2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney

  
Via:  ender  •  2 months ago  •  187 comments

2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the whistleblower   who sounded the alarm   on President Donald Trump's   dealings with   Ukraine   and   triggered an impeachment   inquiry, tells ABC News   that he is now representing   a second whistleblower   who has spoken with   the inspector general.

Zaid tells ABC News' Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that the second person -- also described as an intelligence official -- has first-hand knowledge of   some of the allegations   outlined in the original complaint and has been interviewed by the head of the intelligence community's internal watchdog office, Michael Atkinson.

The existence of a second whistleblower -- particularly one who can  speak directly about  events involving the president related to conversations involving Ukraine -- could undercut  Trump's repeated insistence  that the original complaint, released on Sept. 26, was "totally inaccurate."

That original seven-page   complaint alleged that   Trump pushed a foreign power to   investigate his political rival , Joe Biden, and Biden's son, Hunter, and that unnamed senior White House officials then tried to "lock down" all records of the phone call.

"This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call," the first whistleblower stated, in a complaint filed Aug. 12.

Zaid says both officials   have full protection   of the law intended to protect whistleblowers from being fired in retaliation. While this second official has spoken with the IG -- the internal watchdog office created to handle complaints -- this person has not communicated yet with the congressional   committees conducting the   investigation.

The New York Times on Friday cited anonymous sources in reporting that a second intelligence official was weighing whether to file his own formal complaint and testify to Congress. Zaid says he does not know if the second whistleblower he represents is the person identified in the Times report.

Zaid’s co-counsel, Andrew Bakaj, confirmed in a tweet Sunday that the firm is representing "multiple whistleblowers." Zaid later confirmed in a   tweet   that two are being represented by their legal team.

According to the first whistleblower, more than a half a dozen U.S. officials have information relevant to the investigation -- suggesting the probe could widen even further.

A transcript released by the White House of Trump's July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy showed Trump asking a "favor" of the foreign leader and pushing him to launch an investigation into the Biden family. Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukraine energy company while his father Vice President Biden led policy on Ukraine during the Obama administration, leading some to question whether there was a conflict of interest or impropriety.

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son," Trump told Zelenskiy at one point, offering the assistance of his attorney general. He later adds "a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great."

The White House cautioned that the transcript was not verbatim.

Text   messages later obtained by   Congress showed top U.S. diplomats dangling the possibility of a summit of the two leaders in Washington on the condition that Ukraine agrees to announce an investigation. The Ukraine government never did. The text messages were provided in congressional testimony last week by one of the diplomats,   Kurt Volker , who has since resigned.

It is illegal for anyone to receive something of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election, according to the Federal Election Commission. While it is not immediately clear whether Trump or other U.S. officials broke the law in its handling of Ukraine, that might not matter. The Constitution allows for Congress to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing, calling the phone call "perfect."

"Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called "Whistleblower," represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way," Trump tweeted Sept. 29.

The White House had no comment.

From ABC news via MSN

Photo: © The Washington Post via Getty Images, FILE  National security lawyer Mark Zaid is photographed at his home in the Washington, D.C. area, July 20, 2016.

Video in link


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Ender
1  seeder  Ender    2 months ago

So this man has first hand knowledge.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @1    2 months ago

Yea, but Trump supporters will just wash that hand

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @1    2 months ago

It won't be first hand, and it will be fake.

And it won't matter because no one who matters, meaning most decent citizens and likely voters....

are weary of these political games and don't give a shyt and will tune it out like all the rest of this left wing stupidity.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 months ago
It won't be first hand, and it will be fake.

You of course have proof to back that up, right? 

are weary of these political games and don't give a shyt and will tune it out like all the rest of this left wing stupidity.

Right, I am sure if Obama had done the exact same thing, that's what you would say. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.2  dennis smith  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 months ago

The do nothing Dems keep trotting out what they "think" will be the end of Trump.

Stormy Daniels, Robert Mueller, a whistle blower without 1st hand knowledge, now they are trying to present a 2nd whistle blower who also does not have 1st hand knowledge.

The public has grown tired of the polispeak from the left and is looking forward to DC getting things the public cares about done.

Another nail in their coffin if they don't do the peoples bidding instead of continuing their tired agenda of trying to get rid of Trump.

We have heard the same rhetoric for almost 3 years.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.2    2 months ago
Stormy Daniels, Robert Mueller, a whistle blower without 1st hand knowledge, now they are trying to present a 2nd whistle blower who also does not have 1st hand knowledge.

yea, repubs would have let a Stormy Daniels slide on Obama after impeaching Clinton over lying about a BJ...

and the whistle blower DIDhave some first hand

and the second is claimed to have 

much FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE

that you just don't want to hear here, or there, or anywhere

 
 
 
bugsy
2  bugsy    2 months ago

IMHO, all this does is ensure the bases are covered where they messed up the first time. There really is no need to announce they went to the IG first if they had done it correctly the first time, nor did they need to announce this person has first hand knowledge. They did this to appease the left wing base to have them continue the impeachment chant. I wonder which Congressman helped him with his compaint. Can't be Schiff since he is ass deep in his own problems with coaching "witnesses". .

The second whistleblower will summarily be dismissed because of the far left ties his lawyers have, specifically with whistleblowers unite. This group has been going around DC coaching and recruiting people to go against the President shortly after the inauguration, and are funded by left wing organizations. 

My guess is if Pelosi continues with this farce, the Senate will begin their own investigation, including, as Lindsay Graham has said, to have these "whistleblowers" testify in public.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  bugsy @2    2 months ago

I swear. One could have all the evidence in the world, have a trial with everything laid out, trump thrown in jail yet some of you would still call it a conspiracy and proclaim his innocence.

Just once I would like some on the right to take a long hard look at what they are defending.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @2.1    2 months ago

The embarrassment that Trump and his supporters are inflicting on this country with their nonsensical "defenses" of his behavior is off the charts. 

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Ender @2.1    2 months ago

Where did I call it a conspiracy?

You see, I am not a liberal, thankfully. I did not scream IMPEACH without even seeing the transcript of the conversation in question, as most liberals, and more importantly, Pelosi did. Hell, liberals have been screaming IMPEACH while Trump was riding the escalator to announce his candidacy.

I have been waiting for some facts to come out, and now that the FULL transcript, and the first "whistleblower's" complaint has been released, there is no there there. In addition, knowing that Schiff staff, and very possibly Schiff himself, talked to the whistleblower before he went to the IG, it reeks of setup. That's why the lawyer for this second person made it clear they went to the IG first. They want to make sure the base knows they did not make the same mistake again.

The lawyer's ties to left wing organizations do not help the case. Why can't these people go to a neutral law firm where they won't be critiqued for their leanings?

Again, IMHO, this circus is nothing more than an attempt to take attention from the soon to be released IG report of the beginnings of the Russia hoax and Durham's investigation. Not to mention Barr is overseas collecting information for his investigations that closely relate to the others mentioned.

Also, most freshmen democrats ran on one thing...to impeach Trump. Pelosi has no choice but to go through with it because she knows many of her caucus will be in trouble if they did not. That's also why she will not call for a full vote before proceding with the inquiry, They are also desperately trying to get heat off Biden for his admitting on tape he threatened the Ukranian president with withholding US funds until he fired the prosecutor looking into the company his son "coincidentally" was on the board of and raking in millions with zero knowledge of oil and energy....while his dad was VP.

