Behind the impeachment push: Left simply hates what Trump represents
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and a legitimate whistleblower weighs in on the Left's attempt to impeach President Donald Trump, saying the commander-in-chief presents an "unprecedented challenge" to them.
Phil Haney, the former DHS employee, admits the House can impeach the president for nearly any reason. While he believes they have the right to do it, he also argues that the actions against Trump are not in line with the focus and spirit of the Constitution.
Haney believes the Left could possibly find precedent to impeach Trump based on other public figures who have been impeached for behavior or actions that are unbecoming of the dignity of the office. Yet, he questions whether the effort could actually be successful. Personally, he doesn't believe Trump will be impeached, but he does understand Congress has the right to do it.
Haney"There may be some deeper level, cynical subplots going on that are actually part of a calculated move [to move forward with impeaching the president]," Haney suggests. "However, they're so far out on the edge that they're really playing with fire – and it will backfire on them."
Haney contends "impeachment is the paradox of liberty," pointing out that America has the liberty and the form of government that allows participation in the political system.
"The paradox of liberty – what do you do with it?" he asks. "Do you squander it with frivolous frenzies and outbursts of psychosis like what we're seeing? Or do you use this magnificent gift in a constructive way for the good of the people?"
On the "other side of the paradoxical coin," Haney says no other issue is built into the structure of the Constitution that illustrates how important it is to have a true, grassroots movement by the people to harness the erroneous actions of the government.
"There is no other issue that cries out for grassroots involvement more than impeachment," he continues. "[And it] is the litmus test of real liberty." The reasons being used by Democrats in their call for impeachment reveals their worldview and values, Haney attests.
"The fact that the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump shows you not only what their values are with President Trump, but also marginalizes every single person who voted for him or supports him," he tells OneNewsNow.
"[The supporters of impeachment] don't care what the American people have said. They insist they know better and they're willing to disenfranchise the greater majority of the American public in our effort to impeach President Trump. That, my friend, is the paradox of liberty."
Haney is convinced the effort was fast-tracked with the complaint of a "so-called whistleblower." He describes this person as a "composite" – and he doesn't believe the perpetrator is a true whistleblower, but "an opportunist and an operative." He believes this operative was mostly likely sent into the White House by John Brennan (former director of the CIA) to gather intel.
While those in the opportunist's circle may or may not have been cooperative participants, Haney argues "it is evident the opportunist gathered information, compiled it in some certain way and then handed it off to his roster of associates" – whom he believes very likely included people like Democratic lawmakers Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer.
"He was actually passing information to them in the same way a barista hands you a cup of coffee over the counter. He's gave them raw information straight over the counter."
Haney notes a key indicator to corruption in the form of a tweet by Adam Schiff on August 28, 2019 – a tweet sent prior to the whistleblower report becoming known.
"This points the needle in the direction the whistleblower was already in direct contact with Schiff," Haney concludes. "The whistleblower is a composite, an operative , and not a true whistleblower – and that's based on my hard-earned, costly insight from the experiences that I went through [as a legitimate whistleblower]."
"Today," Haney states, "I see all this virtue signaling, protecting the integrity of the whistleblower, showing how heroic and martyr-like he is — but the fact of the matter is, Adam Schiff is desperate to protect the whistleblower, because in the process he's protecting himself and a number of others."
Haney believes that when the whistleblower actually comes out and is forthcoming in directly answering questions before committees, it will be revealed that he had previous contact with the likes of Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, and others prior to ever filing the report.
"All indications tell me he was specifically chosen and selected, deliberately and intentionally inserted into the inside workings of the White House to do exactly what he did," Haney surmises.
"It is also important to logically conclude President Trump began securing transcripts of his conversations, because they kept getting leaked."
In a similar vein, Haney suspects Trump already knows who the whistleblower is or at least has a "short list." He contends that when Trump says he wants to know who the whistleblower is, it's to "get a sense of the reaction of the virtue signaling that inevitably follows when he makes any kind of a statement – because we all know it doesn't matter what he says, he's going to get a hysterical reaction from the Left."
He continues: "[The Left] hates him because he contradicts their worldview and his mere existence is an offense to them. As long as [the president] represents constitutional values, values of the founding fathers, and sovereignty, they're going to find him offensive – simply because it contradicts their worldview. He's an unprecedented challenge to them."
Haney concludes by saying there is a reason for hope.
"We have reason for hope because we live in a country that allows us to participate in the protection of our own liberties," the former DHS employee shares. "If we had no recourse and had to just sit there and watch the Democratic Party pick the president apart piece by piece until they destroyed him, we would have no reason for hope."
"[But] we live in a country with an incredible heritage and ideology that was defined by the founding fathers, which allows us to participate in the defense of our own liberties – and that's a rare thing. Consider what's happening in Hong Kong this very day."
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
Haney notes a key indicator to corruption in the form of a tweet by Adam Schiff on August 28, 2019 – a tweet sent prior to the whistleblower report becoming known.
"This points the needle in the direction the whistleblower was already in direct contact with Schiff," Haney concludes. "The whistleblower is a composite, an operative , and not a true whistleblower – and that's based on my hard-earned, costly insight from the experiences that I went through [as a legitimate whistleblower]."
"Today," Haney states, "I see all this virtue signaling, protecting the integrity of the whistleblower, showing how heroic and martyr-like he is — but the fact of the matter is, Adam Schiff is desperate to protect the whistleblower, because in the process he's protecting himself and a number of others."
Haney believes that when the whistleblower actually comes out and is forthcoming in directly answering questions before committees, it will be revealed that he had previous contact with the likes of Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, and others prior to ever filing the report.
"All indications tell me he was specifically chosen and selected, deliberately and intentionally inserted into the inside workings of the White House to do exactly what he did," Haney surmises.
"It is also important to logically conclude President Trump began securing transcripts of his conversations, because they kept getting leaked."
In a similar vein, Haney suspects Trump already knows who the whistleblower is or at least has a "short list." He contends that when Trump says he wants to know who the whistleblower is, it's to "get a sense of the reaction of the virtue signaling that inevitably follows when he makes any kind of a statement – because we all know it doesn't matter what he says, he's going to get a hysterical reaction from the Left."
He continues: "[The Left] hates him because he contradicts their worldview and his mere existence is an offense to them. As long as [the president] represents constitutional values, values of the founding fathers, and sovereignty, they're going to find him offensive – simply because it contradicts their worldview. He's an unprecedented challenge to them."
Haney concludes by saying there is a reason for hope.
The American people are not stupid. We have heard about impeachment from day 1. As a cheerful warrior I can tell you that the dems have yet to feel the people's wrath!
True, the majority of Americans are not stupid. However, Donald Trump believes some of them are, "You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible" - Donald J Trump
Donald Trump is counting on those Americans who either don't know anything about how government works, what the constitution says or care about the rule of law. He needs them to keep himself in power.
Thankfully, last year 10,000,000 more Americans voted for Democrats than Republicans which put the responsibility for oversight in the hands of those willing to do their jobs instead of those cowering in fear of those rabid and deplorable constituents who Trump talked about in that quote, those who are either too stupid or too shameless to care about the rule of law and the constitution.
Donald Trump dosen't have to count on anybody. We all got a good look at all of these hate filled zealots the past 3 years. We will hand you another defeat! No Obama third term! No transforming America! No more targeting the police! No more indoctrination!
You can't risk an election.....You need to impeach!
Indeed. With those like Steven Miller and Steve Bannon and other hate filled bigots surrounding Trump, as well as being one himself, we got a good look at them for the past 3 years and the majority of Americans disapprove. The Trumptanic is sinking and the smell of desperation is in the air. Just like with the corrupt Nixon administration, Trump and his cronies are going down and taking everyone who supported them down with them. For years to come college professors will teach whole classes on what a miserable piece of shit Trump was and historians will write many books about him and why he will forever more be known as the worst President in US history.
