Behind the impeachment push: Left simply hates what Trump represents

  
Via:  Heartland American  •  2 months ago  •  268 comments


Behind the impeachment push: Left simply hates what Trump represents
"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."

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

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.


philip-haney_mug.jpg 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

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    2 months ago

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.   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7027/behind-the-impeachment-push-left-simply-hates-what-trump-represents

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 months ago

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!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 months ago
The American people are not stupid.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.1    2 months ago

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!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    2 months ago
We all got a good look at all of these hate filled zealots the past 3 years.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.3    2 months ago
Indeed. With those like Steven Miller and Steve Bannon and other hate filled bigots

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

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    2 months ago
As opposed to the Reverend Wrights and Al Sharptons or BLM that surrounded Barak Obama?  

Wow, slap down that race card why don't you Vic. 

Smearing is a sport shared by all. I can do it as well.

Yes, I know. 

I just hate getting into the mud.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    2 months ago
As opposed to the Reverend Wrights and Al Sharptons or BLM that surrounded Barak Obama? 

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.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.7  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.5    2 months ago
Wow, slap down that race card...

The gasoline is yours from your failure to perceive the 'hate filled bigots' parallel.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.8  Dulay  replied to  squiggy @1.1.7    2 months ago
The gasoline is yours from your failure to perceive the 'hate filled bigots' parallel.

So is it your posit that it's impossible to counter the term 'hate filled bigots' without slapping down the race card?

[deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.9  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.8    2 months ago

It is possible to criticize hate filled bigots without an incendiary declaration intended to incite.

[deleted]

 
 
 
lady in black
2  lady in black    2 months ago

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

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @2    2 months ago

"[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.   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7027/behind-the-impeachment-push-left-simply-hates-what-trump-represents?g=77

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.1  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    2 months ago

More Americans hate him...deal with it

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @2.1.1    2 months ago

Some do.  That’s not grounds for impeachment.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @2.1.1    2 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.4  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.2    2 months ago

He did something illegal and against the constitution that he uses to wipe his ass

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.5  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    2 months ago

Nope, it's the truth

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 months ago

You have numbers on hate?  Let's see them

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    2 months ago

No it's  not, it's the truth.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.6    2 months ago

With a 37% approval rate of this 'president' that leaves you with 61% of Americans who hate him!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.8    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    2 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.8    2 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.10    2 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    2 months ago

No

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.13    2 months ago
No

Gee......How can I argue with that?

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.15  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.11    2 months ago

Yea but President Peaceprize topped out at 52% so, on a curve, (so common among relativists) this guy is kickin ass.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @2.1.15    2 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif So you're grading this 'president' on a curve now.

HILARIOUS!!!!!

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.17  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.8    2 months ago
With a 37% approval rate of this 'president' that leaves you with 61% of Americans who hate him!

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif  

"Math is hard"

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.18  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.10    2 months ago

I don't care for the guy, but I'll never vote for a democrat again.

Neither will many sensible and sane Americans

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @2.1.17    2 months ago

I know that's all you have Wally so go for it.  

I meant 39% approval rate which would be 61% against the 'president'

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @2.1.18    2 months ago

' don't care for the guy, but I'll never vote for a democrat again.'

Gee what a loss to the Democrats.  

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.21  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.16    2 months ago

"So you're grading this 'president' on a curve now."

Don't have to. We can still say that Obama sucked with 52% - but you've demonstrated the depth of your cipherin.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.22  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  WallyW @2.1.18    2 months ago

That is the bottom line now. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  lady in black @2    2 months ago

Only if you can make up bullshit about Trump apparently otherwise you don’t give a fuck

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.1  lady in black  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.2    2 months ago

What did I make up, he's a known liar, cheat, swindler, etc. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.2  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @2.2.1    2 months ago

I don't know about the etc maybe a also.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.3  lady in black  replied to  MUVA @2.2.2    2 months ago

Don't know what a also is

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.2.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  lady in black @2.2.1    2 months ago

So you don't even know what you are talking about now.  I already knew that.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.5  lady in black  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.2.4    2 months ago

I know what I'm talking about, you just don't want to listen la_la_la_gif_shane.gif?w=180

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.2.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  lady in black @2.2.5    2 months ago

I heard it all. Especially the part just now where you admitted you don't know what 's being discussed. So that won't convince anybody.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.3  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @2    2 months ago

No.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4  Tacos!  replied to  lady in black @2    2 months ago

If he were impeached on those grounds, at least it would be honest.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.5  WallyW  replied to  lady in black @2    2 months ago

You appear to be reading from the progressive talking points manual.

