Newt Gingrich's Unintentional Burn Of Donald Trump Is Priceless | HuffPost Latest News
“One of Trump’s great advantages is he talks at a level where third, fourth and fifth grade educations can say, ‘Oh yeah, I get that. I understand it.’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested Wednesday that Donald Trump communicates better than Ron DeSantis ― but it didn't come off as complimentary to many. (Watch the video below.)
"One of Trump's great advantages is he talks at a level where third, fourth and fifth grade educations can say, 'Oh yeah, I get that. I understand it.'" Gingrich told host Laura Ingraham on her Fox News show.
Gingrich: One of Trump's great advantages is he talks at a level where 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade educations can say "oh yeah, I get that." pic.twitter.com/wigU4DJmHZ
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 25, 2023
The comment drew mockery from online critics. "The fact that [Trump] speaks to the children says everything you need to know about the educational level the Right is shooting for," one person on Twitter wrote. "I don't see where that's good for somebody that's running a country. SMH," another commented.
Gingrich was assessing the strengths of the two leading Republican candidates for president after DeSantis officially entered the race on Wednesday. He praised the Florida governor's intelligence but questioned his communication skills after Ingraham played a clip of DeSantis making a convoluted comparison involving financial institutions and elections.
Gingrich, a Fox News contributor, recommended that the Florida governor boil down the message to a slogan.
Here are other reactions to Gingrich's remarks about Trump:
He appeals to the lowest common denominator. #math
— Lorne Freund (@VonVonTheNutGuy) May 25, 2023
I really don't think that plays like they think it does♀️
— Juanita Deckard @☮️ (@pennysalsa) May 25, 2023
pic.twitter.com/ono6b3a0tf
— baffled (@farrellbruce2) May 25, 2023
https://t.co/0ZXt8YaSbJpic.twitter.com/SXXNkoW8Of
— JessicaUSAF (@JessicaUSAF) May 25, 2023
Makes sense why the GOP is banning books.
— Tgage (@tgagemurphy) May 25, 2023
Go To Homepage
Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here's how.
Suggest a correction
Popular in the Community
Tags
Who is online
461 visitors
Newty can crawl back into the swamp now.
= the vast majority of his base...
there's a lot of 'unintentional burns' of the former 'president'
I remember one guy talking about him and he said -'president fraud - I mean president trump'
it was freaking hilarious
"I love the poorly educated."
-- Donald Trump 2/23/2016
Meaning he doesn't discriminate just because people aren't as "enlightened" as others. Too bad a lot of liberals look down their noses at those people unless it requires a big dose of virtue signaling. Otherwise pfffft "let them eat cake".
No, he does discriminate. He looks at his base as the people that do all the hard work he could never stoop to do. He considers working with hands to be beneath him.
I don't believe that most of his base is poorly educated. I just think they've been brainwashed.
He doesn't appreciate the blue collar people of this country
I shouldn't admit this yet I never went to college. Barely got through High School. Haha
I ain't one of those edumacated ones...Then again, I had jobs when I was 15.
I agree with you though. He looks down his nose at the working class in general. Pay some lip service.
“He doesn't appreciate the blue collar people of this country”
He doesn’t appreciate, much less understand all the facets and intricacies that make this country great, nor the resolve it takes to keep it so.
He looks down on everyone, nobody is better than Trump himself. He knows more about war than generals, more about pandemics than PhD/MD career specialists, more about politics than career politicians, etc. And he builds the best walls ... nobody builds walls better than Trump ... believe him.
He is an asshole. Amazing that so many are so willing to follow such an asshole.
LOL ... of course the defense of Trump ensues. Sure, Jim, Trump holds the working class in great esteem. He would never consider exploiting them in any way.
Good grief.
A string of little assholes follows him around. I believe that they are known as a gaggle, yes that's the ticket, ''A gaggle of little assholes''...
That's where most of his support come from.
Correct. Do you think Trump is NOT manipulating his base as described?
You can't seriously believe that Trump doesn't consider himself to be the elitist of the elites and superior to everyone.
There's an echo in here
I know that, Greg, I just said so. And he's got them so brainwashed they don't which is up and which is down. That has nothing to do with their education level or their intelligence level. IT has everything to do with their gullibility and how easy is it is to manipulate people
Any different than any other PotUS you can think of? Or even any Congressperson...........
Well, you were correct that Trump doesn't discriminate. He regards everyone with absolute contempt and loathing, whether they support him or oppose him, and no matter what their station in life might be.
Wrong but you be you................
And here I was giving you credit for being correct.
Can you provide even one example of Trump exhibiting an ounce of warmth and human kindness? An actual example from real life? A compassionate gesture towards anyone that wasn't totally self-serving? Go ahead and try. We'll wait.
Read 'em and weep.....................................and that is just a few.
And some more.....................
Lol, your first link contradicts your second one.
I think you have that backwards. the first is legit.....................
You've got two links, Snopes and presidency.ucsb. Where is the AP link ?
AP is at the bottom of the second discrediting the rest of the story. And excuse me it was APP
Jim, Snopes claims the one where the president paid a mortgage for a couple who helped him when his limo broke down is false. The other claims in Snopes say they are true or mostly true
I am aware of that. He asked for one example. He got a bonus..
