Yesterday Trump threatened a whistleblower, accused one or more of his top nat sec aides of being spies, demanded a House Chair be interrogated on suspicion of treason and threatened to foment a civil war if he is removed from office.

18 USC 2383

"Whoever incites... any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

He ran for fame and family fortune, he will be famous for being the most corrupt president of our lifetime and his family continues to make money and will squeeze every dime out of us until this ends.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lock HIM UP!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Four more years :devil:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Four more years :devil:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Added to his prison sentence ? Ok
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Greatest President of our lifetime.






(Saving SD the trouble of posting.)

Greatest President, how could he be impeached?


If you think that remember
Nixon ended Vietnam, opened up China, founded the EPA, signed Title IX so women could play sports, helped end desegregation in southern schools, lowered the voting age, created the National Cancer Center, plus he was a dog owner

He was man enough to resign when he was caught, though I wonder if he was given the choice of resigning and a pardon vs Impeachment and Indictment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Soon Trump will be directly threatening the whistle blower and breaking more laws.

Soon Trump will be directly threatening the whistle blower and breaking more laws.

Oh wait he already is...

Yesterday Trump threatened a whistleblower, accused one or more of his top nat sec aides of being spies, demanded a House Chair be interrogated on suspicion of treason and threatened to foment a civil war if he is removed from office.

18 USC 2383

"Whoever incites... any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."



“Trump loosing it”

This coming from a guy who obsesses over him & bitches on an internet Fishing forum 24-7.
Ya, he’s loosing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Four more years :devil:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if (1) nothing more serious comes of this, and (2) the CT u.s. attorney finds rules were broken by the obama justice department to spy on the trump campaign, and (3) trump
signs a trade deal with china, and (4) warren is the nominee, IF those all happen, trump could win more electoral votes than he did in 2016.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you look at the Khusyaynova complaint you will find many of Trump's talking points repeated. From civil war, voter fraud, fake news, highly partisan Mueller and OLD McCain

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5009827/Khusyaynova-Complaint.pdf

A good reason to listen to the professionals and not just trust your very large brain or gut, even if you consider yourself a stable genius.

“‘There’s two people I think Putin pays: [Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump.”

— Republican Kevin McCarthy, on tape, June 15, 2016.

why is trump suggesting adversaries are spies and traitors? doesn’t he know, as all enlightened progressives do, that’s its only noble to throw these accusations at Carter Page?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Former GOP Sen. Jeff Flake announces support for impeachment of Trump (with some reservations) and calls on Republicans not to back Trump’s re-election: “Trust me when I say that you can go elsewhere for a job. But you cannot go elsewhere for a soul.”

House Ways & Means Chair Neal said he’s consulting lawyers about whether to make public a complaint by a federal employee about possible misconduct in the IRS’s auditing of Trump. Employee alleges “inappropriate efforts to influence” the audit process

“Trump loosing it”

This coming from a guy who obsesses over him & bitches on an internet Fishing forum 24-7.
Ya, he’s loosing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which one is losing it???

Seems like whenever Trump does ANYTHING that the Dem's / left don't like (which is just about everything) they get "triggered" and get their collective panties in bunch.

Notice that the democrats' collective energy is being wasted SOLELY on one thing?
Now I understand why they are always losing it.


FOUR MORE YEARS!

Which one is losing it???

Seems like whenever Trump does ANYTHING that the Dem's / left don't like (which is just about everything) they get "triggered" and get their collective panties in bunch.

Notice that the democrats' collective energy is being wasted SOLELY on one thing?
Now I understand why they are always losing it.


FOUR MORE YEARS!


pete will post obsessively about the republicans who are in favor of
impeachment, and says nothing about the democrats opposed to
impeachment ( yes, to Petes chagrin, they do exist, he’s just desperate to deny it).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“For an American president to defend Moscow’s misbehavior by asking what about us? That should still shock every American. It’s a dereliction of a solemn duty. And it’s a far cry from putting ‘America First.’”

https://www.justsecurity.org/66370/trump-goes-full-putin-capitulation-inside-the-oval-office/

Pompeo pushes back on Trump's beliefs of Ukraine interference:

Pompeo announces new sanctions on Russian election meddlers; implicit rebuke to Trump’s skepticism.

And he meets with him at 4 this afternoon, might be interesting.

pete will post obsessively about the republicans who are in favor of
impeachment, and says nothing about the democrats opposed to
impeachment ( yes, to Petes chagrin, they do exist, he’s just desperate to deny it).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More Republicans and fewer Democrats each day

New: Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry has announced that he will not run for reelection next year, Dallas Morning News reports, making the 13-term lawmaker the 6th Texas Republican in Congress to head for the exits ahead of the 2020 election.

More Republicans and fewer Democrats each day



How many times a day do you check?

How many times a day do you check?


i agree it’s concerning. the remedy is the next election, not undoing the last one.




“As Republicans have said for decades, the United States is not a democracy but a representative republic. The purpose of the impeachment clause is precisely for the trustees of the voters in Congress to undo what the voters did.”

GOP Congressman Will Plead Guilty in Insider-Trading Case

Collins was first member of Congress to back Trump in 2016

He's losing them one way or another.

“As Republicans have said for decades, the United States is not a democracy but a representative republic. The purpose of the impeachment clause is precisely for the trustees of the voters in Congress to undo what the voters did.”

agreed, when there is an impeachable offense. “because i hate his guts”, and “because he humiliated our side
by beating the unbeatable hilary”, don’t qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What we know:
1 Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails.
2 Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.
3 The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy) jump on the Trump wagon
What does Russia have? What is the level of corruption found?

What we know:
1 Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails.
2 Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.
3 The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy) jump on the Trump wagon
What does Russia have? What is the level of corruption found?

here’s a question no one asks. yes, russia hacked and released the emails. but is
anyone saying the emails
aren’t real?

if the emails suggest hilary acted in a way, which if word got out could
harm her in the election, then isn’t the real story why she was engaging in that behavior, rather than who told us about it?

secure the systems, fine. but if hilary wasn’t acting unethically, there’s be no impact of releasing the emails. if the media would
do its job, we would
have already known about what was in those emails.

if she lost votes because russia exposed slimy things she truly did, that’s her fault. isn’t it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreed, when there is an impeachable offense. “because i hate his guts”, and “because he humiliated our side
by beating the unbeatable hilary”, don’t qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, the Ukraine thing is just the tip of the iceberg. Spinning it into being driven by personal grievances is using the Russian divisive playbook. I have not seen any Democratic Party leadership comments resembling your quotes.

Here is where I think it should head next, along with the other buried documents. Denigrating the FBI and CIA for years and then having them find out you were lying to them is not recommended.

Benjamin Wittes in Lawfare

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.

The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the previous day had relieved “great pressure” on him.

