McCarthy intends to play by Pelosi rules and issues an ultimatum
Link to Quote: https://www.foxnews.com/media/border-state-lawmaker-warns-mayorkas-resign-face-gop-house-probe
This past Tuesday, the man who is very likely to be the new House Speaker, gave Biden's Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a choice: either resign or the new House GOP majority will open investigations that could lead to impeachment proceedings for Mayorkas. Mayorkas has already said that he isn't going anywhere. That is understandable. The situation along the southern border is that it is wide open. That was the policy of Joe Biden who got rid of the remaining wall construction started by his predecessor, the successful Remain-in-Mexico policy and Title 42. Thus, from Mayorkas perspective, he is simply serving the president in implementing an open border policy, which in less than 2 years has altered the demographics and verly likely party afiliation within the United States . Add to that the fact that deep state officials are seldom held accountable and it is clear why Mayorkas can feel so confident.
There is a court order to end Title 42 a month from now. Experts are predicting a broader rush to the border, even greater than we have seen in the past 22 months. Some estimate that 5 million people have entered the country since Biden took office. One would think the American people would respond to it. They haven't.
McCarthy has also promised, that if he is elected Spreaker, he will continue with the Pelosi precedent of denying the minority its selection of member seats on Committees. Pelosi set the new standard when she denied two Republican members seats on the kangaroo court known as the Jan 6th Committee. McCarthy has 3 easy targets in mind. The anti-Semite Ilhan Omar, the habitual liar & leaker Adam Schiff and the compromised Eric Swalwell. Many should take note that democrats have been preparing for the coming investigation by the House of Hunter Biden. After the way democrats prepared for the two past elections, McCarthy should be very concerned.
The Week:
The Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 to ban sales of new telecom and surveillance equipment made by several Chinese companies, arguing that their ownership and practices threaten U.S. national security.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-expands-bans-of-chinese-security-cameras-network-equipment-11669407355?mod=hp_lead_pos2
Delegates at the recent COP27 climate summit in Egypt agreed to set up a fund to compensate poorer nations harmed by the effects of climate change. But figuring out the extent to which climate change causes the harm, and to which countries, is testing the limits of a new field known as attribution science .
The United Nations loss-and-damage fund aims to transfer money from wealthy nations to poor nations deemed especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Those eligible to receive funding include countries in Africa and Asia as well as island nations in the Pacific and the Caribbean. Some analysts expect the annual financing needs of the countries to reach $290 billion to $580 billion by 2030.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-for-determining-climate-change-damage-is-unsettled-11669436469?mod=hp_lead_pos11
Biden signs on to reparations:
In a pathetic bid to “show results” from the latest global climate-change confab, the Biden administration followed Western Europe’s hysterical lead by signing on to a lunatic “climate reparations” scheme. It’s beyond outrageous. It won’t even bring any progress in reducing global carbon emissions, the supposed goal of the COP-27 meetings. If it works as promised, it’s just another wealth transfer from wealthy nations to the (largely corrupt) governing class of poor countries.
https://nypost.com/2022/11/21/bidens-lunatic-bid-to-pay-poor-nations-for-climate-reparations/
Black Friday sees low turnout in checkout lines: Parking lots at many retail stores were empty Thursday evening for Black Friday, and nobody was standing in lines awaiting the deals. This comes in contrast to previous years in which shoppers would stand in line for hours on the afternoon of Thanksgiving in the hopes of securing Black Friday doorbuster deals.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/black-friday-sees-low-turnout-lines-retail-stores
What Have We Learned:
It seems that the likely new Speaker has made some promises to those just to his right. He says he is going to hold the Biden administration accountable. The Biden administration doesn't seem to be too concerned with that. House Committees can't prosecute and impeachments require the Senate to convict. There is also McCarthy's intention to play tit for tat with Pelosi. Some say that Republicans should be above that. I say McCarthy is right to do it for two reasons : 1) If democrats don't get a taste of their own medicine, they will feel empowered to keep right on doing it. 2) Apparently there are no consequences for the democrats bad behaviour. As a matter of fact, the democrats have prospered by it. In the recently concluded midterm elections, many of our young voters seem to have voted on Jan 6th and abortion rather than the economy or crime or an open border. So, with such a stupid electorate, which has defied all reason, why not?
Cartoon of the Week:
Honorable Mention
Kevin McCarthy
Tags
Who is online
422 visitors
There may also be a nation wide railroad strike just in time for Christmas, but remember: "elections have consequences!"
Yep like record high inflation, record high gas prices, record high food prices, record high illegal immigration, record high crime, etc, etc.
You've got it my friend.
Why can't our young adults get it?
Lord only knows.
Ignorance of what is really good for them perhaps?
Trump's high profile election deniers got thumped.
Thats what happened.