As opposed to the Reverend Wrights and Al Sharptons or BLM that surrounded Barak Obama? Smearing is a sport shared by all. I can do it as well. I just hate getting into the mud. I wish we could have had a conversation, but at this point I have to call it a day.
Have a good one
Wow, slap down that race card why don't you Vic.
Yes, I know.
I don't recall any of them advocating for some black utopia, only equal rights under the law. And none of them were appointed to any cabinet positions or hired as white house staff like the current piece of shit bigot has done with those willing to swallow his toxic load.
America will get past this disaster as it has overcome many before it, so yes, I will have a good one. You have a good one as well and we can all rest assured, Americans are not as stupid as Trump thinks.
So is it your posit that it's impossible to counter the term 'hate filled bigots' without slapping down the race card?
[deleted]
Yes, we hate a liar, a cheat, a blowhard, a narcissistic asshole, a know it all when he knows nothing, a swindler, a bully, someone who claimed bankruptcy how many times, a bone spurs draft dodger, a treasonous asshole conspiring with a foreign country against an American citizen...I could go on and on but you get the picture. Trump is a disgrace
"[The Left] hates him because he contradicts their worldview and his mere existence is an offense to them. As long as [the president] represents constitutional values, values of the founding fathers, and sovereignty, they're going to find him offensive – simply because it contradicts their worldview. He's an unprecedented challenge to them."
Haney concludes by saying there is a reason for hope.
"We have reason for hope because we live in a country that allows us to participate in the protection of our own liberties," the former DHS employee shares. "If we had no recourse and had to just sit there and watch the Democratic Party pick the president apart piece by piece until they destroyed him, we would have no reason for hope."
"[But] we live in a country with an incredible heritage and ideology that was defined by the founding fathers, which allows us to participate in the defense of our own liberties – and that's a rare thing.
More Americans hate him...deal with it
Some do. That’s not grounds for impeachment.
He did something illegal and against the constitution that he uses to wipe his ass
Nope, it's the truth
You have numbers on hate? Let's see them
No it's not, it's the truth.
With a 37% approval rate of this 'president' that leaves you with 61% of Americans who hate him!
In other words you think everyone who dosen't approve of his job performance hates him? Do you recall that even John once said that he dosen't hate Trump? What about moderates and independents? You think everyone who votes democrat is voting against Trump?
So you think there are two camps....Those who think like you and those who think like me? I think there is quite a bit more than that.
There are those that hate him and those that dislike him and those that despise him. I never said there were two camps. When it comes to those that don't like this 'president' I guess it falls into the three categories I named.
My math is off a little bit, not my strong suit, but if it's actually a 39% approval rate, 61% against him is correct.
37% I think is more accurate though still way too much.
But you are still dividing everybody into two camps. It isn't really a case of a certain percent approving his job performance and everyone else having a negative image of Trump. That's just not logical. Don't you think there are people who simply don't like his policies? He appointed over 150 judges. I'm sure there are people who want a liberal majority on the Court and that is a single issue for them. How about somebody who has voted democrat all their lives and couldn't care less if it were the rough-edged Trump or the highly-polished Reagan?
No
Gee......How can I argue with that?
HILARIOUS!!!!!
I know that's all you have Wally so go for it.
I meant 39% approval rate which would be 61% against the 'president'
' don't care for the guy, but I'll never vote for a democrat again.'
Gee what a loss to the Democrats.
That is the bottom line now.
If he were impeached on those grounds, at least it would be honest.
Trump broke the law, he has gotten away with it too many times in the past, those days are over. Impeach him, then lock his orange ass up.
Trump has broken no laws as President and there are no legitimate grounds for impeachment. None whatsoever. We will defend him to the point that the left will literally have to break the republic in order to overcome our legal peaceful all out resistance to the effort. We don’t have to harm the republic or the constitution to preserve him in office but we will defend him to the extend the other side has to wait to the election for input or to do what I said above. We will literally force the other side to bring down the whole country as we know it in order to remove him before the election. We are that certain of his innocence in this matter.
Bullshit. He tried to extort the Ukraine to win a presidential election, that's ILLEGAL.
Prove it beyond all reasonable doubt and then we will reconsider. Until then we will support him until Jan 20,2025.
Yes, it really is. It is illegal to receive ANYTHING of value, including information.
Foreign nationals
Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals . Federal law prohibits contributions, donations , expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed , received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications . Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations.
A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has:
What election did he win by extorting Ukraine? I must have missed it.
Hint, it's about the future election in 2020
The one democrats can't take a chance on losing, thus the desperate move for impeachment!
Not desperate, impeachment is necessary.
Very necessary for those who don't like democracy.
Impeachment is necessary for those who care nothing for democracy and is only using the 'presidency' to enrich themselves and their 'donors'.
It is political suicide
A high risk gamble! My money is on the dems losing everything!
Mine too. It’s blatantly partisan and not based on any facts. It’s pure TDS in action and it’s dividing the country.
The longer it goes on the thinner the argument becomes. The dems have to pull this off with lightning speed!
Apparently we all did, since it's not until next year.
There's no evidence of that. Asking a friend for a favor is not extortion.
Plus, tRump doesn't have any friends!
Then why did trump withhold military funding?
Read the transcripts, it's obvious he did. Sorry.
'Crazy to withhold security assistance' to Ukraine for political campaign: Top US diplomat
In newly disclosed text messages shared with Congress, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine at the time writes to a group of other American diplomats that "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
The exchange, provided by former U.S Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker as part of his closed-door deposition before multiple House committees Thursday, shows what appears to be encrypted text messages he exchanged with two other American diplomats in September regarding aid money President Donald Trump ordered to be held back from Ukraine.
I don't know, but my inability to explain it doesn't mean that the reason was some corrupt agenda that demands impeachment.
What I can say, based on the available facts, is that I don't see any proof that it was tied to a request to investigate Biden, and there is plenty of evidence that it wasn't.
First, the aid has been approved all year (it's in the budget) but hadn't been delivered. The administration apparently said they were prepared to deliver the aid in February and again in May, but didn't do it. I don't know why.
Volodymr Zelensky wasn't even president of Ukraine until May 20 and the phone call with Trump didn't happen until July 25. So I can't see a connection between aid that was being held up in February and a phone call that happened in July with a guy who wasn't even in power until near the end of May.
Meanwhile, in the phone call, the discussion of Biden is a pretty small part of the conversation and there is no threat at all of withholding aid. In fact, Trump sort of pats himself on the back for being such a good supporter of Ukraine and Zelensky agrees with him. There is zero tension or disagreement over the matter.
Finally, on September 11, the aid was supposedly delivered, but in the meantime, Ukraine has not launched this investigation, so it's hard to say that delivery of the aid was tied to that task when the task hasn't happened. Furthermore, if it was only tied to the promise of an investigation, it should have been released right after the phone conversation way back in July. That didn't happen either.
So, the assertion that aid to Ukraine was withheld because Trump was demanding an investigation does not have much support beyond innuendo and, as I have outlined here, there are many facts pointing to the two facts not being connected at all.
And now................the REST of the story.
"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Taylor said in a text exchange
. Sondland responded by saying that was not what was happening. "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."
Good day!
Some conservatives can't lie to themselves or the country.
Why? Can’t just wait to the next election?
Interesting that several legal scholars have already weighed in on this and all have stated unequivocally that the president in fact did nothing wrong regarding Ukraine and violated no laws. But the hard core Trump haters here will never accept that!
Trump won the 2016 election and to them that was the crime.