Libbies all sound alike....like mindless robots

 
 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @3    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    2 months ago
Trump has broken no laws as President and there are no legitimate grounds for impeachment.

Bullshit. He tried to extort the Ukraine to win a presidential election, that's ILLEGAL. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.2  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    2 months ago

No.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    2 months ago

Prove it beyond all reasonable doubt and then we will reconsider.  Until then we will support him until Jan 20,2025.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @3.1.2    2 months ago

No.

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:

  • Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national;
  • Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or
  • Awareness of facts that should have prompted a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

 
 
 
arkpdx
3.1.5  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    2 months ago

What election did he win by extorting Ukraine? I must have missed it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.5    2 months ago

Hint, it's about the future election in 2020 jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    2 months ago

The one democrats can't take a chance on losing, thus the desperate move for impeachment!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.7    2 months ago

Not desperate, impeachment is necessary.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    2 months ago

Very necessary for those who don't like democracy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    2 months ago

Impeachment is necessary for those who care nothing for democracy and is only using the 'presidency' to enrich themselves and their 'donors'.  

 
 
 
squiggy
3.1.11  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    2 months ago

An impeachment looking for a cause - been going on since Day One and the left's credibility is gone.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    2 months ago
Impeachment is necessary

It is political suicide

aHVWNXQq?format=jpg&name=small

A high risk gamble!  My money is on the dems losing everything!

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.13  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    2 months ago

Mine too.  It’s blatantly partisan and not based on any facts.  It’s pure TDS in action and it’s dividing the country.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.13    2 months ago

The longer it goes on the thinner the argument becomes. The dems have to pull this off with lightning speed!

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.5    2 months ago

What election did he win by extorting Ukraine? I must have missed it.

Apparently we all did, since it's not until next year. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    2 months ago
He tried to extort the Ukraine to win a presidential election

There's no evidence of that. Asking a friend for a favor is not extortion. 

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.17  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    2 months ago
He tried to extort the Ukraine to win a presidential election, that's ILLEGAL. 

NO HE DID NOT!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.16    2 months ago
'He tried to extort the Ukraine to win a presidential election'

'There's no evidence of that. Asking a friend for a favor is not extortion.'

No, absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Plus, tRump doesn't have any friends!

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.19  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.16    2 months ago

There's no evidence of that. Asking a friend for a favor is not extortion. 

Then why did trump withhold military funding? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @3.1.17    2 months ago

NO HE DID NOT!

Read the transcripts, it's obvious he did. Sorry. 

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.21  lady in black  replied to  WallyW @3.1.17    2 months ago

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

'Crazy to withhold security assistance' to Ukraine for political campaign: Top US diplomat

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

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.19    2 months ago
Then why did trump withhold military funding?

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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.20    2 months ago

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."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-ukraine-envoy-volker-meets-with-lawmakers-amid-impeachment-probe-as-texts-reveal-quid-pro-quo-dispute/ar-AAIed8t?li=BBnb7Kz

Good day!jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.24  lib50  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.23    2 months ago

Some conservatives can't lie to themselves or the country.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-napolitano-trump-impeach-criminal_n_5d962e32e4b0f5bf79712dcb

Fox News ’ senior judicial analyst and former judge Andrew Napolitano doesn’t see a bright future ahead for President Donald Trump ― and his view of Trump’s recent past is even dimmer.

In an opinion column published on the Fox website late Wednesday, Napolitano assessed Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019, in which Trump asked Zelensky “do him a favor” immediately after mentioning U.S. aid to the country.

Trump had ordered the aid withheld from Ukraine just days before the phone call, though it had already been appropriated by Congress.

“That conversation manifested both criminal and impeachable behavior,” Napolitano wrote . “The criminal behavior to which Trump has admitted is much more grave than anything alleged or unearthed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and much of what Mueller revealed was impeachable.”

In addition to the call itself, Napolitano also took issue with Trump’s personal conduct since the allegations came to light via a whistleblower report in late September.

Trump has accused the unidentified whistleblower of treason and amplified statements saying his impeachment would lead to a “Civil War-like fracture.”

“The president’s allusions to violence are palpably dangerous,” wrote Napolitano. “They will give cover to crazies who crave violence, as other intemperate words of his have done.”

“This language is a dog whistle to the deranged,” he added.

Napolitano is one of the few Fox personalities to consistently call out some of Trump’s more outrageous behavior. The fracture between Fox’s news and opinion sides spilled into the open last week when Tucker Carlson and host Shepard Smith traded barbs over Napolitano’s insights. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.25  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    2 months ago

Why?  Can’t just wait to the next election?  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.26  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.16    2 months ago

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!