A memorandum summarizing the meeting was limited to a few officials with the highest security clearances in an attempt to keep the president’s comments from being disclosed publicly, according to the former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

Shortly after the story broke, I received a message from a person directly involved with the FBI’s decision to open a counterintelligence and obstruction investigation of President Trump in the immediate aftermath of the firing of FBI Director James Comey. To say this person, who had clearly learned about the matter for the first time from the Post, was angered by the story would be to understate the matter.

The message read in relevant part: “None of us had any idea. Multiple people had opportunity and patriotic reason to tell us. Instead, silence.”

here’s a question no one asks. yes, russia hacked and released the emails. but is
anyone saying the emails
aren’t real?

if the emails suggest hilary acted in a way, which if word got out could
harm her in the election, then isn’t the real story why she was engaging in that behavior, rather than who told us about it?

secure the systems, fine. but if hilary wasn’t acting unethically, there’s be no impact of releasing the emails. if the media would
do its job, we would
have already known about what was in those emails.

if she lost votes because russia exposed slimy things she truly did, that’s her fault. isn’t it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Next, will you suggest we thank Russia and invite anyone to interfere in our elections because it is somehow deserved.

But you missed the point

What we know:
1 Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails.
2 Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.
3 The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy) jump on the Trump wagon
What does Russia have? What is the level of corruption found?

pete, so when hilary gets caught being unethical, you ignore what she did and focus on how the story broke. do i have that right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tip of the iceberg? how do you know?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, so when hilary gets caught being unethical, you ignore what she did and focus on how the story broke. do i have that right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here we go again. BUTTERYMALES!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Hillary do that was unethical?

Here we go again. BUTTERYMALES!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete brought up russia’s leaking her emails, not me.

i’ll ask you, if russia leaked emails
that said trump did unethical
things, and the emails were accurate,,would you be more concerned about what trump did, or with the fact that russia broke the story?

is anyone denying the accuracy of what was in those emails?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Hillary do that was unethical?

i don’t even know! but your side
keeps saying that revealing the emails, helped cost her the election. so i presume
something was in there, right? if the leaked emails were about yoga and chelsea’s wedding, no one would be saying it impacted the election.

pete claimed that russia’s leaking the emails, tilted the election in favor of trump. that necessarily means, that what was in the emails, hurt hilary. right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t even know! but your side
keeps saying that revealing the emails, helped cost her the election. so i presume
something was in there, right? if the leaked emails were about yoga and chelsea’s wedding, no one would be saying it impacted the election.

pete claimed that russia’s leaking the emails, tilted the election in favor of trump. that necessarily means, that what was in the emails, hurt hilary. right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I asked a serious question. You said "so when hilary gets caught being unethical, you ignore what she did and focus on how the story broke. do i have that right?" So I asked bc I wanted to find out what she did.

Unlike you I don't have "a side" and have prob. still voted for more Presidential candidates with Republican after their name than I have for Democrats.

pete, so when hilary gets caught being unethical, you ignore what she did and focus on how the story broke. do i have that right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't bring up Hillary
"Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails."
Does that say Hillary's emails?

You did and now you are lost in Hillarian rage again, I see.
While you and Trump apparently do not realize it, she did not win. What threat to our democracy does she pose at this point?

Here's the thing that should concern you and other Trumplicans

Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.

The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy among them) jumped on the Trump wagon

What does Russia have on the Republicans?

What level of corruption exists to be found in the republican leadership?

Of course there is none on the right, it only exists on the left.

Anyone who would suggest otherwise must be wearing a tinfoil hat.

I asked a serious question. You said "so when hilary gets caught being unethical, you ignore what she did and focus on how the story broke. do i have that right?" So I asked bc I wanted to find out what she did.

Unlike you I don't have "a side" and have prob. still voted for more Presidential candidates with Republican after their name than I have for Democrats.

you did ask a serious question. i don’t know the answer, and admitted that. i never claimed
i had knowledge of what was in the emails.

So pete says that the leaking of the emails hurt her chances of getting elected. From that, i assume
that means there was something bad in the emails.

you disagree?

so Pete says that public knowledge of the emails harmed
her chances of winning, and you don’t concede that means the emails made her look bad?

this is great...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unlike you I don't have "a side" and have prob. still voted for more Presidential candidates with Republican after their name than I have for Democrats.

right, right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't bring up Hillary
"Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails."
Does that say Hillary's emails?

You did and now you are lost in Hillarian rage again, I see.
While you and Trump apparently do not realize it, she did not win. What threat to our democracy does she pose at this point?

Here's the thing that should concern you and other Trumplicans

Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.

The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy among them) jumped on the Trump wagon

What does Russia have on the Republicans?

What level of corruption exists to be found in the republican leadership?

Of course there is none on the right, it only exists on the left.

Anyone who would suggest otherwise must be wearing a tinfoil hat.

oh. so which emails were you referring to?

i’ve heard a million times that the leaked Podesta emails
hurt hilary in the election. but you’re saying the emails
don’t reveal anything damaging to her?

hilary is wondering in the woods alone babbling like an idiot, i spend no time thinking of her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't bring up Hillary
"Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails."
Does that say Hillary's emails?

You did and now you are lost in Hillarian rage again, I see.
While you and Trump apparently do not realize it, she did not win. What threat to our democracy does she pose at this point?

Here's the thing that should concern you and other Trumplicans

Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.

The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy among them) jumped on the Trump wagon

What does Russia have on the Republicans?

What level of corruption exists to be found in the republican leadership?

Of course there is none on the right, it only exists on the left.

Anyone who would suggest otherwise must be wearing a tinfoil hat.

oh. so which emails were you referring to?

i’ve heard a million times that the leaked Podesta emails
hurt hilary in the election. but you’re saying the emails
don’t reveal anything unethical. gotcha.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh. so which emails were you referring to?

i’ve heard a million times that the leaked Podesta emails
hurt hilary in the election. but you’re saying the emails
don’t reveal anything damaging to her?

hilary is wondering in the woods alone babbling like an idiot, i spend no time thinking of her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You really do just repeat talking points with no understanding of the underlying issues.

Hillary's emails were not on the DNC server, they were housed on a server located at her home in Chappaqua, New York.

You are as confused as Trump and Colludy by Russian propaganda.

Here's the thing that should concern you and other Trumplicans

Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.

The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy among them) jumped on the Trump wagon

What does Russia have on the Republicans?

What level of corruption exists to be found in the republican leadership?

Of course there is none on the right, it only exists on the left.