Yep, and he won fair and square. To the progressive liberal left, that was an even bigger slap in the face!
Let's not pretend any of this is about Trump breaking a law. That's more insulting the intelligence of Americans than any other aspect of this - or any silly thing that Trump ever says. Look at these articles and the dates for them, keeping in mind that Trump didn't even become president until January 20, 2017.
4/17/16 - Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?
9/22/2016 - University of Utah finds legal case to impeach Donald Trump
11/9/2016 - Congress: Impeach Donald J. Trump
11/11/2017 - What it would take to impeach Trump—yes, people are already asking
11/14/2017 - WILL TRUMP BE IMPEACHED?
1/15/2017 - Impeach Trump
1/20/2017 - The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun
This is just a sampling. There are several more dated on or before the man was sworn in.
You cannot talk this much about impeaching a president before he is even sworn in and seriously expect people to believe that when you finally get around to impeaching him, it's because of something he did as president.
A law?
He's piling one impeachable offense on top of another impeachable offense on top of another impeachable offense on top of another impeachable offense on top of another impeachable offense . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You can make it about whatever you like, trump broke the law and it should disturb everyone that trump used extortion to get dirt on a political rival via a foreign country. Trump has admitted he did it and his own call logs show that he did it.
Guiliani's admitted it also.
Define that.
Exactly. You would impeach the president and it doesn't matter to you if there is a good reason. That's a problem.
You mean like getting someone to claim he gets hookers to urinate on him in Russia? That's dirt.
What Trump wants is not dirt, but evidence of official behavior by a former Vice President - something that, as president, he - and we - has every right to know.
DEFINE THIS . . .
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Very good. The next step is to apply the facts to that law. Nothing in Trump's dealings with Ukraine can be applied to the law. Therefore, impeachment is not justified.
You need to do more than simply say it's outrageous or wrong or whatever. That's just an opinion. And more is particularly needed here because his accusers have been talking about impeachment since before he even took office. This process deserves a certain level of integrity even if you think Trump himself has none.
Clinton was impeached for lying about a Blow Job.
It's a good thing
Trump Never lies about anything...
Again, it's not WHAT he lied about, it is to WHOM he lied. But you knew that.
Yeah, that was pretty stupid. Again, bad behavior and so on, but definitely not worth getting rid of a president.
Well aren't you special.
You enjoy being lied to, and have no spine to call out that liar
WTF is wrong with people .
How can you guys continue to 'parse' words spit out of Putin's swallowers mouth, too much
Elementary.
Actually, impeachment doesn't require a violation of criminal law. Abuse of power, corruption, misconduct, oppression, those are just of few of the reasons for impeachment mention during debate @ the Constitutional Convention.
Here is some of the conduct in Articles of Impeachment that have been passed out of the House:
Firing a Cabinet officer
Appointing a New Cabinet officer
Refusing to allow a Cabinet officer to hold office.
Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States
Now, NONE of those are violations of criminal laws but they ARE High Crimes, per the House of Representatives and THAT body is the ONLY body that decides what is.
As is your claim that:
Yet you don's seem to think that you need to back that up with anything...
Why?
Yes, that's why Trump should STFU.
That's something that I KNOW.
Because if you're in the habit of accusing someone of wrongdoing before they have even had a chance to do it, it kind of hurts your credibility. It shows you don't take the matter seriously, you don't have a sense of responsibility to justice, and you're probably prepared to lie to undo an election.
There were a shit load of allegations against Trump the day he took office.
He started: "Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States" on day ONE.
That's literally everybody running for office or already elected, and - these days - damn near everyone in journalism who reports on them. You want to find me a politician on politifact with a 100% Truthful rating? (appropriate sample size required of course)
Sorry, you need something better than that.
No such thing by any means from any political party. Any one who believes that lives in fantasy land.
JMOO
I ask that about Bernie supporters all the time.
at leastb Bernie was attempting to share the wealth, where as Trump's " middle class" tax cuts was pure bullshit
As you said. You enjoy being lied to. Bernie is simply telling people what they want to hear to keep his fat paycheck and pension. He knows everything he promotes is complete bullshit that won't ever happen and wouldn't ever do what he claims it will anyway. He also knows huge numbers of Americans are terrible at math and have zero understanding of money, so they'll never question his nonsense and wouldn't understand the answers if they asked.
Pretty much, yeah. Again...Americans are terrible at math and know nothing about money. It's very difficult to cut taxes on people who aren't paying very much to begin with, if they pay anything at all.
Prove it.
As the Mueller report should have taught you, if the intent is corrupt, it's impeachable and or illegal.
Actually, I don't need anything, the Congress does.
You mean steal the wealth from some and distribute it to others as he sees fit with strings attached?
If you saw extortion in that phone conversation, then democrats should have enough fortitude to vote for articles of impeachment.
As for the law, (should it be necessary) we have newly appointed judges who will administer that!
Sorry, but the way I and others see it, Bernie is more Hell bent on sharing other people's wealth rather than his own.
I'm willing to play along with a lot of horseshit at times, but I draw the line at
Donald Trump has never had the "greater majority" of the American people with him. Never, not for a second.
You sound like an extremist. Dont do anything crazy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump is a liar, crook, bigot and moron. Those are not opinions those are facts. Now after his performance today we can add unstable to the description. He needs to be removed from office as soon as it can be legally and peacefully done.
I’m not an extremist but I will resist progressives extremism to the point where the only way that they can prevail over us regarding Trump and certain key constitutional matters like 2A rights and economic freedom and rights. No reason to be extreme for me. I’m defending the relative status quo and am willing to block the other side from changing it outside an election unless they resort to extremism to try to force their will upon us. If there is extremism or violence it will come from the left.
You talk like an extremist. Maybe you should work on a new vocabulary.
Stop lying about Trump's popularity. He has never had 50%+ of support from the American people. But even if he did, he is a known liar , crook, bigot and moron. It is a disgrace to our country that he managed to bamboozle enough people to the point where they voted for him.
The idea that Trump belongs in the US presidency is absurd.
So you don't believe in the Constitution?
Belongs. Do you not know what belongs means?
Do you not care at all that this man disgraces this country every day?
He is a known liar , crook, bigot and moron.
How could he possibly "belong" in the presidency?
The constitution gives the power of impeachment to the congress for just this reason. If you believe in and support the constitution then you support congresses oversight responsibility and would hope any administration would be transparent and cooperative in testifying or turning over what ever documents needed for congress to carry out that constitutional responsibility.
I certainly do. It means he was elected in a fair election.
Do you not care at all that this man disgraces this country every day?
John, that is your opinion. I think he's done wonders despite all the obstruction.
That standard for impeachment was set very high - because of the possibility we would have vermin like Pelosi, the squad, Nadler and schiff. Do you really want both parties impeaching presidents left & right?
So you want to repeal the 2016 election before the 2020 election? That’s what seems extreme to me.
It is the opinion of the majority of Americans.
Whether or not he has "done wonders" depends on one's political ideology. The right likes what he has done and the left and most independents dont.
But I'm not even talking about what he's done. Im talking about his character, mental stability, honesty, ethics, and intelligence. He fails every one of those standards. The sad part is people like you know that but pretend you dont.
I want any President impeached who told their aides to lie to investigators, asked staff to fire those investigating them, used their office to coerce our allies to dig up dirt on their political opponents, says they're "in love" with despotic foreign adversaries, gives code name intelligence to our enemies and tells the American people that we should trust a murderous ex-KGB dictator over our own intelligence sources. With that kind of bar, impeachments wouldn't be happening very often, at least I certainly hope not. Everything about this President is both unprecedented and unpresidential. He is a clear and present danger to America and western democracy, which is exactly what that vile piece of shit Vladimir Putin wanted.