People are sick of what the MAGA wing is selling.
It could be John, I did notice that big-time election denier Stacey Abrams got beat, but then again, Brian Kemp may have been the only Republican to have mastered the early voting tactic. Maybe that's it?
What’s that got to do with McCarthy being the new speaker of the house?
Nothing.
That’s what.
Sadly, TDS still runs rampant in some ....
They've been inculcated with Marxist propaganda in their schools.
If republicans refer to early voting as a tactic to be mastered I can see why they have serious problems.
The dreaded Marxist propaganda strikes again!
This isnt 1953 for cripes sake.
Thanks for replying with another meaningless, fatuous, and vacuous comment.
Or your complete lack of solutions? The culture wars aren't going to solve one of those issues you listed, and all you all assholes have is culture war horseshit.
The only time conservatives even kinda come close to talking about an issue is energy, but then you all completely torpedo your own position as soon as you say some shit like "we were energy independent". That just shows me that you have total lack of understanding of global oil markets, much less global markets in general.
If you all and the GOP could give me a better option I would vote for you, but bashing gay people, liberals, refuting legitimate election outcomes, and generally laying all the blame for all of the nation's issues at the feet of your political opponents while deflecting any away from yourselves, is not it. So call me dumb because I didn't vote for your party and its platform consisting of "..............". Get a better fucking message.
Some people cannot comprehend that history does in fact have a habit of repeating itself.
Or not.
Nah, that is all your biased mind will allow you see. Open your mind. Fly away from the hive once in awhile.
A lot closer than now. We weren’t begging dictators and despotic kings for more oil like Biden is now. We weren’t being unrealistic about green energy while other countries are now paying for moving too fast in that direction.
The projection present in that comment is earth shattering.
First you’d need to be really listening. Second you’d have have an open mind. Third you’d need to start getting realistic about what is happening right now.
Right now.
Strike one, strike two, strike three .... yer out!
Better get a fucking clue .....
That's what yours was with the Marxist propaganda comment.
Hopefully the Secretary of Transportation will roll up his/her sleeves and actually do something.....
Union nonsense.
In the real world it is not unusual at all to be on call 24 hours a day for a week at a time. Don’t want to be on call? Don’t accept a job that requires it. And don’t for one minute think this railroad union has anyones quality of life in mind except for their own management/membership.
They could give a shit about the general public. Threats of striking in this current environment just proves that out.
Secretary of Transportation will probably go on leave of some type like when there was a problem before
Biden’s cabinet is full of dimwits completely unqualified for their jobs.
Buttigieg and Granholm are leading that pack.
The squad isn't that far behind.
This has to be the week's funiest story:
Kanye West says he asked Trump to be his 2024 running mate
https:// trib.al/BshPO9l
Youre probably right. The story about Trump having dinner with the white supremacist Nick Fuentes and Ye wasnt very funny.
There is no mention of that in my review. It's not newsworthy.
Maybe if the media would make a non-stop issue out of that, the galactically stupid would make it their voting priority.
LOL. You funny.
I hate to sound like Walter Winchell, but that story is simply not a news story.
At this point we are all used to Trumpsters denial of reality.
The right will undoubtedly say "who the hell is Nick Fuentes?" , as if to dismiss the occurrence as "whats the big deal?" This "argument" fails because a once and future president (or presidential candidate) associations matter.
Was it news when it was revealed that Barack Obama once met with Louis Farrakhan, in Obama's role as a community organizer? (It must have been news, it was in all the media). Once Obama was president Farrakhan couldnt get within a million miles of the oval office.
Here we have a president welcoming a white supremacist to his home. (I dont buy for a second that West "secretly" brought an anti-semite white supremacist to Maralago for dinner with Trump).
It is baffling, if not astounding, that you think this is not "news".
Did he? I don't remember that. Do you have a link to coverage of that story?
Obama, of course, met Farrakhan when he was a US Senator and the photo was covered up by a friendly media until after his second election for fear it could hurt him politically.
Even more baffling.
People who still think Biden is competent and actually running the country.
Utterly baffling!
An ex-President meeting with a nut case, Ye, and an anti-Semite and white supremacist isn't newsworthy...LMAO, that is too funny.
Yeah, Obama did it right. Hang out with domestic terrorists and anti-Semites on a weekly basis before you are elected. Then it's a not a news story.
What's funny is seeing Obama supporters act mad about this.
Your desire to defend the indefensible is impressive !
Now thats hyper - super- duper - all time great partisanship !
LOOK -> SQUIRELL
yper - super- duper - all time great partisanship !
Lol. what,, in your mind, do you think you are doing?
Who cares if Obama chose an actual domestic terrorist who led a group that killed soldiers and cops to host the birth of his political career? Who cares if Obama sat and front and center for weekly sermons from anti-Semitic racist.