Anyone who would suggest otherwise must be wearing a tinfoil hat.

i am
confused for sure. i’m not talking about her emails
in her home.

i was talking about ( because i thought its what you were referring to) the russian hack of John Podestas email account, shares with wikileaks. when liberals talk about russian interference, this is usually what they mean. and if hilary hadn’t engaged in anything sordid, than publishing those emails could not have damaged her electability.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think there’s lots of corruption within the gop. doesnt mean i think trump committed an impeachable
offense.

how many times was there a smoking gun? cohen testimony, tax returns, russian collusion, obstruction of
justice, now this. when you make a certain. umber if false claims, eventually you lose credibility.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CBS/YouGov now: Does Trump deserve to be impeached, not deserve to be, or too soon to say?
Deserves it 42%
Doesn't deserve 36%
Too soon 22%

CBS/NYT Oct. '98: Do Clinton's actions warrant impeachment/removal?
Yes 37%
No 60%

CBS/YouGov now: Does Trump deserve to be impeached, not deserve to be, or too soon to say?
Deserves it 42%
Doesn't deserve 36%
Too soon 22%

CBS/NYT Oct. '98: Do Clinton's actions warrant impeachment/removal?
Yes 37%
No 60%

dun dun dun!

how accurate were those polls in measuring what would happen at the election?

if those polls are accurate, you have nothing to worry about. yet you desperately post every negative tidbit you can find.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TRUMP'S RESPONSE TO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
(per his statements)

1. Those investigating me are traitors and must be put to death.

2. My political enemies must be imprisoned.

3. Those who oppose me who aren't put to death or imprisoned will face armed insurrection by my supporters.

dun dun dun!

how accurate were those polls in measuring what would happen at the election?

if those polls are accurate, you have nothing to worry about. yet you desperately post every negative tidbit you can find.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CBS/NYT Oct. '98: Do Clinton's actions warrant impeachment/removal?
Yes 37%
No 60%

These numbers are from a few days after the House voted to impeach Clinton.

It's not by popular vote.

Trump's impeachment will be driven by how people react to the evidence provided, if the Senate thinks that it is politically expedient for him to go, he's gone.
They want to get re-elected, don't be dreaming that it is not political.

prank call in which Schiff thinks he’s talking to Ukrainian officials, telling them he’d accept any dirt on Trump they could give him.

Is his intent, an impeachable offense?

Let me answer for you: No, because shut up.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-rep-digs-up-audio-of-schiff-saying-he-would-accept-dirt-on-trump-from-ukrainian-politician-in-prank-call
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Hillary do that was unethical?

How about screwing over Bernie to start. Or is that acceptable behavior?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about screwing over Bernie to start. Or is that acceptable behavior?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

plus getting debate questions ahead of time, some speeches to wall street that were problematic for her, easy to look up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

prank call in which Schiff thinks he’s talking to Ukrainian officials, telling them he’d accept any dirt on Trump they could give him.

Is his intent, an impeachable offense?

Let me answer for you: No, because shut up.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-rep-digs-up-audio-of-schiff-saying-he-would-accept-dirt-on-trump-from-ukrainian-politician-in-prank-call
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You ought to read stuff before you post it

At the very end of the story, FOX says that Schiff suspected it was a prank, called the FBI before the call, recorded the call, the reported back to FBI afterwards. The implication the it was a secret deal to get dirt is an lie. Once Trump agreed to take Russian help, Putin owned him, and he still does, and Fox helps keep him in power. Shame on them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The but Hillary is strong in you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The but Hillary is strong in you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

me? who brought up the idea that russian interference hurt hilary, me or you?

you got me good on the schiff story though, clobbered me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

me? who brought up the idea that russian interference hurt hilary, me or you?

you got me good on the schiff story though, clobbered me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You injected Hillary into the discussion
I brought up this, below, and the questions are at the end, they refer to the RNC emails that were hacked and never released?
Could be because there’s nothing there or there is and it’s in use.

What we know:
1 Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails.
2 Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.
3 The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy) jump on the Trump wagon
What does Russia have? What is the level of corruption found?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You injected Hillary into the discussion
I brought up this, below, and the questions are at the end, they refer to the RNC emails that were hacked and never released?
Could be because there’s nothing there or there is and it’s in use.

What we know:
1 Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails.
2 Russia hacked the RNC and never leaked the emails.
3 The GOP never Trumpers (McCarthy) jump on the Trump wagon
What does Russia have? What is the level of corruption found?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
so when you bring up russian interference via emails, that’s got nothing to do with Hilary? if you say so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about screwing over Bernie to start. Or is that acceptable behavior?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How did Hillary screw over Bernie?

plus getting debate questions ahead of time, some speeches to wall street that were problematic for her, easy to look up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was the question she got? I believe it was 1 question.

And why were the speeches problematic? Is it bc she refuses to release them and you don't know what she talked about?

so when you bring up russian interference via emails, that’s got nothing to do with Hilary? if you say so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe what was on the RNC server is what Putin will release if Trump discloses their discussions.
The Russians said you better not do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was the question she got? I believe it was 1 question.

And why were the speeches problematic? Is it bc she refuses to release them and you don't know what she talked about?

bernie wanted speeches released, she resisted.

paul, did your side make a big deal about how the email
release hurt Hilary, or not? can we start there?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe what was on the RNC server is what Putin will release if Trump discloses their discussions.
The Russians said you better not do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe.

what we know for sure, is that when the russian hacked emails
were released, everyone on the left, and everyone in the media, said this hurt Hilary. that can only be true, if the voters didn’t like
what the emails revealed. in that case, the content of the emails
is more important than who released them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bernie wanted speeches released, she resisted.

paul, did your side make a big deal about how the email
release hurt Hilary, or not? can we start there?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you have posted numerous times almost the same thing about the speeches that you said above and that you wanted them released. So what was the big scandal with her not releasing speeches that she was paid for by private entities that hired her?

Would you release the completion factors that your employer paid you to develop?


And what was the question that turned the tide for Hillary? Did Trump receive any questions ahead of time?

maybe.

what we know for sure, is that when the russian hacked emails
were released, everyone on the left, and everyone in the media, said this hurt Hilary. that can only be true, if the voters didn’t like
what the emails revealed. in that case, the content of the emails
is more important than who released them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your opinion is that it is acceptable or even desirable to have foreign nations interfere in our elections you are not advocating for anything near rule of law.
Though it is hard to see how you do anyways, since you support the lawless Trump.
Trump thinks laws are good, but only as long as they work in his favor. If they aren't working for him, call Colludy and Joey Di.

But you have posted numerous times almost the same thing about the speeches that you said above and that you wanted them released. So what was the big scandal with her not releasing speeches that she was paid for by private entities that hired her?

Would you release the completion factors that your employer paid you to develop?


And what was the question that turned the tide for Hillary? Did Trump receive any questions ahead of time?

can you answer my question possibly? did your side make a big deal that releasing these emails
hurt hilary, yes or no?

if i was applying for a chief actuary job, and my employer wanted to see transcripts of speeches i gave, unless there was proprietary intellectual property in there, i’d feel
like i had to divulge it. that’s actually a great question. So was
mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your opinion is that it is acceptable or even desirable to have foreign nations interfere in our elections you are not advocating for anything near rule of law.
Though it is hard to see how you do anyways, since you support the lawless Trump.
Trump thinks laws are good, but only as long as they work in his favor. If they aren't working for him, call Colludy and Joey Di.

you’re trying really hard not to answer my question, aren’t you?

if russia jacked the voting machines or spread lies, that’s interference. if they revealed truth that hilary his and that her pals in the media had no intent of uncovering, that’s more like whistleblowing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can you answer my question possibly? did your side make a big deal that releasing these emails
hurt hilary, yes or no?

if i was applying for a chief actuary job, and my employer wanted to see transcripts of speeches i gave, unless there was proprietary intellectual property in there, i’d feel
like i had to divulge it. that’s actually a great question. So was
mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny you ask that in a post where you ignore questions.