And you wanted any President impeached who conspired with Russia, then you wanted any President impeached who "obstructed" something or other, then you wanted any resident impeached who didn't provide his tax returns or used foul language or embellished this or that...
You are so noble!
Any one of those things is grounds for impeachment other than not showing taxes, though he likely hides them because they contain evidence of his criminal business practices, overvaluing his assets to banks for loans, undervaluing assets to the IRS to avoid taxes, lying on loan applications, there's no moving of goal posts here. He never should have been President and I doubt he would have been had he not illegally paid hundreds of thousands to porn stars to keep them quiet about his serial adultery, told Putin through the Russian spy Maria Butina "I would get along very nicely with Putin, okay?" "I don’t think you’d need the sanctions." and then directly asked "Russia, if you're listening..." and then received the dictators illicit help to squeak out a narrow 110,000 vote total win in three swing States which were 3 of the 22 States that Russia had hacked their voter databases and gathered targeting data that was weaponized through fake social media ads and messaging.
He will go from "unindicted co-conspirator" for campaign finance fraud to a "indicted co-conspirator" in January, 2021 if not sooner. If the Republican legislature had any backbone it would happen tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath for them to show any spine, they're far too busy showing us their yellow-bellies.
I thought that you said that one of you pet peeves was name calling and that there was no value in it Vic.
I guess you meant it's bad if it's Trump but you can name call anyone you want.
If there is impeachable evidence YES!
There is no credible evidence or are we now going accept hearsay as evidence?
Comparing those Dems to vermin? Stop! You owe the vermin an apology for denigrating them in such a way....The vermin deserve so much better.
You don't even know what a process crime is yet you are saying that like it means something.
In Federalist No. 66, Alexander Hamilton defended the Senate as the tribunal for trying impeachments in part by saying that impeachable offenses come from “the abuse or violation of some public trust” and “are of a nature which may . . . be denominated political.”
Nice comeback. That's exactly the same answer Trump and his sycophants will receive in November of 2020 when he asks the American people to re-elect him.
You should read #65, Vic.
Even funnier? Trump admitted he did and his call logs prove he did it.
You should go watch Kevin McCarthy's interview and see the look on his face when he was read the statement from the memo.
The look on his face SHOULD tell you everything.
He wasn't, he had Russian help (not an opinion, a FACT), and he lost the popular vote. Today he is asking CHINA to investigate Bidens. Another crime in plain site.
If we are going into children of politicians I can't wait to get a peek into Trump/Kushner business dealings while Trump is president. I guess that is what republicans want?
Have you had your head in the sand for the last week? Trump ADMITTED that he asked foreign leaders to investigate Biden. He JUST asked China to do so.
DO try to keep up.
Are the words out of Trump's mouth hearsay?
How would impeachment 'repeal the 2016 election'?
Would it retroactively remove all of the Judges that Trump nominated or any of the laws that he signed?
Your'e proclaiming it a fact dosen't make it so.
and he lost the popular vote.
So did Abraham Lincoln
Today he is asking CHINA to investigate Bidens.
Who should investigate them?
Another crime in plain site.
Adam Schiff terminology
f we are going into children of politicians I can't wait to get a peek into Trump/Kushner business dealings while Trump is president.
We don't have to look in - if they sneeze the wrong way the liberal media is on it. A lot different than the way the media covered Biden's drug addicted son who received all those $$millions from foreign governments for some unknown reason while sleepy Joe was Obama's Vice President.
? What the fuck are you talking about?
Lincoln won the popular vote with 1,865,908 to the next closest 1,380,202 for the Northern Democrat candidate Stephen Douglas.
Only 4 Presidents in history won the Presidency without winning the popular vote, five if you count John Quincy Adams who also didn't win the electoral college but was selected by the House of Representatives. Interesting fact in that election, all four candidates identified as members of the "Democratic-Republican party".
For some unfathomable reason, certain people are fond of trying to favorably compare Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln.
'Have you had your head in the sand for the last week? Trump ADMITTED that he asked foreign leaders to investigate Biden. He JUST asked China to do so.
DO try to keep up.
Are the words out of Trump's mouth hearsay?'
The Constitution's phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' isn't a very high standard.
Actually Vic, the standard in the Constitution was set to protect the nation from people like Trump.
First of all, you're citing Hamilton's argument from Federalist 65, not 66.
Secondly, you're extensively truncating the quote for reasons only you can state. I can't imagine why because that part is ONLY two sentences. Here it is:
Thirdly, Hamilton didn't state that is where 'impeachable offenses come from', he stated that is the JURIDICTION of:
And goes on to argue that the Senate is the body which should constitute a 'court of impeachment', and it's a damn good argument BTW.
Actually, the trouble is that you pretend to know what I think.
Asking for a 'favor' after your counterpart mentions his own nations defense IS a problem.
Trouble is, the only crime you can pretend Joe Biden committed originated in yours and Trump's mutual fever dream.
Actually, what it looks like is that you couldn't manage a comment that didn't earn you a CoC ticket.
The 2/3 or 67 senators of 100 to remove is a high standard. One which the jackass party will never achieve based on any current or likely future information. The whole impeachment charade is nothing more than an I hate Trump and the voters who elected him temper tantrum.
Or maybe he’s right and you are not?
Yes, I know, ask McConnell, he can't change the Senate rules about Impeachment without 2/3 of the Senators.
[deleted]
How could that be since I didn't flag his comment OR moderate it Xx?
And it is already in serious trouble, thus we have another coup member (this time from the IRS) willing to come forward as a Wistleblower - this time claiming first hand knowledge!
Why would he want or need to do that?
Wha?
It depends. If cleaning up corruption is a qualification for aid it would be necessary. There has been a lot of corruption in the Ukraine and a good amount of it involves American politics.
I think it is.
After reading some material about this (which is not a simple matter because of the disruptions and convolutions of Ukranian politics), it seems that there was no investigation of the company Biden's son worked for active at the time Joe Biden made his demand that the prosecutor be fired, and hadnt been for around a year prior. If Biden wanted to shield his son from investigation, why would he want to fire a prosecutor who was not doing an investigation?
You have hitched your star to conspiracy theories and totally unreliable people, but cest la vie. It's your credibility that is shredding, not mine.
US aid to Ukraine was contingent on 2016 election probe, GOP senator says US diplomat told him
Second Trump-Ukraine whistleblower complaint being considered: report
Good morning John. First I want to know where you read that there was no active investigation of Burisma at that time? I think what you mean is that there was no active investigation of Hunter Biden. Clearly Hunter Biden was hired for one reason - he was the son of the Vice President. BTW the Obama administration was openly calling for Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin to be removed. Those are the facts we know. I assure you that we will learn a lot more about what was going on in the Ukraine as time goes on.
If Biden wanted to shield his son from investigation, why would he want to fire a prosecutor who was not doing an investigation?
Back to you:
If there was no prosecutor doing an investigation, why would Biden openly brag about his threat to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from the country if Shokin wasn't fired?
You have hitched your star to conspiracy theories and totally unreliable people, but cest la vie. It's your credibility that is shredding, not mine.
Since you made it personal, let me say that it was you who hitched your star to the greatest conspiracy theory of all time - The Russia hoax!
Why not join the conversation?
In that same article you have Shokin claiming: " In an interview with the Ukrainian website Strana.ua published on May 6, Shokin said he believes he was fired because of his Burisma investigation, which he said had been active at the time."
It is somewhat confusing and thus makes the President's statements seem quite natural:
“Sure, I’m hearing it’s a major scandal, major problem,” Trump said. “ I hope for him it is fake news. I don’t think it is.”