Yes you delivered three examples that were fact checked as true. Personally, I find this to be inconsistent with Trump's behavior. It is possible he did this altruistically; it is also possible that this was done for PR reasons (not at all uncommon). To me (logically) the latter is more likely. Regardless, you delivered so you get credit for same.
Shocking, and it seems completely out of character for that sick bastard. It's almost more shocking that you bothered to spend any time looking it up. I thought you had a job!
Oh, by the way, citing the fraudulent Jerry Falwell, Jr. as a source for anything is a total non-starter.
As TiG said, due credit to you.
I do have a job. It took all of 15 seconds to find, copy, and paste. Less time than it takes to get another cup of coffee. As far as Falwell goes, there is no source you would believe as long as they were glorifying that which you disdain. Not my problem.
I disagree, he's the leading expert on being a conservative xtian cuckold...
There's that.
Anyone with a sixth grade comprehension level would see that is what he meant. Unless of course they suffered from a certain disease that does not allow them to see Trump in anything other that _ _ _ tinted glasses.
Anyone who made it past the sixth grade, or doesn't have their nose completely up Trump's ass, knows that Trump regards the "poorly educated", and everyone else, with total contempt and disdain.
he couldn't even respect his 3 wives, and his 5 kids are still iffy...
That is almost as bad as pretending a grandchild doesn't exist.
The longer Biden stays away the safer the child will be while showering.
It is cute when someone thinks they know what is going on in trumps head. Maybe the disease we can't mention includes some weird mind meld
It's really pathetic when someone defends a low-life like Trump and ignores Trump's blatant and well-documented contempt for his base voters. Probably someone like that, having their nose permanently planted in Trump's ass, is dealing with deep-seated psychological issues that would lead them to support him in the first place.
I can guess...
Apparently, then, you believe someone as fraudulent as Falwell, and you and he both glorify Trump. Objectively, that would be your problem.
I agree that Harris is not suitable to be PotUS (way above her competence and maturity IMO).
I disagree that she is less appealing than Trump. Trump is the only PotUS in our history who exploited the power and influence of the presidency in an attempt to steal a US election. He is a despicable human being who should never be allowed political power, much less the presidency.
Absolutely ! trump has soiled our democracy and has caused damage that unfortunately will last long after his filthy "presidency".
he's definitely emboldened the most ignorant scum of the earth in this century.
When our military personnel who were killed in Afghanistan were flown home to the US, Trump met the planes at the Dover AFB runway and solemnly and respectfully waited for the caskets to be unloaded. When Biden did that he just stood there and stared at his watch. Yep, Biden was a real class act on that one.
Honestly, Trump probably knew where he was, Biden was probably trying to figure out why his ice cream was taking so long to arrive.
he considers the majority of his base as beneath him - doesn't even want to be in the same room with them
some must be wearing blinders
what a shocker!
Good find, Pat. Thanks for seeding it
I thought it was hilarious.
he's ready for a padded room...
There should be a category here for "That's not the flex you think it is."
Thanks for the chuckle, Pat.
Newt could add 1st and 2nd graders as well, oh hell probably kindergarten would understand babble as well.
So THAT is why the left is so infatuated with him. And here we thought that it was he did something wrong that they just can't find proof of.
It is very much because Trump did something wrong , he did many things that were wrong .
Apparently you have forgotten Trump's Big Lie campaign:
Was it wrong (not a question of legal guilt, but right vs. wrong ) for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution? Was it wrong for Trump to:
Your refusal to acknowledge these items is an implicit denial of reality.
And the evidence is where again? Oh that's right...
Much like I haven't forgotten the Democrats Big Lie that spawned improper investigations.
Right in front of your nose. Impossible to miss. Immediately, you can watch Trump as he emits lies to the planet as PotUS. Here, 9 minutes long. You are unable to stand up and acknowledge that Trump lied to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS and that the US electorate was disenfranchised!
Further ...
Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
Denying facts that do not fit your desires is confirmation bias which leads to living in a false reality and, thus, being wrong most of the time.
Much like your denying the Democrats big lie. Gotcha.
Deflection.
The evidence is right in front of your nose and your response is a feeble bullshit claim about me denying something you label the 'Democrats big lie' as if I am a D. Pathetic.
What do you think you are accomplishing by denying the blatantly obvious? It is foolish.
Not a deflection. Just truth you, apparently, not ready to acknowledge. As you said, The evidence is right in front of your nose. When you are ready to acknowledge it, then we'll talk.
Now this is where you start the trolling about "defending Trump" and some other nonsense.
Who do you think is buying your vague bullshit deflection?
You asked for evidence of Trump's wrongdoing and I delivered plenty of it @6.1.2 (as if anyone with a heartbeat is unaware of this).
You cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the evidence.
no official directive has been issued to move away from the witch hunt theme yet...
I see you chose to go with the "some other nonsense" option. All you provided in 6.1.2 is that Trump is just like every other politician. When you have evidence that can result in something actionable, then we'll talk.
Bullshit! No Presidents were impeached twice, had criminal indictments and were found responsible for a sexual assault...
Except Trump!
Trump is in a league of his own, all alone!
1 Impeachment based on the Democrats "Big Lie". 1 Impeachment based on a partisan hissy fit. Neither came back with a guilty verdict.