Democrats know this will be ugly for them when these reports come out, and they are doing everything they can to get the heat off them before it comes.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @2.1.2    2 months ago
The lawyer's ties to left wing organizations do not help the case. Why can't these people go to a neutral law firm where they won't be critiqued for their leanings?

So, one must go to a "neutral" neutered lawyer that practices slip and fall cases, and not a 

Practice that is a Specialized Firm, in Whistleblower cases...?

WTF AGAIN !

Do YOU realize this is a free country where ALL can Vote their own beliefs on WHO might best make America Great for THEM !

.

ewe peeple R sheeple, that would deny any and all evidence as to the nature of an actual reality, slipped right past your openly shut closed minds

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.4  seeder  Ender  replied to  bugsy @2.1.2    2 months ago

wow. A bunch of crap written right there.

Name me one Liberal that screamed impeach when he was coming down the elevator...

Bunch of convoluted bull.

I actually have an article I am going to post about Barr and his bullshit investigation. He has not even once interviewed any of the people involved. He is in cahoots with Durham in running around the world trying to discredit our own intelligence agencies and dig up dirt.

Despicable.

The only thing you have managed to say is it is all a conspiracy. Everyone is only out to get trump because they hate him.

I got a deal for you...from now on, anyone running for office can fly to another country and work with them on taking down an opponent. The next Dem president can use any country they want and withhold aid until they start an investigation.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.5  lady in black  replied to  bugsy @2.1.2    2 months ago

When one wants the best litigator one does not care about their politics.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @2.1    2 months ago

Just once I would like some on the right to take a long hard look at what they are defending.

You'll apparently believe anything if it negatively impacts Trump. The rest of us need a hard look at all the incriminating evidence.

It's the same phucking phone call, and another liar coming forward won't make a difference.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Ender @2.1.4    2 months ago
The only thing you have managed to say is it is all a conspiracy

Where did I say conspiracy ANYWHERE in my posts? I didn't. Stop making up crap.

"The next Dem president can use any country they want and withhold aid until they start an investigation."

Or maybe a sitting Vice President can threaten a president of another country with withholding US funds unless that president fires a prosecutor investigating a company the VP's son "coincidentally" sits on that company's board. In fact maybe the VP can demand a time line of how long the president has to fire the prosecutor before said funds will no longer be available.

Maybe, just maybe, that president will follow through by accepting the deal of the VP. Of course, that would be an outright quid pro quo.

Wait a minute...that's already happened, but you wouldn't know it by how democrats and liberals are trying desperately to take the attention off that VP, and the liberal media is dutifully abiding by the democrat wants.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.6    2 months ago
another liar coming forward won't make a difference.

You have called the person a liar before you even know what they have to say jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.9  bugsy  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 months ago
one does not care about their politics.

Riiiigghht....

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.10  PJ  replied to  Ender @2.1    2 months ago
Just once I would like some on the right to take a long hard look at what they are defending.

That is never going to happen.  They have created this monster and to disavow their creation would be to disavow who they are and what they believe in.   He is a reflection of them. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @2.1.7    2 months ago
Or maybe a sitting Vice President can threaten a president of another country with withholding US funds unless that president fires a prosecutor investigating a company the VP's son "coincidentally" sits on that company's board

You are regurgitating lies. 

[Deleted]

Biden never said he was withholding funding from Ukraine until a prosecutor who was investigating his son was fired.  There was no investigation going on. 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.12  seeder  Ender  replied to  bugsy @2.1.7    2 months ago

Alright, it was my conclusion of your post.

Sounds to me like a big smear Biden. I have done nothing wrong. It is all the Democrats trying to get me. I have my Attorney General and another investigative lawyer that are traveling the world to get evidence to show.....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.3    2 months ago

We have right wingers on this site engaging in constant misrepresentations of news stories, such as the ones on this seed. There is no point in responding to this crap and if it gets worse there will be no point in responding to anything here. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.14  KDMichigan  replied to  Ender @2.1    2 months ago
One could have all the evidence in the world,

What evidence? You have, I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another...

 have a trial with everything laid out,

Lay what out? What trial?  FFS the clown show hasn't even impeached him yet.

256

Just once I would like some on the right to take a long hard look at what they are defending.

It's nothing new, the triggered snowflakes on the left have been crying about President Trump since the day he was elected. Excuse me if I feel this is just more screaming at the sky. 

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.15  seeder  Ender  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.14    2 months ago

You really didn't understand my post, did you.

Eh, I prefer screaming in the night. Might be a Maryland thing.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.16  lady in black  replied to  bugsy @2.1.9    2 months ago

If I needed to hire the best litigator I could give 2 shits what their politics are.  

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.17  lady in black  replied to  PJ @2.1.10    2 months ago

And they are already excusing the lying pos Crooked donnie by saying he was was joking about asking China to investigate Biden

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.18  seeder  Ender  replied to  lady in black @2.1.16    2 months ago
If I needed to hire the best litigator I could give 2 shits what their politics are.

I would probably want to hire a republican.   Haha

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.19  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.11    2 months ago

Damn, I missed where you insulted me again. Sandy is quick.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.20  bugsy  replied to  lady in black @2.1.16    2 months ago
If I needed to hire the best litigator I could give 2 shits what their politics are.  

You would if you are trying to take down a politician you hate, and you need a lawyer with big ties to the party you favor.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.21  lady in black  replied to  bugsy @2.1.20    2 months ago

You're wrong.  I know many litigators and I could care less what their politics are so stop putting words in my mouth thank you.

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.22  PJ  replied to  lady in black @2.1.17    2 months ago

Yes, I caught that earlier.  They just don't seem to understand that by allowing this behavior it will only continue to happen and to escalate to far worse behavior.  A good example of the craziness getting out of control started when Trump declared all mexicans murderers and rapists which led to imprisoning asylum seekers, separating children from their families, children dying under Trump's care, confiscating citizen's land, planning to build moats with alligators and snakes, and shooting people as a possible option.  

These are some sick people that would support this type of immigration blueprint.   

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.23  lady in black  replied to  PJ @2.1.22    2 months ago

They have to bow down and kiss Crooked donnie's ass

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.24  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.2    2 months ago
Where did I call it a conspiracy?

How many times did you infer that 'they' did something for X reason? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.25  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.14    2 months ago
What evidence? You have, I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another...

So you missed Trump admitting it on live TV? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.26  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.19    2 months ago

Meta aren't personal insults. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.27  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @2.1.25    2 months ago

It’s interesting that you would suggest to anything Trump says is an impeachable offense when it has anything to do with calling out Democrats for their fukwadism. Starting to see a lot of similarities between Democrats in Congress and Joker.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.28  bugsy  replied to  PJ @2.1.22    2 months ago
Trump declared all mexicans murderers and rapists

Please... in exact quote, where did he say that? If you can't come up with an exact quote, the rest of your post is simply BS.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.29  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.24    2 months ago
How many times did you infer that 'they' did something for X reason? 

How many times did you infer Trump did X thing, and was wrong EVERY time?

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.30  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @2.1.2    2 months ago
looking into the company his son "coincidentally" was on the board of and raking in millions with zero knowledge of oil and energy....while his dad was VP.

It's a privately owned company, there is nothing illegal about making money working for a privately owned company in a foreign country. If it was, trump's kids would all be in jail right now. Also, Hunter biden isn't running for president, so it doesn't matter anyway. Why the right wing is making a big deal of this is anyone's guess. 