And then of course you have to accept this: "Biden said he’d never discussed Burisma with his son or with Ukrainian officials."
They always want to forget that part. If Trump is again past 269 electoral votes, it won’t matter than his opponent wins Californication’s 55 electoral votes by 5 million popular votes.
I was thinking the same thing.
Well gee Vic. You must have missed the machinations from the right about just ignoring the House if they bring Articles of Impeachment. McConnell is the one that stated that they need to follow the Senate rules on Impeachment as they stand because it takes a 2/3 vote to change them.
They even released a statement about it. DO try to keep up.
You 'think it is' WHAT Vic? Be specific.
Yet the ONLY alleged 'corruption' that Trump talked about in his 'perfect' phone call was a fantasy server in Ukraine, CrowdsSrike, and the Bidens. Per the texts released, the ONLY investigation they wanted reopened was the one about the company that Hunter Biden worked for.
Not a damn thing about corruption that may effect Ukrainians TODAY.
Oh and BTFW, Trump's 'qualifier' is a quid pro quo...
As I said above, Trump's only issue is what happened BEFORE he took office in 2017. Why did Trump wait until July of 2019 to bring Ukrainian corruption to the fore?
I asked this of another member and got no reply. Perhaps you will tackle my questions:
Where was Trump's deep desire to uncover ANY kind of corruption in Ukraine in early 2018 FW? You know, when Trump budget asked for $250 million for Ukraine aid.
Where was it in Oct. 2018 when he signed the bill that included the $250 million for Ukraine that HE asked for?
Where was it during the time between Oct 2018 and May of 2019 when the Pentagon conducted an extensive review of Ukraine that included the State Dept. and the DoD who thereafter sent a letter to Congress that certified the release of the aid to Ukraine which SPECIFICALLY cites their strides in fighting corruption?
Then at the END of July, Trump dumps a shitstorm on Zelensky, who is dire need of the aid asked for by Trump, passed by Congress and certified by the Pentagon.
This even though Trump knew, or SHOULD have known, that the aid passed in 2019 had to be dispersed by EOY 2019, giving Zelensky just 2 months to give Trump what he demanded.
If not for Freedom Caucus members lobbying Trump on behalf of Ukraine, the time would have run out and Ukraine would be SOL until the next budget is passed. That is IF Ukraine is lucky enough not to be on Trump's permanent shit list.
Note that Ukraine is NOT mentioned in Trump's 2020 budget.
Come on Vic. You pretend to want to debate on substance.
And he is all that counts! So vote for the articles of impeachment and send it over to the US Senate. There is no need to speculate about some off the wall theory.
Wrong again. The Justice Department via US Attorney John Durham is investigating the origins of the Russia hoax and other matters such as the Ukraine aiding in dredging up a lot of info on Paul Manafort. There is a lot to look at in the Ukraine.
Oh and BTFW, Trump's 'qualifier' is a quid pro quo...
Nope. Your'e still batting zero. The Ukraine didn't even know that aid was being delayed.
Then at the END of July, Trump dumps a shitstorm on Zelensky, who is dire need of the aid
He was in dire need of that aid when Obama was president, but only got non-military aid - it was Trump that offered the military aid. And BTW Obama needed two favors didn't he? Only we don't get leaks of the Obama administration because Obama prosecuted leakers and he had a lot of like minded people in government (AKA the Swamp)
Come on Vic. You pretend to want to debate on substance.
Which makes me wonder why I waste so much time with people who want to muddy the waters
[deleted]
It looks like you're having an issue following the thread Vic.
My comment was about McConnell and you asked:
I explained why.
Now you want to know if McConnell is all that counts. I'm sure that you know that the Senate Majority Leader is a pretty fucking powerful person in the Senate since NOTHING gets on the floor without his okey dokey.
The Articles of Impeachment have to be written Vic. In order to do that, Trump's actions need to be investigated and the full facts documented. Unlike the Nixon and Clinton Impeachments, this House does not have the benefit of a Grand Jury Investigation or an Independent Council report.
What 'off the wall theory' are you talking about Vic.
Oh and BTFW, that's hilarious coming from you.
WTF Vic? Seriously, we're talking about what Trump asked of the Ukraine, NOT about what the US DOJ is doing. Stop deflecting with irrelevant bullshit.
Only in your mind Vic.
Like hell they didn't.
Did you see what Sen. Johnson said about the aid being held up?
Did you read texts from Ambassador Taylor?
That is an utterly clueless comment.
The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 includes military aid Vic. Stop swilling the pabulum that Trump is spooning out. Sheesh.
Prove it with links Vic.
You brought up Durham and then accuse ME or wanting to muddy the waters. Hilarious.
I'm just reflecting what you posted your Meta about Vic.
You wanted substantive debate right?
Now, I note that you failed to answer ANY of my questions. Plenty of substance there to debate but NADA from you.
Where was Trump's desire to root out corruption in Ukraine all that time?
Will you please read:
The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 includes military aid Vic.
Did Obama provide the military aid?
You brought up Durham
You bet I did. We are talking about corruption in the Ukraine. There was a shit load!
You wanted substantive debate right?
I'm not getting it from you!
Where was Trump's desire to root out corruption in Ukraine all that time?
Just like with Obama - clean it up if you want American aid. And nowhere did Trump say you do this and I'll do that. That's the bottom line.
I think the confusion is on your part
Now you want to know if McConnell is all that counts.
No I didn't ask - I TOLD YOU - that the only one in the Senate who counts is McConnell!
The Articles of Impeachment have to be written Vic. In order to do that, Trump's actions need to be investigated and the full facts documented. Unlike the Nixon and Clinton Impeachments, this House does not have the benefit of a Grand Jury Investigation or an Independent Council report.
Then don't declare impeachment!
You don't just declare an impeachment inquiry with nothing. It's unfair to the President, to the committees and the ranking members. It was only done, the way it was, to spare moderate democrats from voting and to give Pelosi maximum control over the House.
What 'off the wall theory' are you talking about Vic.
The usual shit we get from the resistance
Oh and BTFW, that's hilarious coming from you.
Speaking of hilarious - do you still maintain that Michael Cohen was in Prague?
The majority of progressive leftist liberals believe in the Constitution of The United States only when it suits them and is convenient.
Crooked donnie wipes his ass with the Constitution
So? Quite a bit of shit has happened since then, like Volker's statement and the texts being released. Have you read those IN FULL yet? Did you read what Ron Johnson said?
No reason to believe he didn't.
Actually NO Vic. We are talking about impeachment and Trump's actions.
You're not debating Vic, you're obfuscating and deflecting.
Nope. Trump ADMITTED that he wanted Zelensky to investigate Biden. Trump could not care less about any corruption that may be happening TODAY.
Nope AGAIN. JUST asking Zelensky to investigate a political opponent is an abuse of power Vic.
There's plenty to open an impeachment inquiry and anyone who doesn't think so is delusional.
How?
It's pretty fucking ironic that you relish the idea that McConnell 'is all that counts!' but bitch about Pelosi having 'maximum control'.
It was done the way it was because Pelosi HAS control over the House just like every other Speaker. There is NO House rule that requires a vote before opening an inquiry. Trump trying to pretend that nothing can happen without a vote is juvenile.
That is so true. They were very fond of free speech & freedom of expression when they were on the outside during the late 60's. Now that they are firmly entrenched on the inside they don't care much for freedom of speech or due process (which is a pillar of the Constitution).
The text of the phone conversation was released immediately. I have read it and there is no quid pro quo, therefore no there there.
No reason to believe he didn't.
In other words you don't know! You must think that I'm not sure or too lazy to get it for you?
