly how so.   

Hell, even Nancy Pelosi is trying to usurp the Constitution with her personal "Impeachment Inquiry".  The Constitution calls for CONGRESS to initiate impeachment, the speaker of the house is nothing but a simply member of congress and not representative of the entire congress.  However, if the vote was held, she knows that would also give Republicans subpoena power, and the ability to call witnesses themselves and a slew of other 'benefits' they're currently being denied.

As to the minions working within the federal government, I give you McCabe, Strock, and too many others to list.

 
 
 
PJ
11.5.3  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @11.5.2    3 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.5.4  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @11.5.3    3 weeks ago
No

Thanks for playing!!

 
 
 
PJ
11.5.5  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @11.5.4    3 weeks ago

You're welcome.  Any other day I'd be willing but I'm off today so I don't have to write to a 4 - 6 reading level.  jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.6  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @11    3 weeks ago

Let me try again. 

I'm glad you included some of the supporters PJ.   They are the key to the entire thing.  Without blind support from some of his followers who laugh and applaud when Trump calls on foreign countries to meddle in our election he wouldnt have the political leeway to do it. Some of his supporters are completely complicit. 

 
 
 
PJ
11.6.1  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @11.6    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
12  It Is ME    3 weeks ago

Democrats wanted to "Impeach" Trump, just based on an election result. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

Bring it to a "Vote" in the House …… NANCY ! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
PJ
12.1  PJ  replied to  It Is ME @12    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  PJ @12.1    3 weeks ago
removed for context

It's actually been on the "News" for a few years now. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

The "News" has never said anything about "Republicans" on this matter ! 

 
 
 
PJ
12.1.2  PJ  replied to  It Is ME @12.1.1    3 weeks ago

So what.  I have no idea what your comment means.  I'm actually embarrassed for you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  PJ @12.1.2    3 weeks ago
I have no idea what your comment means.

I know ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
12.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @12.1.3    3 weeks ago

shes stating your comment is meaningless

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1.4    3 weeks ago
shes stating your comment is meaningless

Did she? tell you so ?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

dave-2693993
Heartland American
loki12
Paula Bartholomew
Dignitatem Societatis


101 visitors