There was no criminal indictment for sexual assault. It was a civil suit that found him liable for Civil Battery and Defamation.
You should really do your research before spitting out misinformation.
Excuses Excuses Excuses! Trump Sucks!
What was the Democrats Big Lie? Be as specific as you can manage.
On the jury form there was a specific question about Donald Trump sexually abusing the woman and the jury answered "yes" .
Bill Clinton impeached under 2 articles of impeachment and he actually paid for a civil suit for sexual assault, he paid for raping a woman.
Which one? Russia, Russia, Russia couldn't get him so Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine which didn't get him convicted either. then 1/6, 1/6, 1/6 which may be found to be a lie also when all the smoke clears and didn't get him either. BTW, where is that special investigator?
Of course, nobody is buying your ridiculous bullshit.
There is no denying Trump’s wrongdoing.
What was the Democrats Big Lie? Can you not articulate it ?
Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine is not only not a big lie, it is not even what any Democrats said.
What about what the Democrats alleged about Trump regarding Ukraine was a lie?
Was it wrong for Trump to engage in battery and defamation of E. Jean Carroll?
Russia Collusion. Then we can't forget the Ukraine hoax, then calling for riots on Jan 6. Take your pick.
Sorry, not proof he did anything. Just hurt your precious feelings.
So you are going to deny fact that is in your face. Kind of hypocritical of you.
And yet you haven't proven it.
There are crocodiles in that Egyptian river!
Lets start with the call. You remember that don't you? That's the whistleblower (Vindman) that altered official documents then went running to the Democrats.
What don't you understand about the Russia hoax? What don't you understand about not being convicted in the Ukraine deal?
If it wasn't a lie, why no conviction? And don't give me GOP majority bullshit...........NOT impeachable offense as found by a Senate "of his peers".
Changing gears I see.
Testing to see if you will even admit wrongdoing by Trump after a trial found him liable.
You will not.
You cannot admit Trump lied about the 2020 election being rigged, etc. and even deny the findings of a legal trial.
How foolish.
I asked you very specifically what the Democrats Big Lie was. Evidently you dont know. Or cant put it into words. Simply saying he wasnt convicted doesnt tell us anything about what you think the Democrats said about Trump and Ukraine that was a lie. And also, what the Democrats said about Trump and Jan 6th ( the 2nd impeachment) that was a lie.
Since you seem unable to put it into words I will leave you alone before you bore me to death.
There it is. The trolling I was talking about.
The big lie was Russia to begin with. When that didn't work, they made up another that didn't pan out. And then, 1/6. If you were paying attention, doesn't need any more specificity than that.
And he specifically answered you. You're willful ignorance isn't his problem. But you did cover the Democrats "Big Lie" quite extensively. Just go back and read all your "Smoking Gun" articles.
[deleted] Jeremy said both impeachments were the result of the Democrats Big Lie. The so called "Russia hoax" was not an impeachment article.
One last chance. Tell us what the Big Lie by the Democrats concerning Trumps impeachment over Ukraine and his impeachment over Jan 6th.
You guys are starting to make me believe you cant answer the question. If you call something a Big Lie, surely you must know what it is.
[deleted] Be glad people like you are protected on Newstalkers.
And there's the personal attack that comes when you don't have a goddamn thing to say.
Attempted extortion and it was bullshit.
[deleted] you could explain for us what the Democrats Big Lie was about Trump's two impeachments.
[Deleted]
If the Democrats didn't lie about the Russia Collusion then there would be no investigation and not OBSTRUCTION "impeachment".
When that didn't work, a TDS driven clod altered official documents and ran to the Democrats with it. Like the Russia Collusion lie, it failed.
Then there was the false claim (a lie) that Trump instigated the Jan 6th protests. When that failed (like the Ukraine call before it and the Russia Collusion lie), then the second "impeachment" come. Based, again, on lies.
Again, you know all this. Just go back and read all your "we got him now" and "smoking gun" articles that pushed all these lies.
I never said it was. Get your shit straight.
And the House, the Democrat controlled House, found that he incited J6 which, so far, is bullshit. happy?
www.rollingstone.com /politics/politics-news/ukraine-quid-pro-quo-impeachment-testimony-evidence-909873/
Was There a Quid Pro Quo With Ukraine? A Guide to All the Evidence
Ryan Bort 14-18 minutes 11/11/2019
All the Evidence of Trump’s Ukraine Quid Pro Quo, Together in One Place
If President Trump did engage in such a quid pro quo, it would amount to precisely the type of abuse of power the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause into the Constitution. But after a month of damning testimony from an array of witnesses with first-hand knowledge of Trump’s Ukraine policy, there’s a preponderance of evidence that that’s exactly what Trump did.
Public impeachment inquiry hearings kicking off on Wednesday may add to the pile, but in the meantime, we’ve put together a guide to the mountain of evidence suggesting Trump leveraged military aid to push a foreign regime to meddle in the 2020 U.S. presidential election on his behalf.
Who is he? The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Sondland was a central figure in the Trump administration’s efforts to extort Ukraine into investigating Biden. He is also most definitely not a Never Trumper. The founder of a hotel company, he was awarded his ambassadorship after donating $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.