Guess who Trump had dinner with! A racist. Democracy's now over.
It's amazing to watch liberals flip flop on every single principle they claim to hold. Simply amazing.
Whatever you need to do to distract from your own hypocrisy.
Let's put that aside for a minute. Have you ever heard of "the Indigenous Archival Project?"
I hope you are able to open this:
It has some priceless old pictures.
Obama shunned Rev Wright when the time came.
Rev Wright should tell Trump that he admires him. Trump will put Wright in his cabinet next time.
But this is all about Vic saying Trump-Fuentes is not a news story. It is absurd to say that.
You mean when he ran for president?
yes, after years of associating with a virulent racist, he shunned him when it was politically expedient to do so. Never did shun the Rev. Sharpton though, did he?
So I assume you have no problem with Trump associating with Fuentes regularly as long as he eventually shuns him after a few years?
ll about Vic saying Trump-Fuentes is not a news story. It is absurd to say that.
But that's exactly what Democrats argued about Obama's associations with racists and terrorists.
Yes, I've heard of the project and I'm able to open it, very cool.
Here is a link to Project 562. To date 10 years in the making.
Another swing and a miss there, Casey.
Trump Is 'Descending Deeper Into Heart Of Darkness,' Former Mike Pence Aide Warns
Donald Trump’s disturbing dinner at Mar-a-Lago last week with Holocaust-denying white supremacist Nick Fuentes is further evidence that Trump is sliding even “deeper into the heart of darkness” since he lost the 2020 election, a one-time top aide to former Vice President Mike Pence said.
The dinner last Tuesday with Fuentes and Ye , formerly known as Kanye West, was “incredibly poor judgment” by Trump, Pence’s former chief of staff Marc Short said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“There’s no excuse for it,” he added.
Short said he agreed with comments by former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who said Friday that the dinner makes Trump an “untenable” candidate for president . Both Christie and Pence may decide to launch their own campaigns for the presidency.
Trump’s meeting with Fuentes and Ye was ironic, given that Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism, Short noted.
But “ever since the election in 2020, I think the [former] president’s descended deeper into the heart of darkness here,” Short said. “I think it’s a big challenge [and] another reason Republicans are looking in a different direction in 2024.”
CNN political commentator Ashley Allison called the dinner no surprise.
Allison reminded Short that Trump supporters with Nazi flags marched in front of counterprotesters chanting “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. Trump insisted at the time there were “very fine people” on both sides.
Why “would we be surprised he had an antisemite go down to have dinner with him?” she asked. “Donald Trump is homophobic; he is an antisemite, he does racist things,” she added. If he becomes president again, it will “continue to polarize us and cause this heightened tension of hate and violence,” she added.
Fuentes is a prominent racist and antisemite who has called for denying women the right to vote . Ye vowed in October on Twitter to go “ death con 3 ” on Jews.
Trump has insisted he didn’t recognize the high-profile political activist backed by Trump’s own allies, GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.). But witnesses reported that Trump praised Fuentes at dinner .
He also insisted he was just giving Ye advice, mostly about business. Ye was recently bounced from several lucrative sponsorships following his antisemitic tweets and comments.
In another post on Truth Social, Trump later called Ye, a “ seriously troubled man .”
Ye claimed he asked Trump to be his vice president, and that Trump “screamed” at him at the dinner. But Trump praised Fuentes as they dined together, according to witness reports.
As we are of yours.
We aren't the ones denying reality here.l
That would be you Jeremy, as usual.
And yet 4 days later, Mr Trump , Kanye, Fuentes, Milo Yiannopoulous and many members of Congress are keeping it in the news.
Worthy or not.
No, the media is keeping it in the news.
If Trump decided not to run, we woudn't be hearing much about it.
"This has to be the week's funiest story:
Kanye West says he asked Trump to be his 2024 running mate"
Yes he asked him at the dinner where Nick Fuentes was - which you deemed not newsworthy.
Musk says he would support DeSantis in 2024
https:// trib.al/RJrAGep
... another poor business decision.
..... another ridiculously obtuse comment
CNN found that House Democratic candidates "won voters under 30 by 28 points," which was a two-point increase over the 2020 election data for that age group.
Republicans made economic issues the centerpiece of their campaigns, emphasizing that the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress have approved almost $5 trillion in deficit spending. The national debt — now more than $31 trillion — continues its rise to new historic levels, and it could lead to "higher taxes and lower earnings from future generations," according to the analysis.
Despite sluggish economic growth, record inflation, a declining stock market, rising home prices and soaring debt, however, Democrats were still able to outperform the GOP with young voters.
Back in reality gas is cheaper, unemployment is practically nonexistent, the economy is growing again, wages are growing, inflation is now decreasing, the stock market is up about 15% from six months ago and the housing market is easing. Americans are feeling more optimistic after the MAGA nutters got whooped in the midterms. Times are finally looking up!