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.27  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.26    2 months ago

Trump won the 2016 election and to them that was the crime.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.27    2 months ago

Yep, and he won fair and square. To the progressive liberal left, that was an even bigger slap in the face!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @3    2 months ago

 Yeah orange man bad we’ve heard 1 million times bottom line is you can’t make up enough shit to stick so fucking bullshit we all know it and there’s not gonna be any thing happening other than Trump’s re-election.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @3    2 months ago
Trump broke the law

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    2 months ago
'Let's not pretend any of this is about Trump breaking a law.'

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.2  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.1    2 months ago

No 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.3.3  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    2 months ago
Let's not pretend any of this is about Trump breaking a law.

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.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @3.3.3    2 months ago

Guiliani's admitted it also.

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.1    2 months ago
impeachable offense

Define that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.7  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @3.3.3    2 months ago
You can make it about whatever you like

Exactly. You would impeach the president and it doesn't matter to you if there is a good reason. That's a problem.

to get dirt on a political rival via a foreign country

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.5    2 months ago

DEFINE THIS . . . 

 
 
 
WallyW
3.3.9  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.1    2 months ago

Name them

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.5    2 months ago
Define that.

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.11  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.3.10    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.3.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.11    2 months ago

Clinton was impeached for lying about a Blow Job.

It's a good thing

Trump Never lies about anything...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.3.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.3.12    2 months ago

Again, it's not WHAT he lied about, it is to WHOM he lied. But you knew that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.14  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.3.12    2 months ago
Clinton was impeached for lying about a Blow Job.

Yeah, that was pretty stupid. Again, bad behavior and so on, but definitely not worth getting rid of a president.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.3.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.13    2 months ago

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

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.11    2 months ago
Very good.

Elementary. 

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.

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. 

You need to do more than simply say it's outrageous or wrong or whatever. That's just an opinion.

As is your claim that:

Nothing in Trump's dealings with Ukraine can be applied to the law. 

Yet you don's seem to think that you need to back that up with anything...


And more is particularly needed here because his accusers have been talking about impeachment since before he even took office.

Why? 

This process deserves a certain level of integrity 

Yes, that's why Trump should STFU. 

even if you think Trump himself has none.

That's something that I KNOW. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.17  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.3.16    2 months ago
Why?

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.18  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.17    2 months ago
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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.19  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.3.18    2 months ago
"Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States"

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.3.20  Raven Wing  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.19    2 months ago
You want to find me a politician on politifact with a 100% Truthful rating?

No such thing by any means from any political party. Any one who believes that lives in fantasy land. 

JMOO

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.21  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.3.15    2 months ago
You enjoy being lied to, and have no spine to call out that liar WTF is wrong with people .

I ask that about Bernie supporters all the time.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.3.22  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.21    2 months ago

at leastb Bernie was attempting to share the wealth, where as Trump's " middle class" tax cuts was pure bullshit

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.23  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.3.22    2 months ago
at leastb Bernie was attempting to share the wealth,

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.

where as Trump's " middle class" tax cuts was pure bullshit

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.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.1    2 months ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.25  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.19    2 months ago
That's literally everybody running for office or already elected

As the Mueller report should have taught you, if the intent is corrupt, it's impeachable and or illegal. 

Sorry, you need something better than that.

Actually, I don't need anything, the Congress does. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.3.26  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.3.22    2 months ago

You mean steal the wealth from some and distribute it to others as he sees fit with strings attached?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.3.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.3.3    2 months ago

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!

218f75ad93e78618993af155dc1c0630.jpg


 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.3.22    one month ago

Sorry, but the way I and others see it, Bernie is more Hell bent on sharing other people's wealth rather than his own.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    2 months ago

I'm willing to play along with a lot of horseshit at times, but I draw the line at

"[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."

Donald Trump has never had the "greater majority" of the American people with him. Never, not for a second. 

 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. 

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. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 months ago
The idea that Trump belongs in the US presidency is absurd. 

So you don't believe in the Constitution?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 months ago

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? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 months ago
So you don't believe in the Constitution?

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 months ago
Belongs. Do you know what belongs means? 

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.4    2 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 months ago

So you want to repeal the 2016 election before the 2020 election?  That’s what seems extreme to me.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.9  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago

The funny part is they will never get a conviction because their case is less than paper thin what they really want is process crimes. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.5    2 months ago
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.

It is the opinion of the majority of Americans. 

I think he's done wonders despite all the obstruction.

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. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago
Do you really want both parties impeaching presidents left & right?

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.12    2 months ago
I want any President impeached who told their aides to lie to investigators,

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!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.13    2 months ago
then you wanted any resident impeached

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.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.15  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.14    2 months ago

 More phony bullshit nonsense about impeachment nobody had a fucking clue they’re making up the crime to suit the individual they hate that’s all this is that’s all it ever has been and all it ever will be 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago
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?