This is nothing more than trump's latest conspiracy theory. Is there even a shred of evidence that Biden OR his son did anything illegal in the Ukraine? No. I keep asking that question and I keep getting no answer answers. Joe Biden got a prosecutor fired because the prosecutor refused to prosecute corruption. Biden was acting in an official capacity with the backing of almost every ally we have. Trump on the other hand used the power of the presidency to get dirt on a political rival to serve his own personal reelection. To make it even worse? Trump claimed Biden was corrupt, but donny used corruption in an attempt to get dirt on Biden? The ONLY corruption in this entire story was trump. 

I also found it odd that this happened long before trump was even in office, yet it only became an issue 3 weeks after Biden decided to run for president? Is that all just some wild coincidence? Unlikely.

Yet again, trump floats a conspiracy theory and his base and the extremist right wing talk show hosts bend over backwards trying to spin it into truth. Hell, when trump said windmills cause cancer, there were talk radio hosts trying to tell people that they really did cause cancer. 

Also, most freshmen democrats ran on one thing...to impeach Trump. Pelosi has no choice but to go through with it because she knows many of her caucus will be in trouble if they did not. That's also why she will not call for a full vote before proceding with the inquiry,

If that's the platform they ran on, I sure didn't hear about it. Never even heard fox news suggest it. The right for the GOP to complain about trump's impeachment inquiry flew out the window when they decided to impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob. Trump used extortion to try to get the Ukraine to help him win a US presidential election and the GOP sees nothing wrong with it? It's ILLEGAL. If we are talking about severity of a crime, I am thinking lying about a blowjob comes in second to extortion of a foreign government to win an election every day of the week and twice on Sunday. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.31  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @2.1.29    2 months ago

How many times did you infer Trump did X thing, and was wrong EVERY time?

How many of trump's conspiracy theories have turned out to be true? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.1.27    2 months ago
It’s interesting that you would suggest to anything Trump says is an impeachable offense when it has anything to do with calling out Democrats for their fukwadism.

Not 'anything'. Just what he said to Ukraine and China. 

Starting to see a lot of similarities between Democrats in Congress and Joker.

I see a lot of similarities between Republicans in Congress and Toadwart.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.33  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.29    2 months ago

Whatabout...

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.34  dennis smith  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.3    2 months ago

Do YOU realize this is a free country where ALL can Vote their own beliefs on WHO might best make America Great for THEM !

Exactly what the people did in 2016.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.35  igknorantzrulz  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.34    2 months ago

After RUSSIA inserted its' 2 nonsense into our election process that Trump has yet to believe or address, or do much about.

You have been played  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @2    2 months ago

To date, WHAT HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG about what this Whistle blower did state ?, besides NOTHING

all after Trump declared it ALL fake news again, another left wing conspiracy witch that Dawg won 't  hunt, as 

Trump himself, proved the whistleblower Correct, but 

Trump Defenders just can't      Accept

.

There TRULY IS, something WRONG

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.1  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2    2 months ago

The whistleblower claimed Trump offered something in return for an investigation. That is a lie.

Speaking of accept....why haven't you accepted the results of the 2016 election yet?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @2.2.1    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2    2 months ago

This forum, and this country is being assaulted by constant and deliberate nonsense from Trump supporters. It is a travesty and really represents a crisis for our nation. 

Chuck Todd on Meet The Press had to get into an argument with a Republican US Senator today who wanted to gaslight the audience with conspiracy theories. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    2 months ago

Chucky did not fare well in that exchange. The only crisis is the one the left wing agitators are trying to start.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.5    2 months ago

A sitting US Senator came on a national network news show demanding the right to peddle conspiracy theories. 

We are reaching new lows.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.7  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.6    2 months ago

Are you afraid of the Obama administrations action's and use of Federal agencies to influence an election being investigated??

After all, we had to deal with the Democrat's conspiracy theories about Trump colluding with the Russians and obstructing justice.

Fair's fair.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.8  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    2 months ago
Are you afraid

What they are afraid of is the IG  and Durham's reports that will probably heavily scorch democrats, even maybe some in Congress.

They are doing everything they can to take away from the inevitable.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.9  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.2.1    2 months ago
The whistleblower claimed Trump offered something in return for an investigation. That is a lie.

NO he didn't bugsy. THAT is a lie. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.10  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    2 months ago
After all, we had to deal with the Democrat's conspiracy theories about Trump colluding with the Russians and obstructing justice.

I guess Breitbart and Infowars didn't bother telling you how many indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas that investigation resulted in. But screw our country, it's all about worshipping your orange god.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.11  MUVA  replied to  katrix @2.2.10    2 months ago

Trump wasn’t convicted of any crime you know that right?

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.12  JBB  replied to  MUVA @2.2.11    2 months ago

As President Trump cannot be prosecuted. Period. You know that, RIGHT? That is why he must be impeached. Because, no man is above the law...

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @2.2.11    2 months ago

Trump wasn’t convicted of any crime you know that right?

Fraud is a crime. Trump is a criminal. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.14  dennis smith  replied to  katrix @2.2.10    2 months ago

There is a certain ilk of people who think the Dems in DC walk on water.

 
 
 
Krishna
3  Krishna    2 months ago

Yet another whistle-blower will greatly lead to the impact of the statements of the first one.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1  bugsy  replied to  Krishna @3    2 months ago

Not really. The full transcript of the call has been released, and there is no there there.

What can a second person add to nothing?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.1    2 months ago

WHO told YOU that

there's approximately 15 to 20 minutes missing

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.2  Krishna  replied to  bugsy @3.1    2 months ago

Not really. The full transcript of the call has been released, and there is no there there.

That's a clear-cut case of FAKE NEWS!

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.3  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.1    2 months ago

You guys might want to go to John Russell and tell him your conspiracy theories. He swears no one has claimed that the transcript is not real. Guess you guys proved him wrong for me.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.1.3    2 months ago

[Deleted]

Where did N E body say the transcript wasn't real.

It has been ADMITtEDLY EDITED !   WTF yet again !

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.5  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.4    2 months ago
It has been ADMITtEDLY EDITED !   W

It has? Where? Show your proof. All that was said was it is a recollection of many of those on the call, a verbatim recollection. Nothing says it was edited.

Also, remember what we talked about your posts being coherent. Sketchy at best now.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.1.5    2 months ago

Also, remember what we talked about your posts being coherent. Sketchy at best now.

Well is this coherent enough   [deleted]

try something other than "news" that leaves you isolated from reality

.

Ain't got time to educate those who choose not to learn, or even recognize when they R WRONG AND YOU ARE WRONG YET AGAIN

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.7  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.6    2 months ago
removed for context

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.1    2 months ago

It's all been released and picked over. Go look for it and see for yourself

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    2 months ago
Not really. The full transcript of the call has been released, and there is no there there.

A 12 minute edited transcript of a 30 minute telephone conversation has been released. 

Trump himself has stated that there is an official full transcript, as ask yourself why he not only refuses to release it, but why is he hiding it on a server designated highly classified intelligence.

White House confirms Ukraine transcript was moved to highly classified system: report

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.9    2 months ago
Trump himself has stated that there is an official full transcript, as ask yourself why he not only refuses to release it, but why is he hiding it on a server designated highly classified intelligence.

Even if that were true, regardless of what you want to believe, there are things a President discusses with other world leaders that, well to put it mildly;

YOU HAVE NO FUCKING NEED TO KNOW.