Here:
"Under President Donald Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, the United States provided nonlethal military aid such as radar equipment and night-vision goggles to Ukraine, but Obama declined to provide lethal aid out of concern that it might escalate the war between Kyiv's forces and the Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian authorities have urged the United States to send weapons and have asked in particular for portable Javelin antitank missiles, which soldiers in the conflict say are needed to fend off attacks from tanks and self-propelled artillery.
Dunford said that the Pentagon, in reviewing Ukraine's defenses against fighters equipped by Russia, detected a "gap" between Ukraine's defensive capabilities and its needs."
We do want to discuss this based on facts, don't we?
Nope AGAIN. JUST asking Zelensky to investigate a political opponent is an abuse of power Vic.
Sorry, I beg to differ.
With what appear to be major gaps. You haven't read the exact transcript of the entire call, because it hasn't been released.
Trump's base apparently does not.
Because the President (without the vote) dosen't get to defend himself from partisan allegations, because the committees (without a vote) lack any strength to their subpoenas and the minority members (without a vote) can't call witnesses or issue their own subpoenas.
It's pretty fucking ironic that you relish the idea that McConnell 'is all that counts!'
“Nancy Pelosi is in the clutches of a left-wing mob,” McConnell says directly to a camera. “They’ve finally convinced her to impeach the President. All of you know your Constitution. The way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority, with me as majority leader.”...Mitch McConnell
You mean you want to play down the transcript that was released? Well, I'm not surprised!
Trump's base apparently does not.
That won't cut it. I was called and I was holding a straight flush!
McConnell should just hold a vote w/o a trial and end this.
I said 'texts' Vic. You know, the ones released by Volker that you insisted exonerated Trump but they don't.
So the fact is, Obama did release the military aid.
Beg all you want, it is an abuse of power and a violation of the public trust.
OMG what an utter and total load of BULLSHIT!
Are you actually under the delusion that if Pelosi called a vote to open an Impeachment Inquiry that Trump would get to defend himself before hand?
How about you link the video of Nixon or Clinton arguing their case before the House voted to open Impeachment Inquiries against them. No video? How about the text from the Congressional record? Anything?
Oh and BTFW, since WHEN did the whole House need to vote before a Congressional subpoena is deemed valid? Perhaps you should review the subpoena's that the GOP Chairman put out while Obama was in office. Any House votes on those Vic?
Thanks for the McConnell campaign ad Vic. /s
So you want McConnell to violate the Senate rules and the Constitution. Got ya.
Right on!
Let's explain to everyone what you mean by "texts": You are not referring to the actual texts of the phone converation the President had with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky (which were released by the President) which is pretty straightforward.
You are referring to the release of text messages between US diplomats and Ukranians and text messages by American Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker by House democrats. They come complete with democrat members interpretations of what they mean:
There is nothing in there that provides the quid pro quo that democrats would need to gain bipartisan support!
So the fact is, Obama did release the military aid.
In the face of the facts you make such a falsehood? The whole world can read Post 4.1.80.
it is an abuse of power and a violation of the public trust.
Call it what you want - It is a partisan attempt at smearing the President before an election. Democrats will lose everything!
If you want to have an intelligent conversation, the first thing we have to do is concede that everything I say isn't necessarily "Bullshit" and everything you say isn't necessarily documentary.
Are you actually under the delusion that if Pelosi called a vote to open an Impeachment Inquiry that Trump would get to defend himself before hand?
If Pelosi called for a vote on Articles of Impeachment, gets the required number of yea's and t he trial is held with the president represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members serves as "prosecutors." A little civics lesson for our favorite wordsmith.
How about you link the video of Nixon or Clinton arguing their case before the House voted to open Impeachment Inquiries against them. No video? How about the text from the Congressional record? Anything?
It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the president’s counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive. Attorney James D. St. Clair represented Nixon before the House judiciary committee during the impeachment proceedings, essentially arguing that Nixon’s statements looked bad but were not criminal. Although St. Clair was not a government employee and was acting as Nixon’s private attorney, he insisted at the time that he was representing the office of the presidency rather than Nixon personally: ''I don't represent Mr. Nixon personally …. I represent him in his capacity as president.'' He made his final arguments before the House judiciary committee in July 1974 as it prepared articles of impeachment against Nixon. During the House judiciary committee’s proceedings to consider impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998, Clinton’s private attorney David Kendall questioned Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for an hour .
Oh and BTFW, since WHEN did the whole House need to vote before a Congressional subpoena is deemed valid? Perhaps you should review the subpoena's that the GOP Chairman put out while Obama was in office. Any House votes on those Vic?
The Committee can subpoena, but without that vote, those subpoena's lack a legitimate “legislative purpose” for the request.
I notice the one thing you didn't question was the minority not having the right to subpoena or call their own witnesses. No concerns there?
Heavy is the head that wears the crown....
Yes Vic, I mean what everyone else on the planet, except you it seems, means when they use the word 'texts'.
No I am not referring to the actual TEXT of the SUMMARY of the phone conversation.
An OPINION coming from one who has blinders and a blindfold on whenever a hint of Trump wrongdoing is documented.
How did Zelensky get the idea that Ukraine may be being used as an instrument of US reelection politics?
Sondland acknowledges how Zelensky feels BUT thinks that even though the PRETEXT is Trump's reelection, he's MORE worried about them not talking at all.
Here is Andrey Yermak talking about the 'press statement' that Trump is now demanding:
So here's a question for you Vic.
After reading the Summary of the phone call and these TEXTS, do you think that Volker, Taylor, Sondland and Trump know that a WH meeting with Trump is a 'thing of value'?
Here's another:
If you admit that a WH meeting IS a 'thing of value', do you admit that there is only ONE person on the planet who controls whether such a meeting occurs?
There are MUCH WORSE TEXTS at your link. I encourage all to read them for themselves.
A 'falsehood' Vic? Here is part of the first line of YOUR block quote:
So YES, the whole world CAN read 4.1.80 Vic so why are you posting bullshit about it?
I'm calling it what the founders and Black's law dictionary call it Vic. The one that is smearing Trump is TRUMP. If the Democrats 'lose everything', so be it. At least they are honoring their oath to the Constitution.
Wow, the humility is overwhelming. /s
Chris Cornell and Chris Stapleton colaboration
A"OPINION coming from one who has blinders and a blindfold on whenever a hint of Trump wrongdoing is documented. "
And you think your opinion doesn't come from someone who has blinders and a blindfold on whenever anything about Trump is documented? Please give us all a break.
Yet your comment IS utter bullshit.
I thought you said that you're intent was to have an intelligent conversation Vic.
An intelligent conversation DOES NOT include strawman arguments. You block quoted me comment, which was about a vote on an Impeachment Inquiry. You reply by bloviating about a vote on Articles of Impeachment.
Blah, blah, blah. Our 'intelligent conversation' is about an Impeachment Inquiry. PERIOD, full stop. STOP deflecting and spewing crap about something that isn't a topic of the 'intelligent conversation'.
Really Vic?
Exactly HOW does a vote on opening an Impeachment Inquiry suddenly cause the subpoenas to become about a 'legislative purpose'? Please be specific.
Is it your posit that is something unique in an Impeachment Inquiry Vic?
The Chairman control the Committees Vic. They MAY negotiate process and procedure BUTT they and thier MAJORITY have the final say on the 'rules'.
Nunes is a DICK and Schiff has NO obligation to 'negotiate' with him, especially since Nunes didn't do so while he was Chairman.
BTFW, your 'little civics lesson' is a complete FAIL.
I'm afraid many might get confused with the actual text of the all important phone conversation. The text you refer to are an Adam Schiff released cherry-picking of text messages and not the transcript of the Volker interview. I'm glad we understand each other.
How did Zelensky get the idea that Ukraine may be being used as an instrument of US reelection politics?