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. 

 Do you really want both parties impeaching presidents left & right?

If there is impeachable evidence YES!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    2 months ago

Not now not ever There is no evidence of anything they are just making shit up like they have from the beginning 

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.18  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    2 months ago

There is no credible evidence or are we now going accept hearsay as evidence?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.19  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @4.1.9    2 months ago

You don't even know what a process crime is yet you are saying that like it means something.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.4    2 months ago
The constitution gives the power of impeachment to the congress for just this reason.

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.”

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.22  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.4    2 months ago

No 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.23  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.20    2 months ago

They will end up with only a process crime that is my point.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @4.1.22    2 months ago
No 

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.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.21    2 months ago

You should read #65, Vic. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.26  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @4.1.9    2 months ago

The funny part is they will never get a conviction because their case is less than paper thin what they really want is process crimes. 

Even funnier? Trump admitted he did and his call logs prove he did it. 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.27  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.24    2 months ago

No 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.28  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.17    2 months ago

You should go watch Kevin McCarthy's interview and see the look on his face when he was read the statement from the memo.

"I would like you to do us a favor though"

The look on his face SHOULD tell you everything. 

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.29  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.5    2 months ago
I certainly do. It means he was elected in a fair election.

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?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.30  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.18    2 months ago
There is no credible evidence or are we now going accept hearsay as evidence?

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? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @4.1.29    2 months ago
and he lost the popular vote.

When will folks learn that Trump never ran to win the popular vote--he ran to win the election---which he DID?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.8    2 months ago
So you want to repeal the 2016 election before the 2020 election?  That’s what seems extreme to me.

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? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.33  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @4.1.29    2 months ago
(not an opinion, a FACT)

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.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.34  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.33    2 months ago
and he lost the popular vote. So did Abraham Lincoln

? 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election

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".

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

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.35  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.34    2 months ago

For some unfathomable reason, certain people are fond of trying to favorably compare Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.30    2 months ago

'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?' 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago
That standard for impeachment was set very high

The Constitution's phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' isn't a very high standard. 

 because of the possibility we would have vermin like Pelosi, the squad, Nadler and schiff. 

Actually Vic, the standard in the Constitution was set to protect the nation from people like Trump. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.21    2 months ago
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.”

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:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

Thirdly, Hamilton didn't state that is where 'impeachable offenses come from', he stated that is the JURIDICTION of:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments

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. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.39  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.28    2 months ago

The look on his face means absolutely fucking nothing.   Trouble here is you actually believe doing us a favor is a problem.  Trouble is, you think QuId Pro Joe should be exempt from any crimes he may have committed.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.39    2 months ago
Trouble here is you actually believe doing us a favor is a problem. 

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, you think QuId Pro Joe should be exempt from any crimes he may have committed.

Trouble is, the only crime you can pretend Joe Biden committed originated in yours and Trump's mutual fever dream. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.41  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.40    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.42  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.40    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.43  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.40    2 months ago

duplicate comment deleted

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.42    2 months ago
removed for context

Actually, what it looks like is that you couldn't manage a comment that didn't earn you a CoC ticket. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.45  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.44    2 months ago

[meta]

[comments about the site or its members, remember?]

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.46  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @4.1.37    2 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.47  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.45    2 months ago

 Well let’s put it this way I’ll tell the truth to the day I die 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.48  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @4.1.44    2 months ago

Or maybe he’s right and you are not?  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.46    2 months ago
The 2/3 or 67 senators of 100 to remove is a high standard.

Yes, I know, ask McConnell, he can't change the Senate rules about Impeachment  without 2/3 of the Senators. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.50  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.47    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.51  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.48    2 months ago
Or maybe he’s right and you are not?  

How could that be since I didn't flag his comment OR moderate it Xx? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.52  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.46    2 months ago
The whole impeachment charade is nothing more than an I hate Trump and the voters who elected him temper tantrum.  

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!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.53  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.49    2 months ago
he can't change the Senate rules about Impeachment  without 2/3 of the Senators. 

Why would he want or need to do that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.54  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.50    2 months ago

Wha?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.55  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.40    2 months ago
Asking for a 'favor' after your counterpart mentions his own nations defense IS a problem. 

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.56  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.51    2 months ago
How could that be since

I think it is.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.57  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.56    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
lady in black
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.59  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.57    2 months ago

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!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.60  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @4.1.58    2 months ago

Why not join the conversation?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.61  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.59    one month ago
There’s little question that the Bidens’ paths in Ukraine held the potential for conflict, and in a tweet last week, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said the U.S. should investigate the matter. But what has received less attention is that at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the probe into the company --      Burisma Holdings   , owned by Mykola Zlochevsky -- had been long dormant, according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko.