What did he say? Sondland’s testimony has been inconsistent. He initially said he wasn’t aware of a quid pro quo, but prior to his testimony being made public earlier this month, submitted an addendum in which he admitted he told Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Zelensky, that a quid pro quo was in place:
“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”
Multiple witnesses corroborated that Sondland told Ukraine the release of aid was conditional.
Sondland also testified that he was directed by the president to insist to concerned State Department officials that there wasn’t quid pro quo.
How did Trump respond?
Who is he? Taylor is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. He took over the post this summer after the U.S. ambassador to the nation, Marie Yovanovitch, was relieved of her duties following a right-wing smear campaign. Taylor previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
What did he say? Taylor didn’t mince words when he was asked directly if Ukraine receiving military assistance and Zelensky receiving an invitation to the White House were “conditioned” on Ukraine launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election:
“The was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President committed to pursue the investigation.”
He clarified this point in responding to multiple follow-up questions. “Yes, sir,” he said when asked again if military aid was contingent upon a commitment to pursue an investigation. “I am,” he said when asked if he was aware “quid pro quo literally means this for that.”
Taylor also confirmed that Trump himself wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election publicly. “But President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” he said.
This was corroborated by other witnesses, including George Kent, the deputy assistant to the secretary of state. “POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelenskyy to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden and Clinton,” Kent testified of an exchange between Sondland and Tim Morrision, which was then relayed to Taylor.
How did Trump respond? The day after Taylor’s testimony, Trump tweeted that “Never Trumper Republicans are “human scum.” Hours later he referred to Taylor as a “Never Trumper Diplomat.”
Who is he? Morrison was a National Security Council director specializing in Russia and Europe. He assumed the post after Fiona Hill resigned in August of this year, and resigned himself prior to testifying on October 31st.
What did he say? Bill Taylor also testified that Sondland told Yermak military aid was contingent upon a public announcement from Ukraine that it would launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. Morrison testified this was “accurate,” only correcting that he believed “it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation.”
Nevertheless, Morrison corroborated that an investigation was required before military aid would be released.
He later elaborated that he first became aware of the quid pro quo during a September 1st conversation with Sondland. “I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland,” the transcript of his testimony read. “Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress.”
Though Morrison said at the time he hoped Sondland’s strategy was his own, Sondland has testified that it came directly from Trump.
How did Trump respond? Trump tried to paint Morrison’s testimony as a win, focusing on when he said he “was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” on Trump’s July 25th call with Zelensky. “But the Crooked Democrats don’t want people to know this!” Trump tweeted in response. “Thank you to Tim Morrison for your honesty.”
Who is he? Vindman is an Army lieutenant colonel, Purple Heart recipient, and the the top Ukraine adviser at the National Security Council.
What did he say? In his late-October testimony, Vindman also pointed to Sondland, particularly his involvement in a chaotic July 10th White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which he laid out the terms of the quid pro quo. “When the Ukrainians raised this issue of trying to figure out what the date would be for the presidential meeting, Ambassador Sondland proceeded to discuss the deliverable required in order to get the meeting, and he alluded to investigations.”
“My visceral reaction to what was being called for suggested that it was explicit,” Vindman said of the idea that a White House invitation for Zelensky was contingent upon the investigations being launched. “There was no ambiguity.”
How did Trump respond? Trump and his allies attacked Vindman following his testimony, with the president telling reporters on multiple occasions that he would “very soon” be releasing information proving Vindman was an illegitimate witness who is biased against the president.
On November 10th, two days after the transcript of his testimony was released, National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told CBS News that Vindman will be removed from the National Security Council. Vindman’s lawyer later confirmed that his detail will end next July.
Who is she? Hill was the top Russia and Europe expert in the National Security Council before stepping down in August.
What did she say? Hill also described the July 10th meeting in which Sondland laid out the quid pro quo to Ukrainian officials. She corroborated Vindman’s testimony that Sondland made clear that the launch of investigations into the 2016 election and Biden was required before Zelensky would be invited to the White House.
Sondland’s behavior in the meeting was so alarming that then-National Security Adviser John Bolton told Hill to alert White House lawyers. “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Hill recalled Bolton telling her.
How did Trump respond? Trump did not attack Hill by name but a day after her testimony railed against the “selective leaks” coming out of the hearings “Let the facts come out from the charade of people, most of whom I do not know, they are interviewing for 9 hours each, not selective leaks,” he tweeted.
Hill’s complete testimony was released on November 8th.
Who is he? Mulvaney is Trump’s acting chief of staff. Multiple witnesses suggested he played a prominent role in the administration’s attempt to extort Ukraine.
What did he say? Mulvaney flatly admitted a quid pro quo was in place while speaking with reporters October 17th. Here’s his exchange with ABC’s Jonathan Karl:
Karl: “So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered you to withhold funding to Ukraine?”
Mulvaney: “’Look back to what happened in 2016,’ certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with the nation. And that is absolutely equivalent.”
Karl: “What you described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens as well.”
Mulvaney: “We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.”
Hours later, Mulvaney released a statement attempting to walk back the comments, arguing there was no quid pro quo and that the media “decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump.”
How did Trump respond? Though he did not comment on Mulvaney’s press conference publicly, it was reported that Trump was “not happy” with it. He later refused to comment on whether he was pleased the job Mulvaney was doing as chief of staff, according to the Washington Examiner.