What was the question(s) that threw the nomination to Hilary? and did Trump receive any questions?

Completion factors are proprietary.

This is the question many people would like to have answered.
No simple answer exists, Fivethirtyeight is pretty good at poll analysis and did look at it. They did not come to a clear-cut solution. The article is somewhat extensive with some data. Political geeks will argue over it for years.

How did Hillary Clinton blow a 7-percentage-point lead over Donald Trump in the final month of the campaign? Much of the post-election analysis has revolved around FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress on Oct. 28. Less attention was spent on the role that WikiLeaks played. Until, that is, news broke that the CIA thought Russia actively tried to help Trump win; figures connected to the Russian government allegedly hacked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, which then found their way to WikiLeaks. So what effect did WikiLeaks have on the election?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clinton/

you’re trying really hard not to answer my question, aren’t you?

if russia jacked the voting machines or spread lies, that’s interference. if they revealed truth that hilary his and that her pals in the media had no intent of uncovering, that’s more like whistleblowing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's illegal unlike whistleblowing.

How did Hillary screw over Bernie?

She accepted help in rigging the election against Bernie. That is only if you believe Bernie. Also,only if you consider getting answers to questions before they are asked to be unethical. Did you consider that fair play?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She accepted help in rigging the election against Bernie. That is only if you believe Bernie. Also,only if you consider getting answers to questions before they are asked to be unethical. Did you consider that fair play?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile devicespecifics please. So what was this question that threw the nomination to Hillary? I find it hard to believe that one question threw the nomination. And if Trump received similar help would that be unethical also?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

specifics please. So what was this question that threw the nomination to Hillary? I find it hard to believe that one question threw the nomination. And if Trump received similar help would that be unethical also?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bernie believes this to be the case,google it. And no,if Trump received help it is perfectly fine.

Why not answer my question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bernie believes this to be the case,google it. And no,if Trump received help it is perfectly fine.

Why not answer my question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you realize how hypocritical your statement is? Can you please provide a link where Bernie says Hillary being given one question ruined his chance to be the Democratic candidate. And your first statement was that Hillary accepted help not that Bernie said it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

specifics please. So what was this question that threw the nomination to Hillary? I find it hard to believe that one question threw the nomination. And if Trump received similar help would that be unethical also?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Complaining about the debate questions is trivial. Only thing the Clinton campaign did of substance was to arm twist the DNC on cash which was hardball but not illegal. Sanders wasn't going to get the nomination anyway. Clinton only lost because of her self inflicted email issues and Russian interference.

Right now I'm a lot more concerned about real corruption and dysfunction in this Administration that is an order of magnitude beyond what I've ever seen. As the impeachment subpoenas continue to come forth the circle of wagons is going to get really tight really fast. Did you see Miller, Jordan and McCarthy on Sunday? They are all clueless on how to respond other than spouting conspiracy theories. We have a lawless leader, it's time to fix that.

Complaining about the debate questions is trivial.

Of course it is. But that's what some of the people on the right have become here. It's not right to give her the question but the question they gave her was something any candidate would prepare for. Mountain out of a molehill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Complaining about the debate questions is trivial. Only thing the Clinton campaign did of substance was to arm twist the DNC on cash which was hardball but not illegal. Sanders wasn't going to get the nomination anyway. Clinton only lost because of her self inflicted email issues and Russian interference.

Right now I'm a lot more concerned about real corruption and dysfunction in this Administration that is an order of magnitude beyond what I've ever seen. As the impeachment subpoenas continue to come forth the circle of wagons is going to get really tight really fast. Did you see Miller, Jordan and McCarthy on Sunday? They are all clueless on how to respond other than spouting conspiracy theories. We have a lawless leader, it's time to fix that.

Miller just looked bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy.... but don’t worry he has worked in government for 3 years and knows what a deep state operation looks like.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Flashback: Pompeo was asked last week by ABC whether he knew about the conversation between Trump and Zelensky. He demurred, saying he just got the report. We now know he took part in the call itself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NEW: Attorney General William Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials, including in the U.K. and Italy, seeking their help in investigation of the Russia investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whataboutism! Disrtraction! Fear! Corruption! Moscow Mitch might be distancing himself, maybe he sees the writing on the walls. Trump can’t quite understand why the crap he got away with in the private sector won’t work in Washington.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yep, scumminess runs through this Administration. Trump calls The Whistleblower a spy, the whistleblowers lawyers say he's afraid as he has been threatened by Trump, Trump then says he deserves to know who the Whistleblower is. Another indication he has no idea what the law is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just in: Sebastian Gorka is traveling with @SecPompeo to Europe, @Abs_NBC reports. He was seen getting into a State Department van headed to Joint Base Andrews for departure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russia says Trump can't release phone calls without Kremlin permission nbcnews.com/politics/donal… via @nbcnews
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives pretended to be furious that Bill Clinton said hi to Loretta Lynch on a tarmac. Now imagine she'd traversed the globe trying to substantiate anti-Romney smears. That these are different abuses of the office doesn't make this proper or "reasonable."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny you ask that in a post where you ignore questions.

What was the question(s) that threw the nomination to Hilary? and did Trump receive any questions?

Completion factors are proprietary.

paul, you dodged like a wuss, not me, read the posts. i
answered a bunch of your questions, then paused in the hope
you might show me the same courtesy.

i have no idea what the question was. Donna Brazile admits doing it, it’s not in dispute. i never said it cost bernie the nomination. but it’s very un democratic, as was the use of super delegates.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course it is. But that's what some of the people on the right have become here. It's not right to give her the question but the question they gave her was something any candidate would prepare for. Mountain out of a molehill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul, why does the left still
insist that the release of those emails hurt hilary in the election, if those emails revealed nothing of substance?

can’t have it both ways.

if the emails revealed nothing, then how did they hurt her?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul, you dodged like a wuss, not me, read the posts. i
answered a bunch of your questions, then paused in the hope
you might show me the same courtesy.

i have no idea what the question was. Donna Brazile admits doing it, it’s not in dispute. i never said it cost bernie the nomination. but it’s very un democratic, as was the use of super delegates.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never once mentioned the emails in this thread so you're delusional thinking I have to answer any question you want to discuss . Trump was fed questions by Rodger Ailes but given the hypocrisy you demonstrate so often here it's not a big deal. And now I'll ask again since you dumped the question what did Hillary do that was unethical?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul, why does the left still
insist that the release of those emails hurt hilary in the election, if those emails revealed nothing of substance?

can’t have it both ways.

if the emails revealed nothing, then how did they hurt her?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again I never made one statement about the emails here. It's hilarious that you have no problem with Trump being helped by the Russians for some reason. Is it because of 3.7 and 28000 That anything Trump does is fine with you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never once mentioned the emails in this thread so you're delusional thinking I have to answer any question you want to discuss . Trump was fed questions by Rodger Ailes but given the hypocrisy you demonstrate so often here it's not a big deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

follow if you can...