See how simple that is?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.10    2 months ago
Even if that were true, regardless of what you want to believe, there are things a President discusses with other world leaders that, well to put it mildly; YOU HAVE NO FUCKING NEED TO KNOW.

Trouble is that THIS PHONE CALL WAS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING CLASSIFIED!!  Trump has claimed this was the full transcript, why didn't he say it was classified?  BECAUSE HE HAD A DOZEN OTHER PEOPLE, or more, LISTENING IN!!!

Your excuse is empty (smelly) air, NOBODY is claiming classified info on the phone call.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.11    2 months ago
BECAUSE HE HAD A DOZEN OTHER PEOPLE, or more, LISTENING IN!!!

And the "whistleblowers" that has filed a fraudulent complaint has admitted to having extensive work with a prominent CURRENT democratic politician. Why is that one the only one that has filed a complaint. If what you say he did is so bad, why haven't the other, almost dozen, people spoken up?

My guess is that politician is Schiff.

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.13  katrix  replied to  bugsy @3.1.12    2 months ago
And the "whistleblowers" that has filed a fraudulent complaint

Funny how many Trump supporters somehow believe that they have inside knowledge that nobody else has .. and then screech loudly about how poor Trump is being attacked with fraudulent complaints.

Why haven't the other people spoken up? Because many of them, like Pompeo, are assholes who put their orange god ahead of their country. It's a very good question and I'd think you'd be a little more upset about how many people spit on their oaths to toadie up to Trump. But then, patriotism doesn't seem to get more than lip service from those with TDS who worship Trump.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.14  bugsy  replied to  katrix @3.1.13    2 months ago

It's fraudulent because the person went to Schiff's staff, and more than likely, Schiff himself before he went to the IG. That is against the rules, and due to this person's position within the White House, they should have known that. By doing so, it makes the "complaintant" a "whistleblower" sketchy at best. I think they figured what they did would not be outed, and Schiff would protect them from that. Boy, they were wrong.

Your second paragraph is simply yet another "I hate Trump because he is not Hillary" tirade.

Means nothing in the scheme of things.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  katrix @3.1.13    2 months ago

wait a minute, what is the title of this seed again..?

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.8    2 months ago

It's all been released and picked over. Go look for it and see for yourself

The first WB report has been corroborated by trump, rudy and the call logs. It's that simple greg. Hell, even tucker carlson has admitted that. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.17  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @3.1.12    2 months ago
And the "whistleblowers" that has filed a fraudulent complaint

Prove it. Seriously, you don't even know who they are but you know it's fake? 

If what you say he did is so bad, why haven't the other, almost dozen, people spoken up?

Trump loyalists. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3.1.14    2 months ago
It's fraudulent because the person went to Schiff's staff, and more than likely, Schiff himself before he went to the IG.

And that person was told proper procedure for filing a complaint, which he did do.  You're grasping for anything.

That is against the rules, and due to this person's position within the White House, they should have known that.

Against YOUR rules maybe, but not everyone else's.  The problem is that nobody gives a crap about YOUR rules.

By doing so, it makes the "complaintant" a "whistleblower" sketchy at best

Why?  The facts outlined in the complaint match up with the evidence.

I think they figured what they did would not be outed, and Schiff would protect them from that. Boy, they were wrong.

Justice Department is protecting them as a whistle blower, not Schiff.  And boy are you wrong.....again.

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.19  katrix  replied to  bugsy @3.1.14    2 months ago
Your second paragraph is simply yet another "I hate Trump because he is not Hillary" tirade.

Bullshit. I've never been a Hillary fan. I've despised Trump for decades; he's always been a lying, bullying, narcissistic, cheating con man.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @3.1.14    2 months ago
Your second paragraph is simply yet another "I hate Trump because he is not Hillary" tirade.

Trump said that if I voted for Hillary, I would be voting for a president that is a corrupt liar that would be under investigation from day one.

He was right.

I voted for for Hillary and I got a president that is a corrupt liar that has been under investigation since day one. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.21  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.17    2 months ago
Prove it.

I did in 3.1.14. Apparently you missed it.

"Trump loyalists"

By that I am assuming you mean true Americans.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.22  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.18    2 months ago
And that person was told proper procedure for filing a complaint, which he did do.  You're grasping for anything.

After Schiff and his flunkies got the info they needed to begin a propaganda campaign long before the transcript or complaint came out.

"Against YOUR rules maybe, but not everyone else's.  The problem is that nobody gives a crap about YOUR rules."

There are set rules to file a whistleblower complaint. This democratic operative did not follow those established rules. It's obvious most liberals don't give a crap about established rules.

"Why?  The facts outlined in the complaint match up with the evidence."

Never said they didn't. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

This person making a complaint is a democratic operative with admitting to having close working ties to a current high level democrat. That makes him/her a "whistleblower" is sketchy at best.

"Justice Department is protecting them as a whistle blower, not Schiff. "

Again, you are lying about what I said. The "whistleblower" went to Schiff and his staff first, probably with the assurance of that fact would be kept secret. He/she was told wrong.

"And boy are you wrong.....again."

Rarely am I wrong. This is no different.

I'm getting ganged up here by a bunch of libs, and winning every argument. This is fun.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.23  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.20    2 months ago
I got a president that is a corrupt liar that has been under investigation since day one. 

Because the TDS afflicted folks can't get over the fact that Hilary lost the election

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.24  katrix  replied to  bugsy @3.1.21    2 months ago

Your 3.1.14 shows you know zilch about whistleblower complaints, so using that as an example of your logic is probably not the best idea.

Equating Trump loyalists with true Americans is hilarious. True Americans wouldn't support spitting on our Constitution and possible treason, but most of his fans bow and bend over and ask for more.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.25  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.11    2 months ago
Your excuse is empty (smelly) air, NOBODY is claiming classified info on the phone call.

Who said anything about "classified" other than you?  

Now, show me exactly where in the law, YOU or anyone for that matter have a legal "need to know" about anything in a Presidential phone call.  You can do that can't you?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.26  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @3.1.13    2 months ago
Why haven't the other people spoken up? Because many of them, like Pompeo, are assholes who put their orange god ahead of their country.

Have you considered that many of them, your personal assessment of them not withstanding, have more knowledge and experience than you can ever hope to have?   

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.27  bugsy  replied to  katrix @3.1.24    2 months ago
Your 3.1.14 shows you know zilch about whistleblower complaints,

I do know that whistleblower rules do not state that a complainant go first to the highly partisan chairman of the committee that will be investigating said complaint. I guess that rule does not apply if the complainant themselves is a highly partisan democratic hack who thought they could get away with going to Schiff and his staff first and not be found out about it.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.28  XDm9mm  replied to  bugsy @3.1.22    2 months ago
I'm getting ganged up here by a bunch of libs, and winning every argument.

What's better is you're doing so with both hands tied behind your back and your feet are tied to the chair legs.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.29  bugsy  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.28    2 months ago
What's better is you're doing so with both hands tied behind your back and your feet are tied to the chair legs.

Damn, I must have left the camera on my computer on again. Don't tell anybody what I'm wearing.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.30  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3.1.22    2 months ago
After Schiff and his flunkies got the info they needed to begin a propaganda campaign long before the transcript or complaint came out.

Evidence???   Looking...looking...nope none.  Just more spam folder conspiracy theories.

There are set rules to file a whistleblower complaint.

Which were followed to a "T".