Who is he? A U.S. senator from Wisconsin.
What did he say? Ron Johnson told the Wall Street Journal that in August, Sondland informed him of the quid pro quo with Ukraine. Johnson described Sondland telling him of a desire to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending.”
How did Trump respond? The day after speaking with Sondland, Johnson asked the president about it. He told the Journal the president denied any connection between investigations and the release of the aid.
Who is he? Parnas is a Ukranian-born associate of Rudy Giuliani’s who along with Igor Furman, another associate of Giuliani’s, was indicted in October on campaign finance charges.
What did he say? The New York Times reported that after Zelesnky was elected in May, Parnas told a representative of the incoming government that it would need to launch an investigation into Biden or the Trump administration would freeze U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Furman and Giuliani both disputed Parnas’ claim, with Giuliani telling the Times he “did not tell [Parnas] to say that” to the Ukranian government.
How did Trump respond? Trump has yet to respond to Parnas’ claim that he informed the Ukranian government of a quid pro quo in May, but in the wake of Parnas’ arrest, Trump said he “doesn’t know” him, despite several pictures of them together surfacing.
Who is he? The president of the United States.
What did he say? Though Trump has repeatedly directed Americans to “READ THE TRANSCRIPT” of his July 25th call with Zelensky, the partial readout of the call released by the White House in September is actually pretty damning. After Zelensky mentions that Ukraine is willing to “cooperate” regarding military aid, Trump says, “I want you to do me a favor though,” before detailing the investigations he wants carried out. The “though” is a pretty explicit indication that the aid in question is contingent upon Ukraine launching the investigations details by the president.
In other words, it was a quid pro quo.
No, because a bipartisan majority of both Houses of Congress found Trump guilty!
Wasn't enough now was it.................
Bolton’s acc, across several pages of his book, squarely addresses these parts of the record. A few examples.
1. Only “circumstantial evidence” of what Trump said or did? Bolton provides direct evidence.
2. Trump’s actions were to pursue anti-corruption, not to help his campaign? Bolton confirms it was the latter, unequivocally.
3. No evidence of a quid pro quo for military assistance? That’s what Bolton’s direct evidence establishes (see #1 ).
4. The White House suspended aid to Ukraine as part of a general review of foreign economic assistance? Bolton writes that this was a false cover.
As for the infamous phone call with Ukraine’s president, Bolton thought it simply fit into the ongoing scheme. “Nor, at the time, did I think Trump’s comments in the call reflected any major change in direction; the linkage of the military assistance with the Giuliani fantasies was already baked in. The call was not the keystone for me, but simply another brick in the wall,” the former national security advisor writes.
Bolton also corroborates details in congressional testimony by Fiona Hill, Ambassador Bill Taylor, and Tim Morrison.
Bolton’s account is damning of Rudy Giuliani’s role in polluting the president’s mind with conspiracy theories about Ukraine, and paints a largely favorable picture of Vice President Mike Pence. Which brings us full circle to Bolton’s credibility among some audiences.
The Ukraine chapter is the final one in Bolton’s book, and by that point one already anticipates the chapter’s contents because it fits completely with a series of other actions by President Trump that involve serious abuses of office. The chapter’s contents are also likely no surprise to Senate Republicans. The question is whether Bolton’s account will reach and inform more of the American electorate. It will certainly inform how history records what happened to our republic.
There was nothing bipartisan about the process.
There was no guilty verdict.
Emails Show the White House Knew Trump Was Extorting Ukraine
Web Wildly Incriminating Emails Show the White House Knew Trump Was Extorting Ukraine Staff, including Mick Mulvaney, scrambled to justify the hold on nearly $400 million in aid …
I could go on and on and on with this. There was overwhelming evidence that Trump tried to "extort" Ukraine.
He wasnt impeached over it because the Republican position was that , even though Trump committed this wrong doing, it wasnt sufficient to rise to an impeachable offense.
So, in other words, there was no Democratic "Big Lie" over Ukraine.
Just admit there was no "Big Lie" by the Democrats and I will stop making you look foolish.
Nope and when did you start? Not seeing it.....................
So you want us to forget the Mueller report and the Durham report found that there was no collusion and the Durham report went a step further and questioned the validity of the Mueller report due to it being based on false information and lies?
This is , exactly , what you said. impeachment based on the Democrats "Big Lie".
So what was the lie?
Trump's phone call with Zelensky was incriminating enough, but that information was further fleshed out and buttressed by the testimony to the impeachment committee, and after the fact by Bolton, who was told by Trump there was a quid pro quo.
I know it is a waste of time to expect answers from you, but I guess now and then I am required to waste my time.
Forget about guilt and consider wrongdoing.
Was it wrong (not a question of legal guilt, but right vs. wrong ) for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution? Was it wrong for Trump to:
Hell, for many of them they don't need evidence, or a trial. The Court of Public Stupidity at it again.
now, now, I'm sure there's still plenty of time to order a new 3per teeshirt and maga hat online, get your camo all cleaned and pressed, and polish up the the old AR before driving to DC to face down the national guard with the rest of the unamerican insurrectionists when your scumbag hero finally faces the music for his crimes, for the first time in his worthless privileged life.
You mean the crimes that the left and several investigations can't find evidence of?
Yep, those are the ones ....