Pete said russian hacking if emails
was bad

i said that if the emails harmed hilary, that means the emails
revealed things the voters didn’t like, in which case perhaps the content of the emails ( what she did) is as important as who released the emails

you then asked
about what the emails claimed she did. and you’re saying that they don’t contain anything important. if that’s true, then they didn’t hurt hilary.

i don’t think you have to answer anything. but if i
answer your questions and you won’t answer mine ( because the answer doesn’t serve your agenda), i’m gonna point that out. if you don’t like that, i suggest maybe you answer the question.

i don’t care about the emails. it’s just funny when liberals
claim the emails revealed
nothing substantial about hilary, and simultaneously claim they helped cause her defeat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you realize how hypocritical your statement is? Can you please provide a link where Bernie says Hillary being given one question ruined his chance to be the Democratic candidate. And your first statement was that Hillary accepted help not that Bernie said it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I do.

I never said anything about one question ruining his chances,you did. I said Sanders believes the nomination was rigged. That is why he did not endorse her. She accepted help and that is an uneven playing field.

I will ask again because you seem chatty. Do you believe that was fair play?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I do.

I never said anything about one question ruining his chances,you did. I said Sanders believes the nomination was rigged. That is why he did not endorse her. She accepted help and that is an uneven playing field.

I will ask again because you seem chatty. Do you believe that was fair play?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the use of superdelegates was a joke, a way to
ensure she got the
nomination even if bernie was winning states, he could fall
further behind in the delegate count.

democrats ain’t big on democracy, unless they get what they want. we see that again and again and again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

follow if you can...

Pete said russian hacking if emails
was bad

i said that if the emails harmed hilary, that means the emails
revealed things the voters didn’t like, in which case perhaps the content of the emails ( what she did) is as important as who released the emails

you then asked
about what the emails claimed she did. and you’re saying that they don’t contain anything important. if that’s true, then they didn’t hurt hilary.

i don’t think you have to answer anything. but if i
answer your questions and you won’t answer mine ( because the answer doesn’t serve your agenda), i’m gonna point that out. if you don’t like that, i suggest maybe you answer the question.

i don’t care about the emails. it’s just funny when liberals
claim the emails revealed
nothing substantial about hilary, and simultaneously claim they helped cause her defeat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stamp your feet a little harder and complain why I'm not answering your question. I didn't ask anything about the emails. You're being delusional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stamp your feet a little harder and complain why I'm not answering your question. I didn't ask anything about the emails. You're being delusional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you asked what she did that was unethical. you asked that in the context of the emails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NEW: Attorney General William Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials, including in the U.K. and Italy, seeking their help in investigation of the Russia investigation.


Was this illegal or inappropriate?

Yes I do.

I never said anything about one question ruining his chances,you did. I said Sanders believes the nomination was rigged. That is why he did not endorse her. She accepted help and that is an uneven playing field.

I will ask again because you seem chatty. Do you believe that was fair play?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Firstly thank you for admitting your hypocrite. You might want to be Petty and point out the spelling in that sentence. I asked what did hillary do that was unethical because Jim made that statement. You said screwing over Bernie to start, not that Bernie said it. So I will ask again what exactly did Hillary do that was unethical bc I really don't know what you guys are talking about. Are you talking about receiving a question because that's not her being unethical that's Donna brazile being unethical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I will answer again. She accepted help that gave her an UNFAIR advantage.
Would you do the same PaulS, surely you were raised better than that.
When are you going to answer my question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I will answer again. She accepted help that gave her an UNFAIR advantage.
Would you do the same PaulS, surely you were raised better than that.
When are you going to answer my question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he doesn’t have to
answer, and you’re clearly very angry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Putin’s goals are to get out from under 2 sets of sanctions: one based on messing with our 2016 election, one on invading Ukraine. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into settling with Russia & to “prove” Russia didn’t mess with us in 2016 make sense as ways to please Putin. QED
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was this illegal or inappropriate?

Conservatives pretended to be furious that Bill Clinton said hi to Loretta Lynch on a tarmac. Now imagine she'd traversed the globe trying to substantiate anti-Romney smears. That these are different abuses of the office doesn't make this proper or "reasonable."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NEW: President Trump just told the White House press pool that he is actively "trying to find out" who the whistleblower is.

The President is violating the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New Quinnipiac poll: Do you think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office?

NOW
Yes 47%
No 47%

LAST WEEK
Yes 37%
No 57%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives pretended to be furious that Bill Clinton said hi to Loretta Lynch on a tarmac. Now imagine she'd traversed the globe trying to substantiate anti-Romney smears. That these are different abuses of the office doesn't make this proper or "reasonable."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you know what was said on the plane? wow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New Quinnipiac poll: Do you think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office?

NOW
Yes 47%
No 47%

LAST WEEK
Yes 37%
No 57%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

let’s skip the election and just coronate liz warren.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I will answer again. She accepted help that gave her an UNFAIR advantage.
Would you do the same PaulS, surely you were raised better than that.
When are you going to answer my question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What help? Being given a question ahead of time and that she would have been prepared for anyways? Didn't you just say that you had no problem with Rodger Ailes giving Trump questions ahead of time?. How is that not the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he doesn’t have to
answer, and you’re clearly very angry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device aren't you the one who said something about someone here masturbating on a photo of Obama? What shows less class and more anger then that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What help? Being given a question ahead of time and that she would have been prepared for anyways? Didn't you just say that you had no problem with Rodger Ailes giving Trump ahead of time?. How is that not the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t think that giving ( and receiving) a debate question ahead of time that’s not given to
the other candidate, isn’t helping the person who received the question.

Gotcha.

How about the use of superdelegates, where bernie could
win a state but fall behind in the delegate count?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

let’s skip the election and just coronate liz warren.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unlike Trump, I think she would refuse the coronation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you asked what she did that was unethical. you asked that in the context of the emails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never asked anything in the context of emails. I said simply what exactly did she do that was unethical and no one has answered the question. I think SD is talking about receiving a question for the debate ahead of time but he hasn't clearly articulated that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the Trumplicans have stepped thru a space time continuum and gone back to 2016
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To contradict and undermine the entire IC of the United States, to exonerate Russia.
This is the foreign policy they’re advancing.
Russia’s foreign policy.

Putin’s Puppet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t think that giving ( and receiving) a debate question ahead of time that’s not given to
the other candidate, isn’t helping the person who received the question.

Gotcha.