Lol .... I love it when people use the old “mark it up 100% higher then give them a 50% discount” gambit.
Thinking people see right past that horseshit but I guess worker drones do eat that disingenuous nonsense up with a spoon.
“Back in reality…”
Reversing Roe v. Wade will resonate with voters of all stripes until the day the right to self-determination is finally codified.
Your lame snark does not alter my facts...
Lol .... self determination? Just as long as it goosesteps in unison with your liberal narrative.
Hilarious!
[deleted]
The gop has moved our times back to the 1960s when women had no real choices outside of marriage and motherhood. They are shooting for the 1950s when gays and minorities had no hope, either. Ahh yes, back that golden time when only white men had any hope of finding real happiness!
“…only white men had any hope of finding real happiness!”
And even worse, they were the ones who defined what should be ‘happiness’ for others and disparaged those who dare deviate in expecting more and calling out the hypocrites. Not much has changed.
Exactly, any person of color then, that felt happy was just delusional.
Ahh..the world of make believe!
No, you're just in denial about my facts...
Then explain what I said which isn't true!
The incredible thing here is. Just how often you are wrong. That’s tough to do. Really tough.
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
We are talking about the current FACTS!
Comment 4.1 is devoid of 'facts'.
How so?
fuck off
I see you never got an answer
Yeah, I noticed that...
do I have a greyed out flag on that comment?
No flag
Things only get worse in the rightwing bubble so when times improve they cannot admit it. Economies do not turn on a dime. After Trump and the gop spent like crazy and cut taxes to the bone during good economic times we had nothing to do for it when Covid spending and Putin's War in Ukraine sent the world economy into a tailspin except suffer some bad temporary economic effects. Biden and the Democrats cut our budget deficit by a trillion dollars this year and the fed bigly raised interest rates. Now that things are finally looking up the gop has gone into a tailspin of DENIAL!
Clintonesque accounting? There is a reason for that.
No, standard accounting. The same as when Trump and the gop's wild spending and irresponsible tax cuts during good economic times resulted in record deficit spending. Biden and the Democrats cut our deficit more than anyone before...
Sounds like goodspeak to me. What section of the Ministry of Truth is that out of?
So you pump it up so you can deflate it and be a hero. And in other news, you must have passed over this from my comment above....
"The U.S. budget deficit was sliced in half for fiscal 2022, the biggest drop in history following .two years of huge Covid-related spending
You neglect to include in that "reality" that the Democrats had to dismantle working policy that kept gas cheap, unemployment low, inflation down, stock market up and illegal immigration low.
Why is that?
Lol. Biden's policies actually added to the deficit. The decline comes simply from ending the emergency covid spending, and then Biden's policies added back to it. Not to mention deficits would be much worse if his complete agenda had actually been enacted by Congress.
And of course, the deficit is projected to reach record highs by 2032. From 80% of GDP pre pandemic to 107%.
You are just illustrating my main point that the gop is in denial that things are getting better now. Gas prices are down, inflation is decreasing, our deficit is declining, the housing crisis is easing, the stock market is way up from its recent lows, employment is booming, wages are growing, businesses are making record profits. These are the current facts! Your denial is ridiculous
Biden was dealt a tough hand because of Trump's and the gop's reckless tax cuts and wild spending compounded by Covid and Putin's War in Ukraine, but he and the Democrats did what was needed to right things resulting in recent improvements!
The voters understand this ala Nov 8th...
As I said. Deflate it so you can pump it up to be a hero. And if you think the housing "crisis" is easing, at 7% interest and the highest prices in history, you would be wrong. And your "way up from its recent lows" as the stock market goes, yep. Recent lows driven by the last two years. I could go on but 4.1.6 above does a GREAT job of explaining what you refuse to acknowledge. Perhaps it is time for a refresher..............
But, things are getting better now! Right?
Sure if you want to count fucking it up so you could fix it getting better.
That's the way it always is. Kids are immersed, now more than ever, in a culture commanded by democrats. Schools, movies, social media, pop music etc all push the same progressive worldviewupon kids. As they get older and start to gain experience and think critically their voting patterns change. It's been going on for decades at this point.
I'm not very optimistic about the younger generation.
I'm very pessimistic about the debt and climate change that they are inheriting.
The debt will pretty much guarantee that they will not live as good as previous generations.
Climate change is something the rest of the world needs to get going on.
Corporate and Wall St greed will guarantee that they will not live as good as previous generations.
We are lucky that corporations and Wall St didn't figure out that they could maximize profits during our earning years.
Yep, along with a bad work ethic and a heavy sense of entitlement.
Tough to get ahead when you’re a lazy, entitled fuck.