And all based on the lie the Democrats spit out when they lost to the FNG.
just how far down does that delusional rabbit hole descend?
You ignore blatant evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. You will not even acknowledge that it was wrong for Trump to announce as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS. You have Trump on video @6.1.2 making these claims (about as much proof as one can get) yet you claim no evidence. And then you emit: "The Court of Public Stupidity at it again.".
After looking at what you and TiG have provided, it must go down pretty far.
Again, the only thing you have proven to me is that the former POTUS is no different than any other politician.
There have been no criminal indictments (despite all the fabricated hoaxes) so there have been no trials and no convictions. And this is spanning several "investigations" over almost a decade.
There has never, in our history, been a PotUS who has deemed the USA electoral system to be rigged and that as a result there was mass voter disenfranchisement and that the USA has an illegitimate PotUS. These are not normal acts of a politician ... especially a sitting president.
You (and apparently Just Jim) continue to foolishly deny reality.
You (and apparently Just Jim) cannot bring yourself to admit even the most obvious wrongdoing of Trump.
Again with the obtuse moving of the goalpost from wrongdoing to crime.
Pathetic.
Again, no different than any other politician.
I've made the same statement over and over. I haven't changed a damn thing about it. Reality is, the only thing that changed was the level of TDS you have displayed. And all because I won't capitulate to your nonsense.
Something that has never been done in our history yet you claim it is normal politics.
You are, however, implicitly admitting Trump's wrongdoing in spite of yourself.
Correct. When I speak of wrongdoing, you speak of crimes. You move the goalpost from wrongdoing to crime.
See? Get it?
WTF????
what other politician declared the election was rigged and this his opponent was not legitimate???
NONE
you got one right for a change
are you following me around again?
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.
I never said "crimes". That's YOUR statement. I said EVIDENCE. Remember, all those investigations come up just like you are when it comes to evidence - flat.
Now you deny the meaning of your own words:
You expect people to buy the idea that you are NOT talking about crimes ⇡ here?
You ignore blatant evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. You will not even acknowledge that it was wrong for Trump to announce as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS. You have Trump on video @6.1.2 making these claims (about as much proof as one can get) yet you claim no evidence.
What I expect is people to use their comprehension skills. Notice in the comment you quoted I said "criminal INDICTMENTS". You seem to ignore that second word there. Hell you seem to be clueless about the entire statement you quoted. Wonder why that is?
The rest of 6.1.68 is just further blathering on about something you have no proof of. Just hurt feelings.
That's right, Jeremy, a criminal indictment is a reference to crime. The word criminal indicates crime and the pairing criminal indictment indicates crime. Thus you were referring to crime. You move the goalposts from wrongdoing (my allegation) to crime.
Your continue to put forth utter nonsense as deflection for your absurd refusal to acknowledge even the most basic of Trump's wrongdoing ... announcing on video @6.1.2 as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.
And of which there is no evidence of. But don't let that stop your from spreading your fiction.
You again resort to lying. I have never stated Trump is guilty of a crime. I have stated that Trump has done wrong ... that he has wrongfully announced on video @6.1.2 as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.
The video of Trump speaking is the evidence of his wrongdoing.
You cannot even acknowledge Trump's most basic wrongdoing.
It's not a deflection. It was in Jeremy's original statement.
Evidence of such is irrefutable, but Jeremy chooses to ignore it. Limiting it to criminal convictions (because there have been civil ones) is an attempt by Jeremy to backpedal while wearing blinders, not an attempt by TiG to deflect. TiG has given proof of wrongdoing. Jeremy refuses to accept the truth. Calling that a deflection is dishonest.
Evidence of such is irrefutable, but Jeremy chooses to ignore it.
Hard to ignore something that hasn't been presented. To date, the only evidence shown is that Trump is a liar just like every other politician. 7 years of investigations by several DA's and the FBI that are based on fiction and hurt feelings hasn't produced anything to show wrong doing. So what make you think anything you or TiG have would amount to anything more than wasting time?
"Criminal" is TiG's claim. I'm merely asking for the proof that Mueller couldn't seem to find. And on the civil side, there is no "conviction".
You obviously don't know the results of a civil case. "Guilty" isn't an outcome of ANY civil suit. Recommend you do some research.
You asserted he did nothing wrong. He has, and proof has been provided. You still choose to ignore it, and ask for more evidence. That's dishonest. It's sealioning, a form of trolling.
He was found civilly liable. Yes, we all know. You hang your position on semantics and trolling if you like, Jeremy. The rest of us recognize the dishonesty in that.
[removed][.]
I asserted that no evidence has been provided. Get your bullshit straight.
removed for context ny charger
Good grief man, pay attention to what has been written. I have not claimed guilt of a crime, I have always stated wrongdoing.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
A flat out lie. I have never claimed Trump's wrongdoing IS criminal. The designation of a crime is done by legal authority. The guilt of a crime is done via the legal system.
I have always focused on wrongdoing ... the question of right vs. wrong.
You know this since I have asked you about wrongdoing every time I have seen you defend Trump. So now instead of merely deflecting, you choose to repeatedly lie. Probably in the Trump esque hope that lying repeatedly will eventually cause people to believe the lie.
Never has a sitting PotUS claim that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that his successor is not the legitimate PotUS. And that is just for starters.