How about the use of superdelegates, where bernie could
win a state but fall behind in the delegate count?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device it certainly is helpful to the person receiving the question but it is not unethical on Hillary's part someone comes up to her and said hey here's what they're going to ask you tomorrow. It's unethical for Donna brazile to do that. If Hillary approached brazile and asked for the questions that would be unethical but that clearly did not happen. But no one seems to have a problem that Trump was given questions by Rodger Ailes. And Hillary had no part in the super delegates so how is that her being unethical?

Gotcha- what a clown.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Realize some people would call it a "nothing burger" if Trump turned out to be a cannibalistic serial killer and was caught.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What help? Being given a question ahead of time and that she would have been prepared for anyways? Didn't you just say that you had no problem with Rodger Ailes giving Trump questions ahead of time?. How is that not the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please don’t breed, Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives pretended to be furious that Bill Clinton said hi to Loretta Lynch on a tarmac. Now imagine she'd traversed the globe trying to substantiate anti-Romney smears. That these are different abuses of the office doesn't make this proper or "reasonable."


Since you didn't, or couldn't, answer the question, I'll do it for you. No, it was not illegal or inappropriate for Attorney General William Barr to have private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials, including in the U.K. and Italy, seeking their help in investigation of the current ongoing Russia investigation.

The U.S. has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with both Italy and the U.K. Asking for assistance in the Russia investigation if those countries have information that can be of help is not only legal and appropriate and even reasonable, but a dereliction if the assistance was not asked.

This is in no way comparable to Lorreta Lynch tarmac issue, nor at all like seeking smears, especially if not related to an ongoing criminal investigation, and it certainly was not an abuse of office.

Please don’t breed, Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok hypocrite.

It is no wonder why someone on here previously called you a vile person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since you didn't, or couldn't, answer the question, I'll do it for you. No, it was not illegal or inappropriate for Attorney General William Barr to have private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials, including in the U.K. and Italy, seeking their help in investigation of the current ongoing Russia investigation.

The U.S. has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with both Italy and the U.K. Asking for assistance in the Russia investigation if those countries have information that can be of help is not only legal and appropriate and even reasonable, but a dereliction if the assistance was not asked.

This is in no way comparable to Lorreta Lynch tarmac issue, nor at all like seeking smears, especially if not related to an ongoing criminal investigation, and it certainly was not an abuse of office.

Putin’s goals are to get out from under 2 sets of sanctions: one based on messing with our 2016 election, one on invading Ukraine. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into settling with Russia & to “prove” Russia didn’t mess with us in 2016 make sense as ways to please Putin.

To contradict and undermine the entire IC of the United States, to exonerate Russia.
This is the foreign policy they’re advancing.
Russia’s foreign policy.

Putin’s Puppet

So ironic that a supposed nationalist like Trump isn't trusting his own citizens but is actively seeking international assistance to support his failing presidency & re-election chances.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Flashback: May 1.

Harris: Has the president or anyone at the W.H. ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?
Barr: Um.
...
Harris: Seems you'd remember something like that and be able to tell us.
Barr: Yeah, but I'm trying to grapple with the word suggest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Putin’s goals are to get out from under 2 sets of sanctions: one based on messing with our 2016 election, one on invading Ukraine. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into settling with Russia & to “prove” Russia didn’t mess with us in 2016 make sense as ways to please Putin.

To contradict and undermine the entire IC of the United States, to exonerate Russia.
This is the foreign policy they’re advancing.
Russia’s foreign policy.

Putin’s Puppet


You keep doing this kind of chit. My post to which you responded here was:
Originally Posted by detbuch
"Since you didn't, or couldn't, answer the question, I'll do it for you. No, it was not illegal or inappropriate for Attorney General William Barr to have private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials, including in the U.K. and Italy, seeking their help in investigation of the current ongoing Russia investigation.

"The U.S. has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with both Italy and the U.K. Asking for assistance in the Russia investigation if those countries have information that can be of help is not only legal and appropriate and even reasonable, but a dereliction if the assistance was not asked.

"This is in no way comparable to Lorreta Lynch tarmac issue, nor at all like seeking smears, especially if not related to an ongoing criminal investigation, and it certainly was not an abuse of office."

Your reply here HAS ABSOLUTELY NO COHERENT CONNECTION TO MY POST. You do this a lot. Instead of responding to a post, you just go off on more of your obsessive conjectures about Trump bad, or Trump Putin's Puppet.

It's really not worth responding to you. You just use it as a platform to keep ranting and making unsubstantiated claims rather than maintaining a rational discussion.

So ironic that a supposed nationalist like Trump isn't trusting his own citizens but is actively seeking international assistance to support his failing presidency & re-election chances.


This add on was not part of your original reply to my post. It is just as ignorant as that reply. He is not seeking international assistance because he doesn't trust his own citizens--HIS OWN CITIZEN, whom you mentioned as the one seeking assistance, is doing the investigation!!

This add on was not part of your original reply to my post. It is just as ignorant as that reply. He is not seeking international assistance because he doesn't trust his own citizens--HIS OWN CITIZEN, whom you mentioned as the one seeking assistance, is doing the investigation!!

Reminder: To this day, the Trump campaign can’t explain: 1) Why they had so many Russian contacts; 2) why they were glad to meet them; 3) why they never called the FBI; and 4) why they lied about it every time.

Their answer is to try to blame the FBI for ever asking about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For Crimin’ Out Loud
Omg they are trying to track down a super secret plot from the time of Da Vinci and Michelangelo to work w Joe Biden to frame the 45th US President and they will threaten to remain in beautiful Italy unless the Italian Govt and Vatican turn over their files.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never asked anything in the context of emails. I said simply what exactly did she do that was unethical and no one has answered the question. I think SD is talking about receiving a question for the debate ahead of time but he hasn't clearly articulated that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ok paul, this is surreal.

i said the emails revealed that she acted unethically.

you then immediately asked me to specify what she did that was unethical.

but you weren’t referring to the emails in any way.

i gotta go, i’m due back on the planet earth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul is confused by terms like “ethics”. This word is like kryptonite to snowflakes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok paul, this is surreal.

i said the emails revealed that she acted unethically.

you then immediately asked me to specify what she did that was unethical.

but you weren’t referring to the emails in any way.

i gotta go, i’m due back on the planet earth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 1st post I saw from you was on the bottom of the first page and you said she was unethical - I then asked what she did that was unethical. I have yet to get a clear answer from you.

So what did she do that was unethical (for about the 5th or 6th time).

Paul is confused by terms like “ethics”. This word is like kryptonite to snowflakes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stick to trying to insult the children of people who participate this forum.

So basically, Barr’s way of determining whether the FBI did its investigation by the book is — to do an investigation totally off the books.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul you don’t think she’s corrupt, she wasn’t selling influence and taking questionable donations to her global initiative while secretary of state?

she didn’t lie explicitly about her email server ?

how about as first lady, using her platform to slut shame
the victims of her husband, calling them narcissistic looney tunes? that doesn’t sound exactly, and i mean exactly like Trump?

she didn’t take help from the media and the dnc to ensure she won the nomination, regardless of what a majority of the people might have wanted?

i can admit all of trumps moral lapses. i see little
evidence that the lefties here can do the same, spence would have a nervous breakdown before he’s admit she’s a as flawed as she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s not a good look when sycophant Lindsey Graham, who lost all credibility ages ago, is the only GOP senator who will go on TV to defend you on Sunday shows.