This democratic operative did not follow those established rules. It's obvious most liberals don't give a crap about established rules.

Once again, your opinion which is not supported by any "FACTS".  Otherwise, provide a link to those official "rules" you claim he violated.

This person making a complaint is a democratic operative with admitting to having close working ties to a current high level democrat.

What's his name?  If you don't know who he is, your above statement is a blatant LIE .

The "whistleblower" went to Schiff and his staff first, probably with the assurance of that fact would be kept secret. He/she was told wrong.

You need to reread your own statement, you said: I think they figured what they did would not be outed, and Schiff would protect them from that.

Schiff is not protecting them, you don't even know if Schiff knows who they are yet.

Rarely am I wrong. This is no different.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif Your above statement is totally wrong...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.31  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.30    2 months ago
Evidence???   Looking...looking...nope none.  Just more spam folder conspiracy theories.

Whistleblower rules state that the complainer go to the IG first, not the highly partisan chairman, or his staff, of the committee that would be investigating the complaint.

Schiff knew about the complaint long before the "complainant" went to the IG. He should not have known about it until after the IG was notified. The "whistleblower" is a democratic operative with admitted deep ties to a prominent current national democrat. I don't need to know his/her name to make that correct deduction.

More than likely, my opinion, Shiff or someone on his staff assured the complainant that him or her going to Schiff first would not be found out.

Again, I am rarely wrong, and this is no different.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.32  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3.1.31    2 months ago
Whistleblower rules state that the complainer go to the IG first, not the highly partisan chairman, or his staff, of the committee that would be investigating the complaint.

Like I said:  Otherwise, provide a link to those official "rules" you claim he violated.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.33  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @3.1.21    2 months ago

By that I am assuming you mean true Americans.

If by true Americans you mean, supporting a president that breaks laws constantly, lies constantly and openly uses other countries to win US elections, I think you meant traitors. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.34  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.20    2 months ago

That has been said about every POTUS for at least the last 4 decades. If you vote for so and so, such and such happen. Dragging out decades old rhetoric is the norm and adds nothing of relevance.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.35  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.33    2 months ago

That would have been true if Hillary had won in 2016.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.1.27    2 months ago

sorta like the IG first went to the Whitehouse ?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.37  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.28    2 months ago

R u and Bugsy into BDSM ?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.38  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.31    2 months ago
Again, I am rarely wrong, and this is no different.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4  Raven Wing    2 months ago

McConnell vows to stop the Impeachment, mainly for his own reelection. But, even if he can, he can't stop the courts. His a$$ kissing devotion to the mentally challenged individual who now sits behind the desk in the Oval office and thinks he is the second coming of God, will not hold sway in a court of actual law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-vows-to-stop-impeachment-in-fundraising-video/ar-AAIls68?li=BBnb7Kz

However, as the evidence against Trump becomes more clear and the handwriting on the wall becomes more evident, he may find that more of the GOP Senators will start to worry about their own reelection possibilities as more sensible Republicans decide to put country before party for a change.

Yet, in the end, chances are, even if the Impeachment is blocked, Trump will still have to answer to the courts after his term is up and the GOP can't block their decision if Trump is found guilty. 

But, right now McConnell is playing mostly to the crowd in his home state that keep electing him in place of far more qualified candidates. 

JMOO 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Raven Wing @4    2 months ago

Unless the Democrats go to a formal vote for impeachment soon, the whole point will be moot. Many freshman members of the House might become concerned of their reelection chances if they vote to impeach Trump. There is simply not enough credible and real evidence to impeach Trump no badly how much those on the left want it. Everyone with a brain knows that all this is being done for purely political purpose on the misguided mission to reverse the last election; The Senate will never vote to convict anyway because everyone knows it's a silly lefty wing clown show

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    2 months ago
There is simply not enough credible and real evidence to impeach Trump

Best to wait until the evidence is presented before stating it is not credible, or what evidence do you have that it is not credible? Methinks you may speak too soon, unless, you have some inside information that you can share with the rest of us.

Obviously, there is something to the claim that has Trump scared enough or he would not start attacking Carte Blanche. He, nor his henchmen may not have as much pull as he likes to think. 

The Senate might have the last say in his impeachment, but, not in his guilt.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.2  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    2 months ago
There is simply not enough credible and real evidence to impeach Trump no badly how much those on the left want it.

You've been posting lies in favor of Trump for years now. You haven't yet been right - but Trump should sleep better at night knowing that his worshippers still won't let facts dissuade them from their groveling and adoration.

The lack of patriotism displayed by so many in here is truly mind boggling. Trump above party, party above country, and EVERYTHING above ethics and honesty.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.3  katrix  replied to  Raven Wing @4.1.1    2 months ago
Best to wait until the evidence is presented before stating it is not credible, or what evidence do you have that it is not credible

No evidence is necessary for Trump worshippers. They just spew the Fox talking points - except even Fox is starting to admit that Trump is a charlatan.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.4  bugsy  replied to  katrix @4.1.2    2 months ago
ou haven't yet been right -

That's funny coming from someone who posted lies about the President for three years, but yet, everything that was alleged over the fake Mueller "investigation" turned out to be lies.

He is still your President.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.4    2 months ago

What lie did Mueller make

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.6  katrix  replied to  bugsy @4.1.4    2 months ago
everything that was alleged over the fake Mueller "investigation" turned out to be lies.

Only a person with TDS would consider all those indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions to be proof that the investigation was based on lies. Many Trump supporters seem to have no relationship with reality; they believe him when he tells them 1 + 1 equals 3. Very bizarre.

And yes, I realize this corrupt piece of shit is my president. I can only hope that people who actually value facts and honesty will keep him from being re-elected, but so much of his base have made it clear that ethics and integrity don't matter at all to them, and neither does our wonderful country -  so who knows.

That's funny coming from someone who posted lies about the President for three years

What lies have I posted about Trump? Please share. Remember, you can't try Trump's bullshit that anything derogatory about him is fake news - even if he was recorded saying it. Unlike his base, I understand what a fact is.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.7  lib50  replied to  bugsy @4.1.4    2 months ago

Let me guess, another conservative who didn't actually READ the Mueller report. 

Carry on with russian propaganda talking points Trump continues to use.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @4.1.4    2 months ago
fake Mueller "investigation" turned out to be lies.

LOL!!!

512

Now which investigation was based on lies again? 

512

Mueller has more integrity than trump has by far. The only fault Mueller has is that he votes republican. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @4.1.4    2 months ago
He is still your President.

Obama was your president for 8 years. 

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.10  WallyW  replied to  katrix @4.1.2    2 months ago

Instead of evidence, notice the immediate swerve to personal attack

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.11  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.5    2 months ago
What lie did Mueller make

Where did I say Mueller lied? I said things that were alleged over the investigation was a lie, ie, libs spouting bullshit without proof, then being deflated when their "we got him now" mantra deflated...many times. Stop making up shit.

BTW...Thanks for the coherent post. Maybe you can continue your track record of 1.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.12  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.9    2 months ago
Obama was your president for 8 years. 

Very good observation, and you only had to use both hands to get to 8.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.13  bugsy  replied to  katrix @4.1.6    2 months ago
Only a person with TDS would consider all those indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions to be proof that the investigation was based on lies.

The investigation was conducted (or was supposed to have been) to find out if Trump, or anyone associated with his campaign, colluded with Russians during the 2016 campaign. With that, tell me which of those that were indicted or found guilty of something had to do with Russian collusion.