“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

Kasko’s assessment adds a wrinkle to one of the first political intrigues of the 2020 election season. It undercuts the idea that Biden, now a top Democratic presidential candidate, was seeking to sideline a prosecutor who was actively threatening a company tied to his son. Instead, it appears more consistent with Biden’s previous statements that he was pressing for the removal of a prosecutor who was failing to tackle rampant corruption

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.62  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.61    one month ago

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."


 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.63  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.31    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.64  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.53    one month ago

I was thinking the same thing.  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.65  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.53    one month ago
Why would he want or need to do that?

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.66  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.56    one month ago
I think it is.

You 'think it is' WHAT Vic? Be specific. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.67  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.55    one month ago
It depends. If cleaning up corruption is a qualification for aid it would be necessary.

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...

There has been a lot of corruption in the Ukraine and a good amount of it involves American politics. 

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.68  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.65    one month ago
McConnell is the one that stated that they need to follow the Senate rules

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.69  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.67    one month ago
Per the texts released, the ONLY investigation they wanted reopened  was the one about the company that Hunter Biden worked for.

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

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.70  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.69    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.71  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.68    one month ago
And he is all that counts!

It looks like you're having an issue following the thread Vic. 

My comment was about McConnell and you asked:

Why would he want or need to do that?

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. 

So vote for the articles of impeachment and send it over to the US Senate.

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. 

There is no need to speculate about some off the wall theory.

What 'off the wall theory' are you talking about Vic. 

Oh and BTFW, that's hilarious coming from you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.72  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.69    one month ago
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.

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. 

Nope. Your'e still batting zero.

Only in your mind Vic. 

The Ukraine didn't even know that aid was being delayed.

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? 

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.

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. 

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)

Prove it with links Vic. 

Which makes me wonder why I waste so much time with people who want to muddy the waters

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? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.73  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.72    one month ago
Like hell they didn't.

Will you please read:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ukraine-didnt-realize-u-s-withheld-aid-until-one-month-after-trump-call-report/

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.74  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.71    one month ago
It looks like you're having an issue following the thread Vic. 

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?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.75  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago

The majority of progressive leftist liberals believe in the Constitution of The United States only when it suits them and is convenient.

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.76  lady in black  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.75    one month ago

Crooked donnie wipes his ass with the Constitution

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.77  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.73    one month ago
Will you please read:

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? 

Did Obama provide the military aid? 

No reason to believe he didn't. 

You bet I did. We are talking about corruption in the Ukraine. There was a shit load!

Actually NO Vic. We are talking about impeachment and Trump's actions.

I'm not getting it from you!

You're not debating Vic, you're obfuscating and deflecting. 

Just like with Obama - clean it up if you want American aid.

Nope. Trump ADMITTED that he wanted Zelensky to investigate Biden. Trump could not care less about any corruption that may be happening TODAY. 

And nowhere did Trump say you do this and I'll do that. That's the bottom line. 

Nope AGAIN. JUST asking Zelensky to investigate a political opponent is an abuse of power Vic. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.78  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.74    one month ago
Then don't declare impeachment! You don't just declare an impeachment inquiry with nothing.

There's plenty to open an impeachment inquiry and anyone who doesn't think so is delusional. 

It's unfair to the President, to the committees and the ranking members.

How? 

It was only done, the way it was, to spare moderate democrats from voting and to give Pelosi maximum control over the House.

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.79  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.75    one month ago

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).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.80  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.77    one month ago
and the texts being released.

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."

https://www.rferl.org/a/us-military-chief-dunford-says-recommends-providing-ukraine-lethal-defensive-aid/28759423.html

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.


 
 
 
katrix
4.1.81  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.80    one month ago
The text of the phone conversation was released immediately

With what appear to be major gaps. You haven't read the exact transcript of the entire call, because it hasn't been released.

We do want to discuss this based on facts, don't we?

Trump's base apparently does not.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.82  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.78    one month ago
How? 

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


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.83  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @4.1.81    one month ago
You haven't read the exact transcript of the entire call, because it hasn't been released.

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!

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.84  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.82    one month ago

McConnell should just hold a vote w/o a trial and end this.  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.85  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.80    one month ago
The text of the phone conversation was released immediately. I have read it and there is no quid pro quo, therefore no there there.

I said 'texts' Vic. You know, the ones released by Volker that you insisted exonerated Trump but they don't. 

We do want to discuss this based on facts, don't we?