And then, on Monday, GOP Senate Majority Leader goes on TV to say, yes, we’ll have have an impeachment trial.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s not a good look when sycophant Lindsey Graham, who lost all credibility ages ago, is the only GOP senator who will go on TV to defend you on Sunday shows.

And then, on Monday, GOP Senate Majority Leader goes on TV to say, yes, we’ll have have an impeachment trial.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for years, Graham angered conservatives because he was so friendly to the democrats. now
he’s sean hannity?

you also said somewhere i think, that Warren wouldn’t accept a coronation? right, there’s no evidence whatsoever, that she’d ever do anything fishy to get a job she wants, for example, i don’t know, maybe lying about her race?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul you don’t think she’s corrupt, she wasn’t selling influence and taking questionable donations to her global initiative while secretary of state?No, I don't think she is corrupt - that is a very strong word. What has she been arrested/indicted for?

she didn’t lie explicitly about her email server ?

how about as first lady, using her platform to slut shame
the victims of her husband, calling them narcissistic looney tunes? that doesn’t sound exactly, and i mean exactly like Trump? Wrong (on her part) - doesn't make her unethical.

she didn’t take help from the media and the dnc to ensure she won the nomination, regardless of what a majority of the people might have wanted? what help - and accepting help doesn't make someone unethical

i can admit all of trumps moral lapses. moral lapses? - stealing from his own foundation, etc. etc. i see little
evidence that the lefties here can do the same, spence would have a nervous breakdown before he’s admit she’s a as flawed as she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has "moral lapses" but Hillary's accepting "help from the media" makes her unethical? There is no comparison between Hillary (or 99.9% of the pop.) and Trump.

paul, a clean arrest record shows one isn’t corrupt? so trump isn't corrupt?

not one of the libs here, is capable of admitting anything that doesn’t serve the narrative. trump is moral ( not evil). hilary is deeply corrupt.

a hungry person accepting food isn’t corrupt. hilary being complicit in riviera g the primary is something else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for years, Graham angered conservatives because he was so friendly to the democrats. now
he’s sean hannity?

you also said somewhere i think, that Warren wouldn’t accept a coronation? right, there’s no evidence whatsoever, that she’d ever do anything fishy to get a job she wants, for example, i don’t know, maybe lying about her race?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots worse whataboutism by Putin's Puppet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j1I8af50sc

Have other presidents congratulated the birth of the Communist Party regime in China?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Congratulations to President Xi and the Chinese people on the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China!
6:54 AM · Oct 1, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

NEW: Attorney General William Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials, including in the U.K. and Italy, seeking their help in investigation of the Russia investigation.

Our foreign intelligence counterparts are at a minimum confused and at worst pulling back on cooperation. Neither benefit US national security.

If they wanted to understand origins of Trump-Russia, DOJ would review Trump's business records 2006-2016

Instead Wm Barr is pressuring allies to agree that Russia was innocent and Trump was a victim.

Barr is not "scrutinizing" anything, he's fabricating a cover-up

Why do you need to discredit a report that finds you innocent of both collusion & obstruction? Hmmm

Because Trump is trying to exonerate Putin in an effort to lift Russian sanctions – which has been Putin's goal since he installed Trump in the White House. Also, progress on Trump's Moscow Tower hinges on getting sanctions lifted.

Lots worse whataboutism by Putin's Puppet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j1I8af50sc

point is, Graham was a real ally and friend to the democrats, until
he saw how low they were willing to go with Kavanaugh. Graham ( who voted for Kagan and Sotomayor)
finally woke up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have other presidents congratulated the birth of the Communist Party regime in China?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Congratulations to President Xi and the Chinese people on the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China!
6:54 AM · Oct 1, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

it’s an idiotic thing to say. the remedy for that is winning the next election, not undoing the previous one.

i see Pelosi on all
the talk shows saying this isn’t a time to celebrate,, it’s a time for contemplation and prayer. Then I see Talib selling t shirts that say impeach the mother effer. So which is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When speaking to Trump or listening to him in person, it's critically important to not stand too close, or you might loose an eye.

The fact is that Trump has run for office one time. He beat a career politician easily. He took over for a president who simply had no qualifications. Ever. The guy was a community organizer and then served the senate.

Greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When speaking to Trump or listening to him in person, it's critically important to not stand too close, or you might loose an eye.

I think you meant lose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

point is, Graham was a real ally and friend to the democrats, until
he saw how low they were willing to go with Kavanaugh. Graham ( who voted for Kagan and Sotomayor)
finally woke up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump was the only President to not have a pet, until he got Lapdog Lindsey
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump was the only President to not have a pet, until he got Lapdog Lindsey
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re saying Lindsay Graham
is a hard core republican, that’s what you’re saying?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump was the only President to not have a pet, until he got Lapdog Lindsey
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

go ahead and google “Lindsey Graham criticizes Trump”, and look at the returns. i just did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump was the only President to not have a pet, until he got Lapdog Lindsey
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump couldn't own a dog, a dog would see right through him and bite him every time he came over to pet him.

Trump couldn't own a dog, a dog would see right through him and bite him every time he came over to pet him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7_OWYrLVOU

go ahead and google “Lindsey Graham criticizes Trump”, and look at the returns. i just did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4O2Ob1gVRU

Trump couldn't own a dog, a dog would see right through him and bite him every time he came over to pet him.

i wouldn’t let him own a dog either. never.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4O2Ob1gVRU

and you still say he’s trumps lap dog?

he doesn’t like trump. what he disliked more, is what the democrats did to kavanaugh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sorry, what the democrats “tried to do” to kavanaugh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re saying Lindsay Graham
is a hard core Trumplican, that’s what you’re saying?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it for you

The opposite of a fiscal conservative. Believes in rule by the minority. Sees disunity and divisiveness as a means to retain power. Views gerrymandering as modern art. Solely relies on Fox News for the “facts” on all controversy. Believes climate change is fake news. Generally haven’t read the Constitution and think Trump still would have won even if Russia hadn’t meddled in our elections.

Fixed it for you

The opposite of a fiscal conservative. Believes in rule by the minority. Sees disunity and divisiveness as a means to retain power. Views gerrymandering as modern art. Solely relies on Fox News for the “facts” on all controversy. Believes climate change is fake news. Generally haven’t read the Constitution and think Trump still would have won even if Russia hadn’t meddled in our elections.

"Sees disunity and divisiveness as a means to retain power"

Lindsay Graham? Oh that's rich, he spent most of his career s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g up to democrats, trying to get them to like him. That's why he voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. He was unpopular with the conservative wing of the party, specifically because he always coddled up to democrats.