Your silence would probably be your best response.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.4    2 months ago
That's funny coming from someone who posted lies about the President for three years, but yet, everything that was alleged over the fake Mueller "investigation" turned out to be lies.

You are LYING right here

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.15  bugsy  replied to  lib50 @4.1.7    2 months ago
Carry on with russian propaganda talking points Trump continues to use.

Which are? Be specific.....if you can.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.16  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.14    2 months ago
You are LYING right here

Really, what has he been found guilty of? What was he indicted with? Mueller himself said his decisions were not based on a Justice Department policy.

BTW...that's 2. You're doing good. Keep it up.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.17  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.13    2 months ago
The investigation was conducted (or was supposed to have been) to find out if Trump, or anyone associated with his campaign, colluded with Russians during the 2016 campaign. With that, tell me which of those that were indicted or found guilty of something had to do with Russian collusion.

the fact that what , 5 or 6 of those indicted were trusted confidents in Trumps election and or cabinet circle (Manafort, Flynn, his lawyer, his buddy, and other close advisors)LIED about ANY contact with RUSSIA, 

that most definitely was proven by our intelligence agencies, while Trump took the word of Putin, over All of them, on the world stage no less.

have you read the Mueller report..?   No reply required 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.16    2 months ago
Really, what has he been found guilty of? What was he indicted with? Mueller himself said his decisions were not based on a Justice Department policy.

he was NAMED AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR/INDIVIDUAL 1

along with his lawyer

a sitting president cannot be charged, but you knew that right...

otherwise

Trump would also be in jail, but you knew that, right...

face it, you are defending a lying asshole,

our condolences

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.17    2 months ago
have you read the Mueller report..?   

All they cared about was whether or not it proved illegal criminal conspiracy of this President, and even if it had his hardcore supporters would have been claiming it was a deep state conspiracy that framed him. They can't see the dozens of indictments and guilty pleas of nearly everyone around the President as a mark against the President. They refuse to see his public comments asking Russia for his opponents emails or telling an actual Russian spy at a rally “I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin. I don’t think you would need the sanctions". And then a few months later he says "Russia. if you're listening..." and they were as the evidence showed a huge spike in cyber attacks from Russia attempting to find Trumps opponents emails within hours of Trump making the request.

But like Trump said “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? It’s, like, incredible.”. That's how little ethics, morality and spine Trump believes his supporters have. After watching Trump shoot someone I've no doubt they would be assuming that person deserved it and Trump would be revered by them as a true vigilante and hero of their brand of justice, which would no doubt be followed by many repeating his example on all those they deem "others".

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.20  katrix  replied to  bugsy @4.1.13    2 months ago
Your silence would probably be your best response.

I'm sure you'd prefer that rather than having your BS pointed out.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.21  katrix  replied to  WallyW @4.1.10    2 months ago
Instead of evidence, notice the immediate swerve to personal attack

Pointing out when a comment is bullshit is not a personal attack.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.22  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.17    2 months ago
the fact that what , 5 or 6 of those indicted were trusted confidents in Trumps election and or cabinet circle (Manafort, Flynn, his lawyer, his buddy, and other close advisors)LIED about ANY contact with RUSSIA, 

And which of those were found guilty of colluding with Russia?The answer is zero, but you knew that already.

And yes, I read the report that Mueller had nothing to do with writing

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.23  bugsy  replied to  katrix @4.1.20    2 months ago
rather than having your BS pointed out.

So do it then.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.24  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.18    2 months ago
he was NAMED AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR/INDIVIDUAL 1

He was? By who?

Please don't put up Madcow, Fredo or Chris Matthew's picture up as your support.

The rest of your post?

Incoherent.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.25  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.19    2 months ago
All they cared about was whether or not it proved illegal criminal conspiracy

Unlikely, but how is that different than liberal loyalty to Hillary's alleged crimes?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.26  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.22    2 months ago

there wasn't actually a LAW AGAINST COLLUSION,

you knew that though, right...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.27  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.24    2 months ago

he was named a co defendant on charges dealing with payments to playmates and pornstars 

deal with it

or prove me wrong, cause you can't

all you do is attemp;t to parse words

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.28  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.27    2 months ago
he was named a co defendant on charges dealing with payments to playmates and pornstars 

As incoherent as this post was, I am going to try and decipher it the best I can...so here goes.

The topic of your rant was originally the Mueller report. Show me where in that report he was named a co defendant or whatever you want to call it, not by some NY lawyer who just got slapped with a stay to keep his dick beaters off Trump's tax records.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.29  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.26    2 months ago
there wasn't actually a LAW AGAINST COLLUSION,

Then why did unhinged libs scream "impeach the President because he colluded with Russia", until they found out collusion was not a crime, then changed the rant to "he obstructed".?

You do know there must be a crime to impeach the President, right. So far, the loony left has yet to come up with one.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.25    2 months ago
Unlikely, but how is that different than liberal loyalty to Hillary's alleged crimes?

How many of Hillary's campaign staff or those she chose to surround herself with have been indicted or plead guilty to crimes again?

It's not a great "what-a-bout-ism" when the facts look nothing alike. On one hand you had nearly a dozen partisan Republican investigations into Hillary, hours and hours of her testifying, and not a single indictment or guilty plea of any crime from anyone in her immediate orbit. The on the other hand you have Trump who went through one investigation, refused to testify and said "I don't remember" at least 30 times in the few written questions his lawyers would allow, and still the Mueller investigation has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. Mueller also detailed 10 separate counts of obstruction of justice but ultimately refused to call them "criminal obstruction" due to the Justice department ruling that he could not indict a sitting President of a crime and that only congress has oversight and the power to remove him from office which would then allow the justice department to indict him for the crimes that were carefully detailed in the Mueller report.

So, as I was pointing out, the large number of criminals surrounding someone should tell you something about that persons character. Trump had 34 people in his orbit who were indicted or plead guilty to crimes, including the man he chose as his campaign manager, many serving prison terms right now. Hillary had no one in her orbit proved to be committing crimes and lying on her behalf. So your attempted comparison falls flat on the face of it.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.31  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.28    2 months ago

was there a co-defendant charged along with his lawyer,

yes or no

did said lawyer not provide a copy of a Trump check to Trump's playmate pornstar, signed by Donald Trump ,

       yes or no

i'm betting you won't answer my two questions, you'll deflect, strawman, but Hillary, etc

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.32  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.29    2 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.33  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.31    2 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.34  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @4.1.33    2 months ago

Not entirely sure how my response to ignorantz included the post from dismayed. My apologies to dismayed.

I can't even edit or delete it.

OK, I deleted it now.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.35  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.33    2 months ago

Hey, mr smarty pants, i'm gonna ask you one more time, to LIE to me some more, while not being bright enough to know who you're LYING to, some more

too funny. 

do tell though, what was incoherent in Dismayed's post 

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.36  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.31    2 months ago
was there a co-defendant charged along with his lawyer,

yes or no

did said lawyer not provide a copy of a Trump check to Trump's playmate pornstar, signed by Donald Trump ,

       yes or no

i'm betting you won't answer my two questions, you'll deflect, strawman, but Hillary, etc

Look, I'm going to ask one more time, nicely. Please put your posts in coherent sentence form so I can answer them properly. Right now, the level of intellect with your posts is diminished.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.37  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.35    2 months ago
Hey, mr smarty pants

Ha!!! That's funny. I haven't been called smarty pants since the third grade. I guess I now know the intellect I am dealing with.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.38  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.36    2 months ago

guess i won the bet.

cause i knew you wouldn't answer my simple questions.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.39  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.32    2 months ago
another LIE

Jesus this is too easy.