You mean Taylor. It can happen, but he got a very clear correction from Sondland which you & Schiff don't want to show:
Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign[.] I suggest we stop the back and forth by text[.] If you still have concerns I recommend you give [State Department Executive Secretary] Lisa Kenna or S [meaning Secretary Pompeo] a call to discuss [with] them directly.
If the Democrats 'lose everything', so be it. At least they are honoring their oath to the Constitution.
They will lose everything, but not in the service of the Constitution but their hate-filled base!
My comments are not based purely on opinion. They include documented facts. Care to address any of those facts?
Then you and I can't discuss anything. You are not up to it!
An intelligent conversation DOES NOT include strawman arguments.
Then you don't even know what we were discusing. Let me remind you - Pelosi not taking a vote vs taking one - pro's & cons.
Blah, blah, blah.
Then you are stumped!
Exactly HOW does a vote on opening an Impeachment Inquiry suddenly cause the subpoenas to become about a 'legislative purpose'? Please be specific.
Yes let me say it so you might get it. Example: Right now our EU Ambassador announced that he will not be able to appear for a Tuesday deposition before Schiff's committee. Schiff will now subpoena him. Because there was no vote on Articles of impeachment that subpoena is little more that a request. Any time you accuse the President of a crime, the President is allowed a defense and the minority the right to respond. That's why you are not getting witnesses.
Is it your posit that is something unique in an Impeachment Inquiry Vic?
This one is certainly unique. No vote for articles of impeachment and no crime, just an interpretation of a phone call.
The Chairman control the Committees Vic
That's not what this about. Your'e talking to the choir again. The girls will be giving you high fives, but has nothing to do with the formal process for impeachment which Pelosi has avoided
Nunes is a DICK
Your'e flailing
BTFW, your 'little civics lesson' is a complete FAIL.
Some can't be taught.
Woops!
I understand that you attempted to muddy perfectly crystal clear waters.
NO, I mean Zelensky.
Taylor stated that Sasha Danyliuk [the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine at the time] made the 'point that President [Zelensky] is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.' That isn't TAYLOR's opinion, that is what Ukraine's Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council SAID.
Really Vic? What evidence do you have that Sasha Danyliuk got ANY correction from Sondland? Judging from what Sondland actually replied to Taylor, his BUT 'irrespective of the pretext' comment doesn't even TRY to correct a fucking thing.
Oh and BTFW Vic, are you telling me that Schiff and I should IGNORE what Trump said on LIVE TV about what EXACTLY he wanted from Zelensky?
Right Vic. Trump's base are Patriotic God fearing lovers of America and the Democratic base are hate filled traitors. Ya, that's the ticket. /s
That's Whoops!
Good catch "Captin Spil Chicker"!
Oh, I know - That's your job!
NO, I mean Zelensky.
Zelensky said there was no pressure in that conversation. In other words you don't want to hear his definitive statement?
Really Vic?
Yes really! You can't rid yourselves of Sondland's not-too-subtle reprimand of Taylor! No quid pro quo - bottom line!
Oh and BTFW Vic, are you telling me that Schiff and I should IGNORE what Trump said on LIVE TV about what EXACTLY he wanted from Zelensky?
No, if you want to impeach based on the President telling countries what they should investigate, go right ahead.
Trump's base are Patriotic God fearing lovers of America and the Democratic base are hate filled traitors.
We finally agree
In the "New and Improved Democrat World", Presidents aren't supposed to ask other countries for help anymore !
Let's hope....they stick with their plan if one of theirs gets elected, and expects ALL "Foreign transcripts" of phone conversations be made " public ". Gotta keep this country in "Constitution" mode, as the nutz of the day say.
Their plan got upended on day 1 when the President released the transcript
Well …. the non-stupid know that.....but the "Left" needs to still spend more time "Reading between the lines" !
That's right. It always comes down to convicting the President on what he is thinking be it the non specific discussion with the President of the Ukraine, or the obstruction he never actually committed in the Mueller Report or the perceived anti-Muslim policy of the Travel Ban. They supposedly know what he's thinking!
If they only knew my thoughts!
Yet you proceed to do so.
You haven't been up to refuting even one of my comments Vic.
I know EXACTLY what we are discussing, you just want to deflect from it.
We are discussing WHY you think Pelosi NEEDS to take a vote on opening an Impeachment Inquiry and YOU want to CHANGE it into a discussion on taking a vote on Articles of Impeachment. THAT is a strawman argument Vic.
Nope. Why does Pelosi NEED to have vote on opening an Impeachment Inquiry.
Now you want to interject Pro's and Cons when you can't even stay on the original topic, and Impeachment INQUIRY. More deflection.
Obtuse.
WTF Vic. AGAIN, you block quoted my question about an Impeachment Inquiry and replied about Articles of Impeachment.
AGAIN, I comment about an Impeachment Inquiry and you reply about Articles of Impeachment.
Do you actually think that conflating two completely different things ad nauseam is an example of an 'intelligent discussion"?
I sure as fuck don't.
But hey Vic, you be you.
Coming from you that comment is pathetic.
[deleted]
That makes sense since the 'formal process for impeachment' isn't the topic of our 'intelligent discussion' Vic.
Nope, calling a spade a spade.
While others fail to recognize that they have nothing to teach.
They'll "Swear-by-it" too !
I have no choice. You seem to think that by repeating the same stuff will wear people down and they will go away. That's not happening today honey.
You haven't been up to refuting even one of my comments Vic.
Every statement you ever made has been refuted, beginning with Michael Cohen being in Prague!
We are discussing WHY you think Pelosi NEEDS to take a vote
Guess what: Why I think she should take one = vote vs non-vote. Not even you can obscure that!
WTF Vic
No, WTF Dully girl - It even hurts the majority - Schiff issues subpoenas that are little more that requests! (that's twice).
AGAIN, I comment about an Impeachment Inquiry and you reply about Articles of Impeachment.
AGAIN, That's what we are comparing!
But hey Vic, you be you.
And your'e gonna get even more bitter!
Some misogyny is trickling into your comments Vic.
No comment
That makes sense since the 'formal process for impeachment' isn't the topic of our 'intelligent discussion' Vic.
Round and round we go!
Nope, calling a spade a spade.
I thought you could rise to a civil conversation.
While others fail to recognize that they have nothing to teach.
You are in my classroom now.
Thanks for another stellar example of what you view as an intellectual discussion Vic. /s
Oh I heard Zelensky genuflect in the phone call and then pretend to be unpressured at his sit down with Trump @ the UN.
There you go again Vic. Replying with a strawman.
Oh and there is only one of me Vic. No plurals needed.
BTFW, where the FUCK do you think Sondland gets the authority to 'reprimand' Ambassador Taylor?
It's not just about Trump 'telling countries what they should investigate', is it Vic?
Only if I accept your truncation of my comment. I don't.
My pleasure.
Oh I heard Zelensky genuflect in the phone call and then pretend to be unpressured at his sit down with Trump @ the UN.
I'll depend on you to tell us when he's lying and when he's not/sar
Oh and there is only one of me Vic. No plurals needed.
Sorry, I had you in with Schiff
BTFW, where the FUCK do you think Sondland gets the authority to 'reprimand' Ambassador Taylor?
So, you admit the reprimand. We are making progress.
It's not just about Trump 'telling countries what they should investigate', is it Vic?
Actually it was dully. There was no asking in those statements. And you were supposed to be the old wordsmith!
Au contraire. I want you to keep posting foolish comments...
Address me by my screen name Vic.
You can't even stay on topic when your posting snark.
You haven't refuted one thing I've said Vic.