Watch this on the video @6.1.2 . You will never find any other PotUS come close to this level of shitting on our nation.
And, again, you just tacitly admitted that Trump lied and thus engaged in wrongdoing. You know it, we all know it, but you cannot bring yourself to honestly acknowledge it. And apparently you think this does not make your comments look foolish?
And I have submitted plenty of evidence starting @6.1.2 and repeated in this thread. Evidence including Trump himself speaking the starting lies I have focused on.
How absurd to try to pretend this evidence has not been presented when everyone can see that it has. Other than appear foolish, what could you possibly hope to gain by this ridiculous pretense?
You ignore blatant evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. You will not even acknowledge that it was wrong for Trump to announce as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.
Yet here he is spewing these very lies to the world.
Which is a lie.
he was trained to believe them all...
... sort of like it's legal as long as you don't get caught. sounds familiar...
So, helping to move the goalposts?
Yeah, Dennis, so do I. That is why I consistently write of Trump's wrongdoing and many times explicitly state that I am not talking about his guilt.
But even so, people like you find a way to get it totally wrong.
Wrongdoing could involve breaking the law but that is not a defining characteristic. Wrongdoing is not about crimes but rather morality ... a question of right vs. wrong.
So when I ask people if it was wrong for Trump to, as PotUS, announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS, I am asking about a wrongdoing, not a crime.
So, Dennis, are you able to stand up and answer the question that Jeremy refuses to answer?:
Was it wrong for Trump to, as PotUS, announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS?
Further, do we have evidence of Trump doing this?
You mean those on the hard liberal left that refuse to accept the concept in our Constitution that says everybody is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And that does not include the court of public opinion some here seem to go by and seem to prefer.
Given the context is my question of wrongdoing not legal guilt there is no constitutional question here.
The question was about right vs. wrong, not guilt.
Seems like a very easy question to answer:
Was it wrong for Trump to, as PotUS, announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS?
One should not have to falsely pretend that this is a question of guilt instead of a question of wrongdoing and, in particular, a question of personal judgment.
With respect, you and I have had this conversation several times in the past already and we both know and respect each other's feelings on this. Therefore, let us just agree to disagree and go on.
[deleted]
On what do we disagree?
I am under the impression that you do indeed consider it wrong for Trump to announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS. I also am under the impression that you too recognize that a personal assessment of wrongdoing is different than a legal finding of guilt.
Have I read you wrong? If not, where do we disagree?
I disagree, unlike select others Ed strikes me as a stand-up guy.
Yes, I do consider that much of what he did was wrong and illegal, but like any other citizen of this country, he is still entitled to due process in a court of law from the lowest in society to the highest. The law has to apply to all or not at all. In addition, I have never said Biden was not the legitimate president. I think he won fair and square.
[deleted]
As do I, but the determination of legal is by legal authority. Wrongdoing is a moral question (right vs. wrong) that each individual can determine (for themself).
I expect that you are fully aware that I have never suggested that Trump be deemed guilty outside of legal due process. In fact I have taken rather extreme steps to distinguish wrongdoing from guilt.
I agree, I have never read you even hint that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.
Seems to me that we are in full agreement on this point.
Yes we are. In spite of snarky pointless comments by others.
Do you understand that when one asks if Trump has engaged in wrongdoing that this is not a question of legal guilt but rather a question of right vs. wrong?
Do you understand that substituting 'legal guilt' for 'wrongdoing' is moving the goal posts (and is a dishonest / slimy tactic)?
By this you illustrate yet again that you have no idea what we were discussing. Get a clue.
BRAVO
I DON'T THINK I'VE TOLD YOU LATELY THAT I LOVE YOU HAVE I - FOR THE TRUTH/REALITY RATHER THAN WHAT'S PROVIDED IN SOME OF THESE ALTERNATE UNIVERSES HERE ON NT
certain members are on ignore - my high blood pressure just can't take the profound agorance
Nope, you just deflected
thanks. time is running out on their "where's the proof, where's the indictments" excuses...
So Trump communicates at the level of the poet who wrote Biden's inauguration poem, per the left.
What an insult of the poet.
jesus sean...just make shit up why don't you?
Show us how you came up with that. Quote any person here
Aren’t you mad the school decided the poet’s work was at a junior high level and not that of a fourth grader?
according to the outraged left, she apparently communicates on a fourth grade level too, just like trump.
Your obsessions are getting more bizarre by the day.
You are the one angry that a local school library placed a book on one shelf and not another, not me. The [deleted] online left is outraged that a school decided a poet doesn’t communicate at a third grade level. That’s really funny when you think about it.
I can’t help it if the left’s arguments are so easy to mock.
Aren't you glad that FL schools are saying their grade school kids are stupid?
You have Florida on the brain. This is one school.
But if you want to argue the poet Biden selected to read a book communicates at a third grade level and isn't worth the time of older kids, I guess no one is stopping you. I've given her the benefit of the doubt and believe she's not that simple and childish a writer. Until I hear from someone who read the book at issue and creates a compelling argument that the writing is so simple and basic that's is accessible to most seven year olds, I'm going to assume the professionals who read the book put it where it will draw the interest of the appropriate age group.
What a ridiculous statement.
They do make the news for spreading idiocy.