The CONSTITUTION says you can impeach the President for high CRIMES or misdemeanors. Anything attempted that is not a crime is liberal partisan political bullshit. You do know misdemeanors are crimes, too, right?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.40  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.38    2 months ago
cause i knew you wouldn't answer my simple questions

If you would put your inquiries into coherent, english based sentences, maybe people would be more likely to answer them. Most adults don't like to debate with, well, you know....

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.41  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.39    2 months ago

do you know 'dishonesty' is wikipedias first example of high crimes and misdemeanors

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.42  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.40    2 months ago

are you afraid ?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.43  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.41    2 months ago
do you know 'dishonesty' is wikipedias first example of high crimes and misdemeanors

Why do I waste my time with this?

You do know that anyone can go on wiki and post most anything they want. How do we know YOU did not add dishonesty to the examples.

In addition, I noticed in the "examples", certain words like bribery, perjury, abuse of power and intimidation are all highlighted in blue, but words like failure to supervise and chronic alcoholism are not.

Did you do that, too?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.44  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.39    2 months ago
The CONSTITUTION says you can impeach the President for high CRIMES or misdemeanors. Anything attempted that is not a crime is liberal partisan political bullshit. You do know misdemeanors are crimes, too, right?

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice . The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite . The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.

Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament , losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not . The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve .

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, "Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials – one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges."

The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," there is no concrete definition for the term except to allow people to remove an official from office for entirely-subjective reasons."

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

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.45  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.42    2 months ago
are you afraid ?

Of liberals? Hell, I thrive on making them look stupid, like I did with 4.1.40, 4.1.39, 4.1.37, etc, etc, etc...

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.46  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.44    2 months ago

Again, wikipedia...How do we know you or someone else did not add things to advance a narrative.

Either way, this impeachment is a farce and politically driven, and will go nowhere, except in the annals of history where it will be noted that liberalism and the democratic party became asterisks in history.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.47  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.44    2 months ago

Well, who could ever associate ANY, if not ALL, of those definitions with Trump, besides those that find you weren't succinct enough

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.48  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.46    2 months ago

hows that state of denial treating you ?

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.49  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.44    2 months ago

Heh, you schooled the arrogant one who thinks he's smarter than everyone else in here. And who now claims you went in and modified Wikipedia just to prove something most of us already knew .. those of us who are more informed than the arrogant one ;)

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.50  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.47    2 months ago

You, and your little libbie friends in Congress have to have proof of any of those words you may not have understanding of.

You have none of that proof.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.51  bugsy  replied to  katrix @4.1.49    2 months ago
Heh, you schooled the arrogant one who thinks he's smarter than everyone else in here

I can assure you I was not schooled by him, or anyone else on here. I am handling several liberals, including you, at the same time, and winning each debate.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.52  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.51    2 months ago

I can assure you I was not schooled by him, or anyone else on here. I am handling several liberals, including you, at the same time, and winning each debate.

now you're LYING to yourself,

funny, while pathetic.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.53  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.48    2 months ago
hows that state of denial treating you ?

You need to stop.

Now you are coming back with little snips because you, once again, got your ass handed to you.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.54  lib50  replied to  bugsy @4.1.15    2 months ago
Which are? Be specific.....if you can.

Well, lets begin the lesson. 

This is a really informative piece on the subject, read it first.  Too much to post here.

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/nine-lessons-of-russian-propaganda

Here is just one example, of course there are so many more prior to this Ukraine extortion.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/trump-response-ukraine-russia-zelensky-putin/

Fedchenko points out that in recent days the television networks, news agencies, and websites of Russia’s mainstream media—which are essentially controlled by Putin’s government—has pounced on the Ukraine scandal, devoting hours to the story, in order to advance Moscow’s interests. On the major networks in Russia, talking heads have advanced the messaging   that Ukraine is not truly its own state and that other nations will not fully support it. This message is then spread into Ukraine through social media. The Russian propaganda push has also largely praised Trump for his handling of the situation and criticized the Ukrainian government for supposedly trying to influence politics in the United States. (Yes, you read that right.) “There are a lot of contradictions,” Fedchenko says. “Ukraine is a failed state that no one cares about, but Ukraine is manipulating US elections and politics.” That is, the disinformationists of Russia are mounting a classic play: Throw whatever you can at the wall and see what sticks. 

                                 .......................................................................

Fedchenko admits that he cannot quantify the ongoing Russian disinformation campaign now exploiting the White House memo. But he senses Moscow has revved up its propaganda efforts this week. “It’s intensified,” he remarks. “This case is certainly in progress. Russia is using this to try to corner Ukraine into one-on-one negotiations.”

By disclosing the quasi-transcript, Trump didn’t do himself any favors, and he certainly undermined Zelensky to Moscow’s advantage. But the same day Trump put out the memo, he went even further in screwing Zelensky. During a meeting with the Ukrainian president on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, Trump said, “I believe President Putin would like to do something. I really hope you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem.” 

It was a double whammy. First Trump provided Moscow a set of highly useful talking points for its disinformation war against a nation it has partially occupied; then he endorsed Putin’s strategic aim. Trump hurt himself this week, and he hurt Ukraine—but somehow he managed to hand Putin a beautiful gift.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.55  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @4.1.53    2 months ago
You need to stop.

stop what,

getting schooled by you...?

you are a funny liitle guy, aren't you.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.56  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.45    2 months ago
like I did with 4.1.40, 4.1.39, 4.1.37, etc, etc, etc...

On a humorous side note, this reminded me of an old joke...

A new prison inmate settles in for the night when he hears another prisoner somewhere down the hall yell out "Fifty-four!" to which the whole cell block erupts in laughter. A few minutes later another prisoner yells out "Seventy-one!" and again, all the prisoners are laughing hysterically. The new prisoner asks his cell-mate what's going on to which his cell-mate tells him "You see, we've been in here so long that we all memorized the different dirty jokes and gave them numbers, so all any of us have to do is shout out a joke number and we all remember the joke. Go ahead and try it, just yell out a number between 1 and 200". So the new inmate gives it a try and yells out "Thirty-nine!" but gets absolute silence, not even a chuckle. His cell-mate says "Give it another try" so he yells out "One hundred and fourteen!" and again, no laughter. The new inmate asks his cellmate "What the hell? Why isn't anyone laughing?" to which his cellmate replies "I guess you just can't tell a joke...".

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.1.57  KDMichigan  replied to  bugsy @4.1.51    2 months ago
I am handling several liberals, including you, at the same time, and winning each debate.

Don't you know that whomever gets the most likes wins the debate, sheesh.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.58  bugsy  replied to  lib50 @4.1.54    2 months ago

OK, normally I don't criticize sources used, but damn, man...Mother Jones? Also, it's an opinion article.Nothing factual.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.59  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.56    2 months ago

That is funny, but not relevant to anything you highlighted I posted.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.60  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    2 months ago
Unless the Democrats go to a formal vote for impeachment soon, the whole point will be moot.

It's looking like the point is not to impeach him, but rather to drag him through another 18 months of prolonged accusations leading up to the election.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.61  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @4.1.59    2 months ago

Welp, gotta go now. It's been fun. I gotta go to work now. If the word "work" confused any of you liberals, Websters has a good definition for you.