That's why young voters vote Democratic.
Also, why minority voters vote the same...
The gop is hateful of their race and youth!
“The gop is hateful…”
It is all they have…divisive, diversionary, destructive, delusional…
A well known saying applies here. The older you get, the more you realize you don’t know.
More minorities than ever are moving away from the Democrat party. They must finally be seeing through their liberal lies.
Liberal Gaslighting nonsense.
The projection is strong in this one
Hell one can see it everyday right on this forum.
“The projection is strong in this one…”
oh sparky…have you not learned and willingly contributed…for every projection there is an equal and opposite deflection…
Lol yeah, you keep telling yourself that.
And you have a spelling error in your post. Better fix it before one of your spell mafia buddies has a spaz attack over it.
Exactly...bad work ethic and a heavy sense of entitlement.
Hopefully Jim Jordan will be given the purely ceremonial task…as an unprecedented fast-talker, the stunt should only take a few minutes.
[deleted]
I think he has some settling up to do.
So they are going to just start off wasting time...
Biden's defenders think it's a bit more than that. They've hired lawyers.
?
I think Politico sums it up fairly well:
What that has to do with reading the constitution I don't know.
It has everything to do with Biden's defense
They may want to have somebody there who can break it down into single syllable words for the liberals.
While repeatedly stating that the southern border is "secure" and "closed". If, what Mayorkas has stated were true, how did CBP capture 90 known foreign terrorists in FY22 and we're well on the way to quadruple that number in FY23 with 40 already caught in the first month?
Captured terrorists per CBP by fiscal year(FY):
FY20 - 3
FY21 - 9
FY22 - 90
FY23 (Oct) - 40
Remember - it took only 19 terrorists to successfully execute 9/11/2001.
... and trump has made business deals with all of their relatives.
Do you have a list of those relatives?
I doubt it. It sounds like the bad kind of conspiracy theory. You know, the kind that lacks any evidence.
I know it's asking a lot, but, can you back this up or is it just more lip flapping?
The lip flapping is all you got!
I know asking for proof from you is definitely asking too much, hence why I didn't ask you.
That's the king of a vacuous comparisons.
Current definitions of terrorism and who gets on the terrorist list is a direct result of 911.
The nineteen 911 terrorists are dead because a previous Administration issued 19 visas out of 20
applications allowing them to carry out their heinous acts.
The increased "capture" of terrorists at the border is as much a result of the current definition of
terrorist as it is the fine work of the CBP.
People on the TSDB are either coming from banned countries or are related to, or are known
associates of internationally recognized criminals and terrorists.
The Biden Administration recently added this info to their DHS website.
Apparently the northern border is the "problem".../s
Huh?
Yep, it’s a ridiculous observation [deleted]
Nice what aboutism.
Both borders are a problem.
Those numbers don't include those that got past the CBP. So who knows what the real number is? There are far more people evading capture crossing the southern border than the northern one- care to dispute that fact? So adding in those numbers there is a very good chance the southern border totals are higher.
Either way the human fuck up machine is not doing his job enforcing our borders or immigration laws.
But be happy, US voters are too fucking gullible and waiting around for another round of Democrat largesse to vote those responsible for this mess out of office.
Thanks
Not really.
Do you mean it's just like voter fraud? The more we concentrate on it we end up
catching another handful of conservatives voting for their dearly departed spouses or mothers?
It's easy. Prove it or it didn't happen.
Granted, same as voter fraud.
Not sure who you are referring to or which Administration for that matter. I used to live 14 miles from the border and watched (and helped) as CBP rounded up drug mules at night in the valley. Now I am several hundred miles away in TX and never see these alien invaders at all.
Maybe US voters are just more realistic and more optimistic about our country.
19 out of 20
only one terrorist pilot was denied a visa "forcing them" to use one of the "failed pilots" who didn't pass the landing phase of instruction in California.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Impeachment has been degraded into a mere partisan tool.
I am so impressed right off the bat.
You need to follow the facts, wherever they may lead.
What is that supposed to mean in context of my comment? Are you saying that any partisan investigation is justified as long as a process ensues that follows the facts?
My point was that impeachment has become a joke and the new R House clearly intend to keep it that way.
I am saying that any obvious national threat such as influence peddling with the nations main rival, (with evidence), needs to be investigated.
That literally is correct. Funny how the Rs downplay it when it is one of theirs and the Ds do likewise. Partisans are the worst.
Oh whataboutism?
Don't ever call yourself a critical thinker.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that impeachment and investigation abuse occurs in only one of our parties?
Critical thinking requires shedding blind partisanship.
And where do you find ’whataboutism’ in my comment? Did you not read “… and the Ds do likewise”? If anything it is a demonstrably true ’both sides’ comment.