This singular issue does effect 3 books in one school, but the issue of a single parent flagging books works across the state. This particular parent admitted this week to not to understand English well enough not to post anti-sematic ideas on Facebook. She says she needs others to read for her and translate it into Cuban Spanish.
So what? You want literacy tests before parents are allowed to have a say? Only native English speakers?
The school decided the book was not written at a little kid level, not the parent. You think mistakes shouldn't be corrected by a school if a native Spanish speaker is the one who brings it to the school's attention?
Shouldn't books be placed at the appropriate level?
Again, if you think this poet is writing below a sixth grade level, I'd love to hear the case for it, because otherwise what the school did is unobjectionable.
as long as its conservatives doing the "restricting" or determining age appropriate material
but get your knickers in a twist over Tipper Gore
First, the book was not restricted by the school. It's available to all students.
But sure, education and educational policy is controlled by conservatives and has been for generations. You got me. And I'm sure you have evidence the school officials making this decision are conservative agents, desperate to ensure this book is placed at a level in the library where the students are too old and advanced to bother with it since its' written for 10 years olds like you believe. You've figured out the conspiracy.
But go ahead, make the case the poet writes below a sixth grade level. I'll wait.
kers in a twist over Tipper Gore
Lol. Desperation has set in, huh?
[removed] I can't take your hysterical nonsense any longer
Perhaps they should have actually asked the women what specifically fit her claim before they moved it? Or better yet the state shouldn't have passed the stupid law to allow this to begin with.
Who defines appropriate? It used to be a conservative's idea to let the parent speak for their own child, but now it's other parents that make those determinations for all children. Talk about the nanny state!
Again my argument has nothing to do with Ms Gorman or her poem.
Yeah, can't have spanish speakers asking questions. Parents should have no say in education, right?
Who defines appropriate?
The school did.
but now it's other parents that make those determinations for all children.
what strawman are you flailing against now? Parents don't make the determination.
rgument has nothing to do with Ms Gorman or her poem.
You are attacking a school for how it handled her book. How you think you can criticize the school's handling of her book while ignoring the book itself is beyond me.
Either you think the book is written for small kids and the school should have left the book in the section of the library for kids learning the basic of reading, or you think it's initial placement was wrong and the school correctly moved the book to the section where it will attract kids who can read books more complicated than Dr. Suess. If the poems are simple concepts designed for beginning readers, the school should have left it where it was. If not, the school acted correctly. That's all there is to this.
The woman who made the complaint all but admitted she is an ignoramus who posted an anti-semitic link on Facebook because she saw the word "communist" in the material and that she didnt read the poem she wanted banned from all schools, and yet all Sean can do is endlessly try to make the case that the school did the poet a favor by removing her book.
We are in bizarro world with these people right now.
I had to quit this conversation. The stupidity was making my eye twitch
Me too and I just got here.
Trying to turn this from pointing out the person who said she has trouble understanding English into a sweeping generalization of "Spanish speakers" is on you.
I've already stated my opinion is for the parents to police what their own kids read, or don't read.
Because that doesn't fit your narrative, obviously.
Parent your own fucking child and stop trying to parent mine - the rest of your shitty narrative has nothing to do with me.
You specified that a Spanish speaker complained, not me. The parent's identity is absolutely irrelevant to where the school placed the book. Unless you don't think Spanish speakers have a right to complain, there was no reason for you to make her linguistic history relevant. I assume people include things because they think they are relevant.
ated my opinion is for the parents to police what their own kids read, or don't read.
So that has no relevance to anything happening here. No one is policing what kids read. You understand libraries do try to place books to achieve the maximum utility for the users, right? Organizing books is not policing them.
Parent your own fucking child and stop trying to parent mine
Who are you even arguing with? DO you just have generic arguments that you throw out that bear only tangential relevance to what's going on?
If me pointing out that not a single person here has a made an argument that the school acted incorrectly in moving the book to the areas of the library for older kids make you think "I'm trying to parent your child" than you really should think twice about claiming anyone else has "trouble understanding English".
You and Trout Are killing me !
And the cherry on top, the book's publisher categorizes the book as "young adult"
So now even the publisher is in on the conspiracy. It categorizes her works as being aimed at teenaged readers and young adults. How dare a school move it from the area of the library with books geared towards six years olds! I'm sure teenagers will happily go into the area with Dr. Suess books to find it.
time to snatch all those bibles out of the hands of young kids at the local xtian madrasas ...
What are you waiting for?
for them to escape the basement of the thumper madrasa...
when those thumpers drop their pants around their ankles, run kids run ...
Tipper Gore? JFC! Some folks really reside in the past along with their alternate reality/universe
that's a multi-galactic stretch...
That would be a vast understatement.
poor newt, totally irrelevant. maybe if he shaved his wife's head, dyed her blue, and claimed he'd been contacted by aliens...
He needs another mistress/whore to schtup.
toxic jello wrestling...
she plays the french horn, let your imagination run with that visual...
I've been saying that for years now, but not as a compliment. The ability to communicate in a manner that is on the level with your audience's ability to comprehend is admirable for a grade school teacher. But the inability to communicate at a higher level, especially for a POTUS, is not. He should never have been nominated.
When I hear him speak, I often think of this from Billy Madison:
May God have mercy on his soul!