Again, I said NEEDS, as I have saying all along. YOU are the one attempting to obscure that fact. It's actually been quite comical to watch you desperately trying to avoid admitting that Pelosi doesn't NEED to take a vote.
I will tell you one more time, address me by my screen name Vic.
What does your bullshit about Schiff have to do with my comment:
If you can't stay on topic and can't address my ACTUAL comment why bother replying Vic? Do you think that you're advancing your crumbling position by merely spewing steams of consciousness? Your MO lacks all credibility.
WE are not comparing ANYTHING Vic.
YOU are desperately trying to conflate a vote on an Impeachment Inquiry with a vote on Articles of Impeachment. They are NOT the same, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.
Not bitter at all Vic. Disgusted, YEP.
Again, do you actually think that conflating two completely different things ad nauseam is an example of an 'intelligent discussion"?
I sure as fuck don't.
We've been talking about voting on an Impeachment Inquiry for 3 days. YOU are the one, about 8 hours ago, that started to pretend that it's about a vote on Articles of Impeachment. You've continued to reply with the same strawmen argument during that whole time. WHY?
Based on your most recent comment, I don't believe that you understand what the word 'civil' means Vic.
Thanks for proving my point. Well done.
Every time you truncate my comment to try to make a snarky point, you chip away at what little credibility you retain.
No, as is your norm, you presume too much. BTW, that was a question. Answer?
Last time, use my screen name Vic.
Really Vic?
NONE of that was asking for anything Vic?
That's the second time you've said that. Are you sensitive about your vocabulary Vic?
You who has truncated my comments to twist them to your purposes are lecturing another about doing it? Seriously?
That the only thing progressives can say about it. You have your talking points down. I admitted that in another discussion we had, but you obviously forgot. We know the House can make it's own rules on this, which in this case is unprecedented based on the two more modern impeachment proceedings of my lifetime. However, because of the path Pelosi chose the President has argued that since it denies him & others due process rights, he dosen't have to cooperate.
The President's letter of complaint can be found at:
Now you know we are going to Court over it. I think the President is on solid ground.
So, now that you know that, do you have any thoughts beyond the progressive talking point "she has a right to do it" ?
None of that pertains to the quotes we were talking about. We were talking about the President telling two countries what they "should" do, weren't we?
That was a silly diversion by you - I thought you were slightly better than that!
Is that how you took it? You who tries to win arguments on technical terms?
Really Xx? Prove it.
I've been saying a hell of a lot more than that in the last 4 days Vic.
But HERE, for a whole day you spewed strawmen and false equivalencies. Why?
It may surprise you that the Rules of the House change almost every session. The Nixon or Clinton era rules don't stand.
Speaking of talking points...
Spewing the bullshit about Trump being denied due process are just that.
The House acts as a Grand Jury to investigate, accumulate evidence and decide whether to file an indictment, the Senate acts as the tryer of fact.
Grand Juries are held in secret, only the prosecution submits evidence and calls witnesses, NO cross examination or challenge to documents occurs. Just about EVERY indictment in this country originates from a Grand Jury.
So tell me Vic, HOW is Trump being treated any differently than any other American?
HOW are his 'due process rights' being violated?
Note: I make no claim that the House or the Senate is in ANY WAY restricted on HOW they conduct investigations and ESPECIALLY Impeachments Inquiries and votes on Articles of Impeachment and Impeachment Trials. Those are under the EXCLUSIVE control of Congress and SCOTUS has ruled that the Judiciary has NO jurisdiction over the Congress' Impeachment powers.
I laughed out loud when I read that letter.
Cipollone misrepresented [lied] about what Nadler said AND about the Hastings POTUS case. He's desperately trying to get sycophants to believe that the Congress has to follow the same rules as the Judiciary. It doesn't.
If Cipollone is the best that Trump has got, he is in DEEP SHIT.
Again, Vic, I've done that for 4 days.
Actually, as has been your practice of late, you made it about ME. You said;
That is why I posted multiple statements from Trump that any thinking person would recognize as 'asking' for something.
You seem to want to drag me into the mud without getting dirty yourself. For days now, it hasn't been working for you.
I've never been under that illusion about you.
Just to clarify, I didn't flag either of you.
"Have you had your head in the sand for the last week"
No I was in the hospital waiting for brain surgery. Care to provide a link or three?
In the last civil war, 800,000 Americans DIED. No patriot that truly loves America would EVER float the idea of another civil war. Trump is not only the worst president in history, his daily unhinged rants prove that he doesn't care what he can do FOR America, only what he can get OUT of America. He is a fucking POS.
Hum, then you say:
Trump is not only the worst president in history, his daily unhinged rants prove that he doesn't care what he can do FOR America, only what he can get OUT of America. He is a fucking POS.
So, I can only assume that you don't love America, but you never made any such claim, did you? That's right - You are saying those who love America need to be restrained and thoughtful about holding the country together, while those who don't really like this country get to slander the President and anybody else who disagrees with them. My rule is simple - I treat people as they treat others. I'm not going to be a gentleman when dealing with radical leftists and I'm never going to let them "transform" my country!!!
Wow, if working for DHS in 2002 makes one a 'founding member', my wife is a founder too. I'll have to salute her when she gets home.
Left Simply Hates What Trump Represents
Golly gee-- I wonder why?
Dow, S&P 500 Mark Worst Start To A Quarter Since 2008 Financial Crisis As Recession Fears Accelerate
Lol, No it has nothing to do with the Dow. Leftists see the world differently for one thing. The other thing is that leftists want to control thought & speech. Then there is the way they see the world. I think Iv'e gone through that enough here on this site. Let's just admit it's ideology which is at the center of this.
Right wing cranks are much more ideological than your average liberal.
Lol, I don't see any "right wing cranks" fining people $250,000 for using the term "Illegal Alien"
The progressive left is all ideological and all about politics all the time. Many of them don’t have a life elsewhere.
Why? Can’t just wait to the next election?
Trump damages America on a daily basis. Why wait?
Because we who support him will use every legal means of resistance and passive non compliance with your all’s wishes the entire time. We will attempt to take down and assassinate the character of each and every democrat politician and media collaborator involved in the attempt. Polarization will reach levels not seen since 1861-65, just short of that and what happened then until we get to the election with him in office. Then we will abide by the results of the election win or lose.
"Have you had your head in the sand for the last week"
No I was in the hospital waiting for brain surgery. Care to provide a link or three?
Read the seeds about it here on NT.
What seeds are those? I’m sure that staying on the topic of the seeded article here would be more appropriate here. Dems hate Trump because he defends us, we the people, from them.
WTF are you whining about now Xx?
Would posting links to other seeds on NT make you happy?
Would that be ON TOPIC?
BTFW, want to stay ON TOPIC? How about you reply to my 4.1.121 post?
T'aint my job to look up and provide the proof of your arguments for you.
because we all know it doesn't matter what he says, he's going to get a hysterical reaction from the Left."
He continues: "[The Left] hates him because he contradicts their worldview and his mere existence is an offense to them. As long as [the president] represents constitutional values, values of the founding fathers, and sovereignty, they're going to find him offensive – simply because it contradicts their worldview. He's an unprecedented challenge to them."
Haney concludes by saying there is a reason for hope.
"We have reason for hope because we live in a country that allows us to participate in the protection of our own liberties," the former DHS employee shares. "If we had no recourse and had to just sit there and watch the Democratic Party pick the president apart piece by piece until they destroyed him, we would have no reason for hope."
What 'argument' are you claiming that I need to prove?
So you were whining about the content of your own seed. Got ya.
I was?
Pleading ignorance will not help you.
Pretending that I am won't help you.
You replied to my question about your whining with a quote from you seed, so ya.
Who's pretending?
I’m certainly not doing that!