So the fact is, Obama did release the military aid.

Sorry, I beg to differ.

Beg all you want, it is an abuse of power and a violation of the public trust. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.86  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.82    one month ago
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.

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? 

“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

Thanks for the McConnell campaign ad Vic. /s

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.87  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.84    one month ago
McConnell should just hold a vote w/o a trial and end this.  

So you want McConnell to violate the Senate rules and the Constitution. Got ya.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.88  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.83    one month ago

Right on!  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.89  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.85    one month ago
I said 'texts' Vic. You know, the ones released by Volker that you insisted exonerated Trump but they don't. 

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:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6451488-Three-Chairs-Provide-Update-on-Investigative.html#document/p1

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!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.90  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.86    one month ago
OMG what an utter and total load of BULLSHIT!

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 .

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house


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?


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.91  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.88    one month ago

Heavy is the head that wears the crown....

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.92  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.89    one month ago
Let's explain to everyone what you mean by "texts":  

Yes Vic, I mean what everyone else on the planet, except you it seems, means when they use the word 'texts'. 

 You are not referring to the actual texts of the phone converation

No I am not referring to the actual TEXT of the SUMMARY of the phone conversation. 

There is nothing in there that provides the quid pro quo that democrats would need to gain bipartisan support!

An OPINION coming from one who has blinders and a blindfold on whenever a hint of Trump wrongdoing is documented. 

[7/21/19, 1:45:54 Bill Taylor: Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk's point that President is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics. [7/21/19, 4:45:44 Gordon Sondland: Absolutely, but we need to get the
conversation started and the relationship built, irrespective of the pretext. I am wonied about the alternative.

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. 

Ambassador Volker advised Andrey Yermak [Zelensky's aid]: [7/25/ 19, 8:36:45 Kurt Volker: Good lunch - thanks. Heard from White
House, assuming President convinces trump he will investigate 'get to the
bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for Visit to
Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow- kurt

Here is Andrey Yermak talking about the 'press statement' that Trump is now demanding:

[8/10/19, 4:56:15 Andrey Yermak: Hi Kurt. Please let me know when you
can talk. I think it's possible to make this declaration and mention all these things. Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a conformation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations and our guarantees for future visit. Let discuss it

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. 

In the face of the facts you make such a falsehood?  The whole world can read Post 4.1.80. 

A 'falsehood' Vic? Here is part of the first line of YOUR block quote:

"Under President Donald Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, the United States provided nonlethal military aid

So YES, the whole world CAN read 4.1.80 Vic so why are you posting bullshit about it? 

Call it what you want - It is a partisan attempt at smearing the President before an election. Democrats will lose everything!

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.93  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.91    one month ago
Heavy is the head that wears the crown....

Wow, the humility is overwhelming. /s

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.94  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.91    one month ago

Chris Cornell and Chris Stapleton colaboration

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.95  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.92    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.1.96  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.91    one month ago

512

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.97  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.90    one month ago
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.

Yet your comment IS utter bullshit. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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'. 

The Committee can subpoena, but without that vote, those subpoena's lack a  legitimate “legislative purpose” for the request.

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. 

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?

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.98  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.92    one month ago
Yes Vic, I mean what everyone else on the planet, except you it seems, means when they use the word 'texts'. 

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!




 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.99  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.95    one month ago
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. 

My comments are not based purely on opinion. They include documented facts. Care to address any of those facts? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.100  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.97    one month ago
Yet your comment IS utter bullshit. 

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.101  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.96    one month ago

woman-slips-and-falls-down-on-snowy-road

Woops!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.102  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.98    one month ago
 I'm glad we understand each other.

I understand that you attempted to muddy perfectly crystal clear waters. 

You mean Taylor.

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. 

It can happen, but he got a very clear correction from Sondland which you & Schiff don't want to show:

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? 

They will lose everything, but not in the service of the Constitution but their hate-filled base!

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

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.103  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.101    one month ago

That's Whoops!

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.104  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.103    one month ago
That's Whoops!

Good catch "Captin Spil Chicker"! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.105  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.102    one month ago
I understand that you attempted to muddy perfectly crystal clear waters. 

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

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.106  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.105    one month ago

In the "New and Improved Democrat World", Presidents aren't supposed to ask other countries for help anymore ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

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. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.107  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.106    one month ago
.they stick with their plan

Their plan got upended on day 1 when the President released the transcript

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.108  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.107    one month ago
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" !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.109  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.108    one month ago
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!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.110  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.100    one month ago
Then you and I can't discuss anything.

Yet you proceed to do so. 

You are not up to it!

You haven't been up to refuting even one of my comments Vic.