Lindsay Graham, of all people you could have picked, uses divisiveness as a tool? But not Hilary, with her deplorables comment?

You're not making me wok hard Pete, it's boring slapping you around here.

and you still say he’s trumps lap dog?

he doesn’t like trump. what he disliked more, is what the democrats did to kavanaugh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amazing, here in our midst we have a mind-reader. Not seen since Carnac the Magnificent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CleGDU5WfQ

Amazing, here in our midst we have a mind-reader. Not seen since Carnac the Magnificent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CleGDU5WfQ

I claim no such divine powers. I do pay attention to what happens, though. This was the first time he ever showed any b*lls. Ever. He finally woke up. Graham says he voted for Kagan and Sotomayor, and would never have done what the democrats did to Kavanaugh. Graham says he hates criticizing the democrats because he had thought of them as friends.

Graham also nailed it, the point of attacking Kavanaugh was to block his nomination, but also to send a warning to other conservatives who ever get asked to serve on the supreme court.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=videodemocrats+kavanaugh+graham#id=51&vid=85c3b32a4475ae271ef783d87f58f69f&action=click

GOP defenses for Trump’s Ukraine call quickly collapse under scrutiny

The Republican defenses for President Donald Trump’s conduct on Ukraine simply don’t hold up.

At first glance, that can be hard to discern. Trump, his aides and select allies in Congress have feverishly sought to redirect a whistleblower’s complaints toward Democratic adversaries.

“It is the height of insanity for the Democrats to try and bogusly impeach President Trump for simply calling out this corruption,” a Republican National Committee spokesman asserted over the weekend.

Yet even cursory scrutiny of evidence that has emerged so far knocks down assorted GOP arguments like shanties in a hurricane. Here’s a brief review:

It was hearsay
House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy notes that “the whistleblower wasn’t on the call” between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart. “Hearsay,” Sen. Lindsey Graham insists, cannot be a basis for impeachment.

Both observations are irrelevant. In the partial transcript of the call released by the White House itself, Trump’s own words affirm the whistleblower’s account. That is direct evidence, not hearsay.

“If they thought it would be exculpatory, they miscalculated badly,” GOP former Sen. Jeff Flake told me.

Biased whistleblower
The president says the still-unidentified whistleblower harbors “known bias” against him. This observation, which the intelligence community inspector general called “arguable,” does not discredit the whistleblower’s allegations, which the inspector general found “credible.”

If the whistleblower’s information is accurate, his motivation doesn’t matter. Trump’s own former homeland security advisor, Thomas Bossert, has described himself as “deeply disturbed” by the president’s behavior, too.

Media distortion
On “60 Minutes” Sunday night, CBS correspondent Scott Pelley asked about Trump’s comment that “I need you to do us a favor, though” after Ukraine’s new president requested military aid to counter Russian aggression.

“You added a word there,” GOP leader McCarthy replied, referring to the damning “though.”

McCarthy’s assertion was false; Pelley accurately quoted the White House-released document. The most charitable interpretation of the GOP leader’s embarrassment is that he had not actually reviewed the evidence he had gone on national television to discuss.

It wasn’t about Biden
On “Meet the Press,” House GOP Whip Steve Scalise insisted the favor Trump sought was an investigation into the cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, rather than dirt on Biden. That investigation, in turn, might explain the true source of outside interference in the 2016 election.

In fact, the partial transcript shows Trump specifically requested an investigation of Biden and his son. The U.S. government already knows the origin of 2016 interference: Russia, which favored Trump over Hillary Clinton.

Scalise alluded to unfounded suspicions among conspiracy-minded Republicans that Ukraine, seeking to help Clinton, was the real meddler. Those suspicions, former Trump aide Bossert notes, have been “completely debunked.”

Biden interfered
Trump asserts that, as Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden sought to protect his son by demanding that Ukraine fire a prosecutor. At the time, Hunter Biden worked for a Ukrainian energy firm that had faced an investigation.

Yet Biden’s demand was not personal. He made it on behalf of the U.S. government and allies including the European Union and the International Monetary Fund – none of whom have accused the former vice president of misconduct.

Moreover, Ukrainian officials say the investigation into Hunter Biden’s company was inactive when the prosecutor was ousted. The prosecutor who replaced him told the Los Angeles Times he had no evidence of illegality.

No quid pro quo
In the call, Trump did not explicitly condition military aid on a new Biden investigation. “I didn’t do it,” the president told reporters. “There was no quid pro quo.”

As a matter of propriety, that does not absolve Trump for baselessly seeking derogatory information about a domestic rival from a foreign government – an abuse of presidential power under any circumstances.

But former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah, calling Trump’s purpose “100%” clear, notes that even mobsters don’t make extortion demands explicit. Writing in The Washington Post, Flake said the partial transcript “removed all ambiguity about the president’s intent.”

“The whistleblower’s account seems convincing,” concludes Kori Schake, a former national security aide to President George W. Bush, “that the president was using our country’s foreign policy to blackmail a foreign country.”

Ukraine is getting aid
The U.S. expanded military assistance to Ukraine after Russia seized part of its territory in 2014. Trump says he has helped more than Obama.

But furnishing aid requires support by Congress. Both parties have provided it.

The Trump administration’s Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council all supported the aid this summer, Fox News has reported. But Trump personally froze it just days before calling the Ukrainian leader.

Trump unfroze the aid only after the whistleblower complained to Congress. The Ukrainian leader still hasn’t gotten the long-sought meeting in Washington he reminded Trump about on the call.

Increasingly frenetic on Twitter, Trump now warns that his impeachment could provoke “civil war.” At a minimum, the Ukraine revelations have amplified conflict within his own party.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois condemned Trump’s warning of civil war as “beyond repugnant.” GOP Rep. Mike Turner criticized the Ukraine call as “not OK”; Sen. Mitt Romney found it “deeply troubling.”

A new CBS poll found that 23% of Republicans support an impeachment inquiry into the matter. GOP lawmakers who have avoided public comment face a tightening squeeze between party loyalty and conduct they cannot persuasively defend.

“The fissures are growing,” GOP former Rep. Carlos Curbelo told me. “I’ve heard from members who are at the end of their ropes. They just feel trapped.”

Pete is consuming all the news Trump feeds him. Like a little lap dog. I am happy he has discovered a purpose for his sad life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's job approval is 37% in a new CNBC poll, matching the lowest number this poll has recorded. His net approval is -16, his worst net approval for CNBC.

Trump's approval on the economy is also now underwater: 42% approve, 50% disapprove (-8 net approval, another new low).

He will be your president until 2025
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Sure I’ll testify for 11 hours. No problem.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: I will hide behind my staff forever even though I lied to you all and was on the call with Ukraine.

NEW: The son of a dead
@DeutscheBank
executive — armed with hundreds of confidential bank files — has been secretly helping the FBI and the House Intelligence Committee investigate the bank and
@realDonaldTrump
.

Nothing burger
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device