You mean like the Democrats DIDN'T do during the last "impeachments"?
I COMPLETELY disagree that the Democrats abused impeachment against Trump. He should have been removed from office at the end of 2019 when it became clear he tried to extort the president of Ukraine.
It is only the fact that we have a degraded culture that can persuade itself that criminal behavior is acceptable that kept him going.
The only thing that has been degraded is this country by Democrats and their ultimate goal of single party rule.
All thanks to the Democrats.
Are you implying that you will NOT support the GoP if it abuses impeachment now that it has House control?
What is most likely IMO is that you will consider any GoP-driven impeachment to be proper.
I didn't imply a damn thing. What I'm SAYING is impeachment became a partisan tool when the democrats went after a duly elected President with falsified and fictitious information.
I will support an impeachment when it's done properly and for valid reasons. What we saw during the last administration didn't meet either.
And I am predicting that you will almost certainly consider every GoP-driven impeachment to be "done properly and for valid reasons" as you would almost certainly consider every D-driven impeachment to be done improperly or for invalid reasons.
Anyone who cannot even acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump in his Big Lie campaign or taking of TS/SCI documents is almost certainly going to support any GoP-driven impeachment.
Just watch ... this is a sure bet.
I'd agree with you but then we would both be wrong.
Then prove it. Lets see the charges, trial transcripts and conviction. You don't have them? Then it must be feelings you are running with. I don't give a rats ass about your feelings. Show me the facts.
You avoid all facts and truth and reality and choose to reside in your alt-right version.
Are you really unaware that a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives impeached Trump twice and a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to convict and remove him twice? Then that's on you!
Are you saying YOU can provide the link to the charges, trial transcripts and conviction?
My claim was that you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump. I did not write 'guilt', I wrote 'wrongdoing'.
But of course you know what I wrote since I have challenged you on wrongdoing many times and you refuse to acknowledge it on every occasion. And on every occasion you speak of guilt (moving the goal post every time).
You will not even acknowledge that Trump did anything wrong in his Big Lie campaign or his taking of TS/SCI documents.
Given that, it is beyond obvious that you will support any GoP-driven impeachment and object to every D-driven impeachment.
Are you unaware the democrats went after a duly elected President with falsified and fictitious information?
Back on ignore. Your ignorance is too much for my blood pressure.
So you are running on feelings. Sounds like a problem YOU have to deal with.
There is that "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing here in the US. I'll stick to that.
Here we go with you ignoring simple shit. Are you referring to the same "big lie" that 150 democrats have run with in the past that you refuse to acknowledge? You mean TS/SCI documents that were scattered on a bed and photos taken of? That kind of mishandling of classified materials?
Again, I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong.
OH NO!!!! What will I ever do without you trolling!!!!!!
You are kidding right?
That's a good one. Remove him........... LMAO
As usual, you leap to your pathetic 'feelings' platitude and move the goalpost from wrongdoing to legal guilt. You have no rebuttal so you must play obvious, silly games.
And here you go denying that Trump had TS/SCI documents stored at his home. See, you will go pro-GoP at every turn. As I noted, you will almost certainly support any impeachment initiated by the GoP.
Your absurd attempts at moving the goalposts and deflecting keep proving me correct.
Yes, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives impeached Trump twice and a bipartisan majority of the Senate twice voted to convict and remove Trump from office. Only the antidemocratic rule that two thirds must vote to convict and remove Trump kept him in office. Which certainly is no indication of innocence!
You said a bipartisan majority. If it was a majority, the two thirds would have been accomplished. Choose your words.
Still running with half / misinformation I see.
Senate Acquits Trump In Impeachment Trial — Again
Factually correct. I disagree with 2/3 being anti-democratic but other than that, you are spot on correct.
You did not actually read what JBB wrote.
I was told years ago that if someone angers you, they, in essence, control you.
No, a majority (unqualified) is just over 50%. Two-thirds is a supermajority.
Which is the rules and everyone knows it including the idiots in the Senate who knew they didn't have it. And it should take a supermajority. Impeaching and removing a sitting PotUS is serious stuff.
Because you FEEL he did something wrong. If he did, fucking prove it. It's not like investigations since the 2016 election has proven a goddamn thing. When are you going to realize your feelings don't mean a fucking thing to me. Prove it or STFU.
And exactly where did I specifically say I deny it? I'll wait for the link.
You should have your eyes checked for cataracts.
And as I stated. If it is done properly and for valid reasons.
I haven't moved a single goalpost. I'm just not playing your game and you don't like it.
Read it. And showed where he was running with misinformation.
LMAO. Looks like I have control.
I'm actually surprised dude hasn't DM'd me yet.