Then you don't even know what we were discussing.

I know EXACTLY what we are discussing, you just want to deflect from it. 

Let me remind you - Pelosi not taking a vote vs taking one

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. 

- pro's [&] cons.

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. 

Then you are stumped!

Obtuse. 

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.

WTF Vic. AGAIN, you block quoted my question about an Impeachment Inquiry and replied about Articles of Impeachment.

This one is certainly unique. No vote for articles of impeachment and no crime, just an interpretation of a phone call.

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.

That's not what this about.

Coming from you that comment is pathetic. 

Your'e talking to the choir again. The girls will be giving you high fives, 

[deleted]

but has nothing to do with the formal process for impeachment which Pelosi has avoided

That makes sense since the 'formal process for impeachment' isn't the topic of our 'intelligent discussion' Vic. 

Nunes is a DICK  Your'e flailing

Nope, calling a spade a spade. 

Some can't be taught.

While others fail to recognize that they have nothing to teach.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.111  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.109    one month ago
They supposedly know what he's thinking!

They'll "Swear-by-it" too !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.112  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.110    one month ago
Yet you proceed to do so. 

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.113  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.105    one month ago
Oh, I know - That's your job!

Thanks for another stellar example of what you view as an intellectual discussion Vic. /s

Zelensky said there was no pressure in that conversation. In other words you don't want to hear his definitive statement?

Oh I heard Zelensky genuflect in the phone call and then pretend to be unpressured at his sit down with Trump @ the UN. 

Yes really!  You can't rid yourselves of Sondland's not-too-subtle reprimand of Taylor! No quid pro quo - bottom line!

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? 

No, if you want to impeach based on the President telling countries what they should investigate, go right ahead.

It's not just about Trump 'telling countries what they should investigate', is it Vic? 

We finally agree

Only if I accept your truncation of my comment. I don't. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.114  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.113    one month ago
Thanks for another stellar example of what you view as an intellectual discussion

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!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.115  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.112    one month ago
I have no choice. You seem to think that by repeating the same stuff will wear people down and they will go away.

Au contraire. I want you to keep posting foolish comments...

That's not happening today honey.

Address me by my screen name Vic. 

Every statement you ever made has been refuted, beginning with Michael Cohen being in Prague!

You can't even stay on topic when your posting snark. 

You haven't refuted one thing I've said Vic. 

Guess what: Why I think she should take one = vote vs non-vote. Not even you can obscure that!

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. 

No, WTF Dully girl - 

I will tell you one more time, address me by my screen name Vic. 

It even hurts the majority - Schiff issues subpoenas that are little more that requests! (that's twice).

What does your bullshit about Schiff have to do with my comment:

WTF Vic. AGAIN, you block quoted my question about an Impeachment Inquiry and replied about Articles of Impeachment.

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. 

AGAIN, That's what we are comparing!

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.

And your'e gonna get even more bitter!

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. 

Round and round we go!

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? 

I thought you could rise to a civil conversation.

Based on your most recent comment, I don't believe that you understand what the word 'civil' means Vic. 

While others fail to recognize that they have nothing to teach. You are in my classroom now.

Thanks for proving my point. Well done. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.116  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.114    one month ago

Every time you truncate my comment to try to make a snarky point, you chip away at what little credibility you retain. 

So, you admit the reprimand. 

No, as is your norm, you presume too much. BTW, that was a question. Answer? 

Actually it was dully.

Last time, use my screen name Vic. 

There was no asking in those statements.

Really Vic?

'I would like you to do us a favor though'

'I think you're surrounding yourse·lf with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.'

'Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.' 

'The other thing, There's a lot of.talk about Biden's son,that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it …'

NONE of that was asking for anything Vic? 

And you were supposed to be the old wordsmith!

That's the second time you've said that. Are you sensitive about your vocabulary Vic? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.117  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @4.1.116    one month ago

You who has truncated my comments to twist them to your purposes are lecturing another about doing it?  Seriously?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.118  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.115    one month ago
Pelosi doesn't NEED to take a vote.

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:

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7065/trump-white-house-to-democrats-on-impeachment-were-not-cooperating-so-come-and-get-us#c1176757

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" ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.119  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.116    one month ago
NONE of that was asking for anything Vic? 

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!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.120  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.1.116    one month ago
That's the second time you've said that. Are you sensitive about your vocabulary Vic? 

Is that how you took it?  You who tries to win arguments on technical terms?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.121  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.117    one month ago
You who has truncated my comments to twist them to your purposes are lecturing another about doing it?  Seriously?

Really Xx? Prove it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.122  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.118    one month ago
That the only thing progressives can say about it. 