Do me a favor, though....don't all rush to try and get one on me because you know I won't be around. We all know that is the liberal way when they know there will be no defense.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.62  katrix  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.60    2 months ago

Seems to me that the Dems are trying to move pretty quickly - it's the GOP who are dragging their feet, stonewalling and refusing to turn things over. They don't think Congress should be able to do their job of oversight, clearly. There's no reason for it to take 18 months, though.

Honestly, I hardly see the point in impeachment. I doubt we'll ever have a Congress that can be non-partisan enough to agree on whether or not to convict a President who's been impeached. The members of the President's own party are almost never going to convict; for most politicians, it's party over country (and reelection over everything). So it's a big messy slap on the wrist that really doesn't accomplish much. What did being impeached really do to Clinton, after all? He has a huge ego so it must have been hard on him - and Trump has a bigger ego so it will be harder on him - but other than bruised egos?

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.63  katrix  replied to  bugsy @4.1.61    2 months ago
We all know that is the liberal way when they know there will be no defense.

So you leave with an insult, and try to imply that if anyone responds to that insult, it's unfair. I guess being schooled really did upset you.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.64  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @4.1.25    2 months ago
Hillary's alleged crimes?

Yea, we heard, "Hillary will be arrested any day now!!!!!", for 25 years. The right never even charged her with a crime, so ya lost that one. Sorry. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.65  dennis smith  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.18    2 months ago
Since a sitting POTUS cannot be charged, the Mueller investigation was meaningless regarding the POTUS, yet Dems were screaming for over 2 years that the report would be the end of Trump as President. 
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.66  igknorantzrulz  replied to  dennis smith @4.1.65    2 months ago

it only wasn't cause ones like you, put your head in the sand, and refuse to face what you can't

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.67  seeder  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @4.1.65    2 months ago

Honest question. If the Mueller report was about Obama, would you be defending him?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.68  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @4.1.67    2 months ago

silly question, that he chooses to avoid, 

nicely done, as how much of what Trump has Gotten a Pass on,

would a Democrat have ?

Hippo critical is the skinny on that phat possibility  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.69  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.29    2 months ago
Then why did unhinged libs scream "impeach the President because he colluded with Russia", until they found out collusion was not a crime, then changed the rant to "he obstructed".?

Trump was the one that started the 'NO COLLUSION' chant. 


You do know there must be a crime to impeach the President, right.

WRONG. 

So far, the loony left has yet to come up with one.

Nor do they need to.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.70  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.61    2 months ago
If the word "work" confused any of you liberals, Websters has a good definition for you.

What's even funnier is that conservatives are actually more likely to have relied on federal entitlement assistance than liberals and virtually all the most reliant States on federal assistance are deep Red States.

"when the lens shifts to political ideology, the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program."

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

I'm sure lots of those out of work conservative miners and barely high school graduate manufacture workers like to imagine it's really the liberals wanting free stuff, as they sit on their front lawn couch opening their unemployment check, food stamps card and Medicaid notices, but the facts refute their sad and baseless premise.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.71  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.70    2 months ago

You count someone collecting their social security they paid into their lives as "relying on federal entitlement assistance." 

Might want to think that through. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.72  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.71    2 months ago

where did he mention social security ?

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.73  lib50  replied to  bugsy @4.1.58    2 months ago

The article speaks of factual actions.  Actions by Trump and his goons.  If you have an issue, specifically speak to what you deny he did.   But obviously you didn't want to read about the Russian propaganda.  Trump did the actions and you seem to want to deny he actually did them, so get to work disproving everything we know about Ukraine already.  Because Trump admitted what he freaking did.  And he is following the Russian propaganda line along with the gop, bots and trolls. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.74  Jack_TX  replied to  katrix @4.1.62    2 months ago
Seems to me that the Dems are trying to move pretty quickly

Seems to me their main goal is to keep the news cycle refreshed. 

We're nearly two months since the complaint was filed.  What have they actually done?  Form a committee?

- it's the GOP who are dragging their feet, stonewalling and refusing to turn things over.

Yes, the Democrats love to use that excuse.  But Trump has admitted to discussing Biden on the call.  Either that was a "high crime and misdemeanor" or it wasn't.    

They don't think Congress should be able to do their job of oversight, clearly. There's no reason for it to take 18 months, though.

I've never known a party to believe their president should be impeached.  I realize this shocks Millennials, but it's not exactly new ground for those of us in Gen X.  

Honestly, I hardly see the point in impeachment.

I don't see the point in this instance.  I would much prefer Pence to Trump, but I don't think we're talking about Watergate here.  

I doubt we'll ever have a Congress that can be non-partisan enough to agree on whether or not to convict a President who's been impeached.

Conviction means we've either got an extremely partisan Congress or a president has done something so awful even his own party turns on him.  I like to see non-conviction as a function of Congress having a good balance of right and left and presidents keeping their shenanigans to "almost legal".

So it's a big messy slap on the wrist that really doesn't accomplish much. What did being impeached really do to Clinton, after all?

Exactly.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.75  Raven Wing  replied to  katrix @4.1.3    2 months ago
They just spew the Fox talking points

Not only does Trump have the Muller report with possible charges from that starring him in the face, now he has the impeachment and possible treason charges starring him in the face as well. There is evidence in both that could, and likely will, be used against him if not in impeachment, can and will be used against him in a court of law at the time he is no longer President. And all his blind worshipers will not have any sway with the judges who put the law above his political party. 

The possibility of spending time behind bars from any one of the legal battles in from of him is really enough to make Trump wet his very expensive suit pants. 

And the Mueller report has not been completely revealed at this point, so more could be coming from that as well. So wetting is not all Trump may be doing in his pants before it is all over with.

He made his own bed, not God, who has yet to declare Trump His chosen one. However, I have not been chosen to be one to sit at the right hand of God, so I might not have heard that declaration yet. /s

JMOO

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2  dennis smith  replied to  Raven Wing @4    2 months ago

IF true, which it is not, "as more sensible Republicans decide to put country before party for a change."

That would be something the Dems have chosen not to do for almost 3 years.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.2.1  Raven Wing  replied to  dennis smith @4.2    2 months ago
That would be something the Dems have chosen not to do for almost 3 years.

The Democrats nor other political parties have not chosen to throw their country to the wolves as those who choose to worship Trump have done in the past three years. If anyone is to blame for the downfall of America it is those who have sold their own soul to the GOP Devil for a lousy three wooden coins.

JMOO

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5  Paula Bartholomew    2 months ago

Now Moscow Mitch is using this to solicit money for his reelection.  Do not send this schmuck money.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5    2 months ago

I wish Kentucky would wake up and vote that crook out.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @5.1    2 months ago

It's KY, the jelly state.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.1    2 months ago

slipped one in , did you ?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.2    2 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.1    2 months ago
It's KY, the jelly state.

That's the one McConnell uses to screw over those who vote for him once he is reelected. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6  Just Jim NC TttH    2 months ago

Schiff's whistleblower's whistle...............

320

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7  1stwarrior    2 months ago

320

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  1stwarrior @7    2 months ago

Ivanka and Jarrod were put into positions they weren't qualified for.  Coincidence....NO.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.1    2 months ago

Surely you're not saying that a shoe designer and a slum lord aren't qualified. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Kavika
bugsy
r.t..b...
WallyW


28 visitors