So you then acknowledge that Trump had TS/SCI documents in his home. Then if you know anything about the PRA you would know that it is illegal (and certainly wrong) for any PotUS to take any documents (other than strictly personal) developed on the job — that those documents become the responsibility of and are held in legal custody by the national archives.
Thus Trump was wrong to take those TS/SCI documents. Right? TS/SCI documents are not personal. Right?
Another mere claim in spite of the obvious facts in front of your face.
I ask you a question. Exactly where did I specifically say I deny it?
You mean like the false claim he was convicted as part of the impeachment process?
And now you again turn to your cliché deflection tactic. Run away from a challenge by insisting I answer one of your deflection questions. Pathetic, Jeremy.
You fail yet again to actually read what people write. JBB wrote this:
The phrase "voted to convict" does not mean "convicted". It means, that a majority voted to convict Trump. If a supermajority had voted to convict Trump then he would have been convicted.
See?
I ask you a question, you obviously can't answer so it's a deflection. It seems you don't seem to like it when your games are played against you. And you moronically STILL expect me to capitulate. Not. Going. To. Happen.
see 8.2.17
Yeah, Jeremy, if a majority votes to convict but falls short of a supermajority then there is no conviction. JBB was correct and you cannot seem to comprehend what he actually wrote.
Really simple concept. Just pay a little attention and you would see this.
Post the vote totals where a majority voted to convict during the first impeachment. Or admit to Jeremy that you and JB were wrong.
To return a verdict in a civil case, three-fourths of jurors must agree on the verdict. In a criminal case, the verdict must be unanimous.
Un-democratic indeed!
You are correct that it was not twice, but once. On the first impeachment, the Senate had 48 votes to convict so it was 3 short of a majority. However, on the second impeachment the conviction votes were a majority: 57 to convict; 10 shy of the required supermajority.
So the word twice should be replace with once and then JBB's statement is 100% accurate.
Jeremy is still entirely wrong because he refused to read what JBB actually wrote and focused on acquittal rather than vote to convict (JBB stated twice 'voted to convict').
I will give it to you, even when proven wrong you are still right in your mind. Amazing. and there were 3 votes actually, and the majority only voted to convict once, so you can explain to everyone now that JBB was right.....even thou he was wrong 2 out of 3 times.
And Jeremy is 100% right because trump was acquitted 3 out of 3 times.
Bullshit. I stated what was wrong and what was right. And unlike many here, I seek the correct facts and will not run away if something is wrong.
What was wrong is that the majority vote conviction occurred in the second impeachment but not in the first. The rest was spot on. The senate voted twice on impeachment: 48 for conviction on the first impeachment and 57 for conviction on second impeachment.
Trump was voted on impeachment by the senate three times? Where did you get that idea? Trump was impeached and tried in the Senate twice. We have been talking about the official impeachment conviction votes in the Senate. You get that, right? Any other vote is NOT what we are discussing. If you do not understand this, try to find information about Trump's third official impeachment trial votes (hint: Trump's record in history is that he is the only PotUS to be impeached twice).
Yeah, George, that was the correction. Telling me what I just stated is lame. Now explain the difference to Jeremy between "voted to convict" and "convicted".
WTF are you babbling about? Trump was acquitted twice by the Senate on articles of impeachment and JBB never claimed that Trump was convicted.
You got one and only one thing right: the word 'twice' should have been 'once'. Congratulations. But you could not be gracious, you had to leap with zeal on this and wind up making ridiculous claims.
JBB was also incorrect about the 2/3 rule being antidemocratic. A federal civil case has a higher threshold with 3/4 of the jury to agree and a criminal trial requires a unanimous vote for conviction. Is that threshold too high?
I noted that this is the part on which I disagreed. It is not anti-democratic to have a threshold above 50%.
So if you want to debate the meaning of "anti-democratic" you will need to take that up with JBB.
I still think that 33.4% beating 66.5% goes against all Democratic ideals. Being that the majority (50.01%) should rule. So, 25.01% defeating 74.99% is antidemocratic.
You may debate the definition of what is and what is not antidemocratic with TiG until the proverbial cow comes home...
I forgot no gop Senator voted to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial...
I have no intention to debate on that word.
Me neither...
So you believe that accused criminals should be convicted on the decision of seven jurors?
Does a hung jury equal innocence to you?
No, it equals a non-conviction to me. Do you believe that a 7-5 jury should equal a criminal conviction?
Seven votes beats five votes in elections!
Well that depends, electoral college? In any case, do you favor criminal convictions based on simple jury majority?
Holy fuck, how many articles of impeachment and how many votes? If you are going to be a condescending doucebag at least try to be accurate.
3 vote 3 acquittals
1st impeachment
The votes were 52–48 to acquit on the first count and 53–47 to acquit on the second count. The votes were sharply divided along party lines. [195] Mitt Romney became the first senator in history from an impeached president's party to vote to convict, voting "guilty" on the first count.