I've been saying a hell of a lot more than that in the last 4 days Vic. 

You have your talking points down. I admitted that in another discussion we had, but you obviously forgot.

But HERE, for a whole day you spewed strawmen and false equivalencies. Why? 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

So, now that you know that, do you have any thoughts beyond the progressive talking point "she has a right to do it" ?

Again, Vic, I've done that for 4 days. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.123  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.119    one month ago
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?  

Actually, as has been your practice of late, you made it about ME. You said;

There was no asking in those statements. And you were supposed to be the old wordsmith!

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. 

That was a silly diversion by you - I thought you were slightly better than that!

I've never been under that illusion about you.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4.1.124  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @4.1.123    one month ago

Vic, Heatland, and Dulay, 

Any more comments of a personal nature will be skirted from this point forward.

Sincerely,

The People's fish

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.125  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @4.1.123    one month ago

Just to clarify, I didn't flag either of you.

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.126  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.30    one month ago

"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?

 
 
 
MUVA
4.2  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 months ago

No.

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.1  JBB  replied to  MUVA @4.2    2 months ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 months ago

 All that is is inconsequential nonsense consuming you

 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 months ago

 Better than anything you have offer and that’s a stone cold fact.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.1    2 months ago

So you are in favor of hundreds of thousands of Americans dying because trumps ego will get hurt if he is impeached?

Wow. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 months ago
No patriot that truly loves America would EVER float the idea of another civil war.

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!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
6  Dulay    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Krishna
7  Krishna    2 months ago

 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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @7    2 months ago
Golly gee-- I wonder why?

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    2 months ago

Right wing cranks are much more ideological than your average liberal. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    2 months ago

Lol, I don't see any "right wing cranks" fining people $250,000 for using the term "Illegal Alien"


 
 
 
Heartland American
7.1.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    one month ago

The progressive left is all ideological and all about politics all the time.  Many of them don’t have a life elsewhere. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
lady in black
9.1  lady in black  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9    2 months ago

removed for context

 
 
 
lib50
9.1.1  lib50  replied to  lady in black @9.1    2 months ago

That sums it up perfectly.  Unbelievable but true.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @9.1.1    2 months ago
That sums it up perfectly. 

You really think so?

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    one month ago

The question is what?  Sums what up how?  There’s nothing above that the comment can refer to. 

 
 
 
lady in black
10  lady in black    2 months ago

66753948_10156526058876139_7519107087993

 
 
 
Heartland American
11  seeder  Heartland American    2 months ago

Why?  Can’t just wait to the next election?  

 
 
 
cjcold
11.1  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @11    2 months ago

Trump damages America on a daily basis. Why wait?

 
 
 
Heartland American
11.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @11.1    2 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
lady in black
12  lady in black    2 months ago

71214671_2543905359212499_29896823333736

 
 
 
Tessylo
13  Tessylo    one month ago
w5NyOEPH_normal.jpg
Jennifer Bendery
  @jbendery
 ·      20 h

Can't see this in most of the TV feed, but Trump's long-winded bonkers rant against Pelosi and Schiff moments ago happened while the Finland president was just sitting there waiting quietly

w5NyOEPH_normal.jpg
Jennifer Bendery
  @jbendery

The president of Finland during all that

MY FAVORITE TWEET FROM THAT WHOLE DAMNED MESS!
 
 
 
arkpdx
14  arkpdx    one month ago

"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?

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @14    one month ago

Read the seeds about it here on NT.

 
 
 
Heartland American
14.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @14.1    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @14.1.1    one month ago

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? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
14.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @14.1    one month ago

T'aint my job to look up and provide the proof of your arguments for you.

 
 
 
Heartland American
14.1.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @14.1.2    one month ago

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."   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7027/behind-the-impeachment-push-left-simply-hates-what-trump-represents#cm1179864

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.5  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @14.1.3    one month ago
T'aint my job to look up and provide the proof of your arguments for you.

What 'argument' are you claiming that I need to prove? 

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @14.1.4    one month ago

So you were whining about the content of your own seed. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
14.1.7  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @14.1.6    one month ago

I was?  

 
 
 
arkpdx
14.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @14.1.5    one month ago

Pleading ignorance will not help you.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.9  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @14.1.8    one month ago

Pretending that I am won't help you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @14.1.7    one month ago

You replied to my question about your whining with a quote from you seed, so ya. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
14.1.11  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @14.1.9    one month ago

Who's pretending?

 
 
 
Heartland American
14.1.12  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  arkpdx @14.1.11    one month ago

I’m certainly not doing that! 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Ender
Jack_TX
Dulay
Sean Treacy
Dean Moriarty
bbl-1


63 visitors