2nd impeachment
At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate voted 57–43 to convict Trump of inciting insurrection, falling 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution , and Trump was therefore acquitted.
Now explain how there weren't 3 acquittals.
Three articles of impeachment in two impeachment TRIALS.
JBB established the focus on impeachment TRIALS, not on impeachment ARTICLES.
Looking at it in terms of articles is a good counterpoint, but that is not what we were discussing.
The excuse many gop Senators used for voting for acquittal was that the voters should decide. They did so decisively...
What part of THERE. WERE. NO. CONVICTIONS. Do you not quite grasp?
Agree, the voters decided trump was unfit to hold office. I happen to agree with them.
In our two Establishment party fucked up system that elected Brandon the human fuck up machine.
There is real evidence he and is family are guilty of doing everything that Democrats accused Trump of.
Not to mention Brandon will go down as the worst president in the history of the US. Jimmy Carter and Trump would like to than Brandon for claiming the title in just two short years.
Other than pure politics, what was the point of the second impeachment? Surely it wasn’t to remove him from office?
“…what was the point of the second impeachment?”
Pretty simple…accountability in preserving a cornerstone of our democracy…as in the peaceful transition of power.
Nobody has claimed that there were convictions. "Voting to convict" ≠ "convict".
Here is arguably a better (and certainly more accurate) way to express the general point JBB made about Trump:
Trump was the only PotUS in US history other than Andrew Johnson in 1868 where a clear majority in the Senate voted to convict in an impeachment trial.
Agreed. This is stupid.
We need to work in a positive, not a negative fashion. And China needs to be heavily involved.
And how do we get a nation that opens approximately one Coal Plant per month to get "heavily involved?"
Good question. But clearly that needs to happen. Right?
Nobody is against the attempt to make the environment cleaner. It is the fanatical idea that America can do it alone or that it can be done within a few decades which is ridiculous.
Who claims the USA can do it alone?
Anyone governor (there are now 2) who mandates an end the sale of gasoline-powered cars in their respective states by 2035.
Any president (there is one) who makes it difficult to drill or refine oil in the United States.
Any president (there is one) who proclaims that he will shut down the coal industry in the United States.
So you have no actual claim, you are just putting words in the mouths of others.
Oh, do you mean the president who's now going to allow Chevron to drill in Maduro's socialist Venezuela but won't allow drilling in his own country?
Perhaps he believes that oil extracted near the equator hal less climate change impact.
For sure. Just like KJP stated that Fentanyl is confiscated before Mexican cartels can transport it into the US.
Until overpopulation is addressed little or no progress will result
Consumers spent record $9.12 billion online on Black Friday: analysis
So, what's the difference between Republicans and Democrats? If the whole idea behind Republicans winning a House majority was to allow McCarthy to behave like Pelosi then the midterms really didn't mean anything.
McCarthy should be using the Republican majority to build a policy agenda. A Republican House won't be able to push through legislation but the bills put on the floor can shape the Republican platform and future policy. Right now, Republicans need to figure out what it means to be a Republican. Drowning government in a bathtub and eliminating taxes ain't a policy agenda the electorate is going to buy into. Today's Republican base will support Qanon election deniers before supporting the same old Reagan-legacy candidates.
Democrats have some sort of policy agenda shaped in part by Bernie Sanders Revolution. Democrats went through the process of a platform fight. Republicans got nothing except a rehash of Reagan talking points and Gingrich libertarian flimflam transformed into populist pandering. Republicans need a modern platform and policy agenda. Otherwise Republicans won't be any different than Democrats.
Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan are only promising to follow a Democrat-lite agenda that stirs the cesspool to raise a stink. The House has become the World Cup for kick the can. If that's all that Republicans intend to do then we could have kept Pelosi.
Somewhere on page 10:
"A judge in New York has ruled that a defamation case brought against NBCUniversal by former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) can proceed.
In a 22-page decision, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel wrote Nunes’s attorneys had “plausibly allege[d] actual malice” in the case, Reuters reported , noting the justice did not make a determination about the merits of the former congressman’s claim against the media company.
Nunes’s lawsuit stems from March 2021 statements made by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow during her prime-time show where she suggested that the Republican had refused to turn over a package he had received from Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker and suspected Russian agent, to the FBI.
The former lawmaker’s initial complaint alleged Maddow was attacking him because of his “emergence as the most prominent skeptic in Congress of Maddow’s marquee news narrative from 2017 to 2019: that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to hack the 2016 presidential elections.”
Since leaving Congress, Nunes has since joined Truth Social, former President Trump’s social media platform. He has unsuccessfully sued a number of other media companies for defamation in recent years, including CNN and The Washington Post."
Last week's Cable TV News ratings:
