Think about it, folks. If not a single Republican voted to even approve of the hearings, why do you think anyone is going to vote for impeachment. If no Republicans in the House voted in favor of this, why would anyone suspect that Republicans in the Senate (much less 20 or more) will vote in favor of impeachment?
It's like Democrats and their media cronies have their head in the sand on this one. Much like the Russian collusion argument, Democrats see the criminal actions "in plain sight" whereas Republicans and the bulk of Independents only see some ethically suspect business as usual and are still waiting for the illegal.
Because Democrats see the criminal actions "in plain sight" all they feel that they need is people to simply testify to what we already know. They seem to believe somehow that people (much like with the Russian collusion story) are somehow in the dark about things. What they don't understand is that it's not about not having the same facts, it's about how those facts are interpreted.
It was never a criminal conspiracy for someone to talk to people who live in the same country as someone else who is committing an election crime. You have to be associated and tied to the criminals (not the Country that they live in). Democrats never understood this, because their TDS overshadowed their ability to think logically. It's why they believed "every" contact between a Trump associate and anyone with any loose affiliation with Russia was more evidence of conspiracy, which is a legal (and logical) argument too silly to take seriously.
Same holds true here. There is no crime for a President to ask for help in investigating either election interference or possibly corruption by former Government employees. That "in plain sight" argument simply isn't shared by the people they are trying to convince. Moreover, it's not a disagreement about facts. So lining up a bunch of witnesses who have the same "in plain sight" argument won't move the needle any more than showing how many Russians (unrelated to the criminal actions) the Trump campaign spoke to.
This is ultimately a sales pitch. You have to actually understand your audience and what their actual objections are. If you are a liberal wanting to convince a conservative here, you will do yourself zero good repeating your same argument over and over. The objection isn't that people don't understand why "you" are upset. The objection is that they do not see the same facts as you see them.
So in order to convince them... you will need to come up with more than the President wanting Ukraine to help with investigations, and you will need more than the President supposedly tying those requests to the aid. They've heard those arguments and are unconvinced.
You need something else. Staying on the same thing is a waste of everyone's time. But this is "exactly" what Democrats and their media cronies will be doing for the next few months here. They will be "barking at the moon" as they say, as if that barking will somehow change something. It won't change anything this time, any more than it changed it with the Russian collusion hoax.
85 comments:
@DonaldJTrumpJr
He’s right. You can read the transcript for yourselves, seems that matters more than a leftist never-Trumper’s opinion. I know the Dems are pushing communism these days but I didn’t think we’d see Soviet era tactics in the US so soon!
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1190241180925206528
@julie_kelly2
Well, the Schiff Show is on! Democrats’ crusade to impeach Trump, which began on November 9, 2016, is moving forward. Adam Schiff will try to impeach Trump based on a phone call we’ve all seen and US aid that’s already been released:
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1190252029043761152
“Acting as if no one has been paying attention to him for the past few years—if only we could unsee his 3,074 appearances on CNN and Meet the Press—Schiff claimed yesterday, “I do not take any pleasure in the events that have made this process necessary.”
“A courageous whistleblower, a dogged inspector general, a patriotic ambassador, and a military hero would play starring roles in Schiff’s newest “Get Trump” drama. All of the key figures, we have been assured by Schiff’s toadies in the media, are of unassailable character.”
Except the credibility of that cast is falling apart. The “whistleblower” is a Dem operative with ties to Biden/Brennan. The IC IG is an Obama DOJ holdover who was “obstructive and insolent” during his closed-door Senate testimony, according to Sen. Tom Cotton. And...
Bill Taylor, acting ambassador, met with Schiff’s staff in August as Schiff was hatching his latest impeachment scheme. Col. Vindman tried to alter the transcript of the call and gave it to several people, a possible violation of federal law. So @RepLeeZeldin is right...
Let’s get all the info out to the public. Release all the transcripts. Call the witnesses. Let’s watch the Schiff Show backfire in real time:
https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/31/the-impeachment-schiff-show/
Judge Critical of Effort to Control Testimony of Ex-Officials
“A federal judge in Washington expressed disbelief that the White House could control what its former officials might talk about, when they’re subpoenaed by the House of Representatives or otherwise,” CNN reports.
Said Judge Katanji Brown Jackson:
“We don’t live in a world where your status as a former executive branch official somehow shields you or prevents you from giving information.
“The lawsuit is over whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear for testimony in the House. Democrats issued the subpoena in April, though he ignored their demands and didn’t show up.”
OBOY! THIS WILL BE RICH!
John Bolton’s Lawyer Says He’ll Testify If Subpoenaed
October 31, 2019 at 8:21 pm EDT
A lawyer for former National Security Adviser John Bolton says his client will testify in the impeachment inquiry if subpoenaed by House Democrats, CBS News reports.
___________
Why the Impeachment Fight Is Worse Than You Think
Thomas Pepinsky: “For decades, Republicans and Democrats fought over the same things: Whose values and policies work best for American democracy. But now, those age-old fights are changing. What was once run-of-the-mill partisan competition is being replaced by a disagreement over democracy itself.
“This is particularly evident as the president and many of his allies crow about the illegitimacy of the House impeachment inquiry, calling it an attempted coup, and as the White House refuses to comply with multiple congressional subpoenas as part of the probe.
“This marks a new phase in American politics. Democrats and Republicans might still disagree about policy, but they are increasingly also at odds over the very foundations of our constitutional order.”
Triump Wants to Read Ukraine Transcript to Nation
“A defiant President Trump signaled he will not cooperate with the Democratic Party’s impeachment proceedings, insisting his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was ‘a good call’ and that he might read it aloud to Americans so they can see his point,” the Washington Examiner reports.
Said Trump: “This is over a phone call that is a good call. At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it’s a straight call.”
__________
THAT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA, MR. PRESIDENT.
AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE OMITTED PARTS OF THE DOCTORED TRANSCRIPT, WILL YOU READ "DOT DOT DOT" OR "ELIPSES.. ELIPSES... ELIPSES?"
@thehill
Rep. Doug Collins: "Here's my challenge to Mr. Schiff -- you want to be Ken Starr, be Ken Starr. Come to the Judiciary Committee, be the first witness & take every question asked of you. Starting with your own involvement with the whistleblower. Folks this ain't over. Get ready."
If Schiff really wants the truth to get out he should do this.
I suspect he may have some criminal liability though anyways so it may not be a political deposition
@RepMattGaetz
Durham probably frightens the deep state a lot more than even the FISA review. The Durham investigation is the investigation that goes deepest into the Obama White House.
I think you’ll see Clapper and Brennan implicated.
this whole charade is about protecting Obama.
and the other ultra-rich democrat politicians.
it won't work.
Trump Declares Himself a Resident of Florida
New York Times:
“In late September, Mr. Trump changed his primary residence from Manhattan to Palm Beach, Fla., according to documents filed with the Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Melania Trump, the first lady, also changed her residence to Palm Beach in an identical document.
“Each of the Trumps filed a ‘declaration of domicile’ saying that the Mar-a-Lago Club, Mr. Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, will be their permanent residence.”
_______________
TWEET OF THE DAY
“Good riddance.
It’s not like Donald Trump paid taxes here anyway… He’s all yours, Florida.”
—New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, tweeting about President Trump changing his legal residence to Florida.
The Number of Millionaires and Billionaires from .CA and New York is a great boon to Texas and Florida.
I'll just take the lying POS "pastor's" SPAM as a white flag surrender that he has nothing.
Never did,
Never will.
well definitely a full-blown case of TDS
ROFLMFAO !!!
Jane is such a Dopie gurl.
"I don't believe raising taxes on the rich," Cuomo said. "That would be the worst thing to do. You would just expand the shortfall. God forbid if the rich leave."
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
Pete Butigieg:
“The impeachment process is based on a constitutional standard and needs to run its course accordingly... I will say that there would be a lot of benefit to Trump and Trumpism getting a resounding, thumping defeat at the ballot box because I think that is what will be required for congressional Republicans TO BE REUNITED WITH THEIR CONSCIENCE.”
Rep. Doug Collins: "Here's my challenge to Mr. Schiff -- you want to be Ken Starr, be Ken Starr. Come to the Judiciary Committee, be the first witness & take every question asked of you. Starting with your own involvement with the whistleblower. Folks this ain't over. Get ready."
If Schiff really wants the truth to get out he should do this.
The Spectacle of Schiff taking the 5th will probably take the air out of impeachment.
What Makes Impeachment Different This Time
November 1, 2019 at 11:01 am EDT
Amy Walter: “Back in 1973-74, even as voters were souring on Nixon, and getting plenty of evidence of his wrongdoings, but they weren’t sold on the prospect of the wrenching process of impeachment until the very end. Impeaching a president is rare for a reason. It can tear and divide us like nothing else. Yet, it’s hard to believe that anything can divide us more than we already are. As such, an impeachment vote feels less like a sacred, once-in-a-lifetime event and more like a predictable reaction to a time of ceaseless polarization.”
SHE SAYS IT CAN BE PAID FOR WITHOUT RAISING TAXES ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS
“Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday proposed a $20.5 trillion package of tax increases to pay for the Medicare-for-all plan she backs, a move that attempts to answer critics who question how she would pay for the proposal but could open her to fresh lines of attack,” the Washington Post reports.
“The plan is designed to hit CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, including a provision requiring companies to send most of the funds they currently spend on employee health contributions to the federal government. It also would expand her signature wealth tax proposal and would make cuts to military spending.
“Warren’s new health-care financing blueprint comes at a pivotal moment in the Democratic presidential primary, as the Massachusetts senator’s steady rise in the polls has prompted sustained attacks by competitors about how she would pay for her plans. As someone known to come up with politically savvy ways to sell dense policy ideas, communicating the gist of this 20-page proposal will be a major test of her candidacy.”
What Makes Impeachment Different This Time
What make impeachment different this time is that it's nothing more than unserious political posturing.
Blogger James said...
SHE SAYS IT CAN BE PAID FOR WITHOUT RAISING TAXES ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS
She's lying and everyone in the world except you knows she's lying.
Be sure to scroll down through the other two threads below and see what great posts Roger and I have recently put there.
What kind of Adult Male begs for attention like Jane?
She's lying and everyone in the world except you knows she's lying.
that's because he's a stupid old man
"I don't believe raising taxes on the rich," Cuomo said. "That would be the worst thing to do. You would just expand the shortfall. God forbid if the rich leave."
Beyond pathetic. If he's begging to be read then you know he's not worth reading.
I don't read Alky or James crap, unless it is in something they wrote.
LOL
I'm not begging for attention, just making it possible for y'all finally to educate yourselves.
IN CASE YOU WANT TO KNOW---
What Happens Next with Impeachment
November 1, 2019 at 11:55 am EDT
Philip Rotner notes the process will have three phases prior to any impeachment vote by the full House:
*The non-public investigations currently taking place in six House committees (Intelligence, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, Oversight, and Ways and Means) will continue for an unspecified period of time;
*In the next phase of the process, the Intelligence Committee will conduct “open and transparent investigative proceedings,” culminating in the issuance of a report to the Judiciary Committee;
*The Judiciary Committee will then conduct proceedings and report to the full House “such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems appropriate.”
SHE SAYS IT CAN BE PAID FOR WITHOUT RAISING TAXES ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS
COMMENSA: She's lying and everyone in the world except you knows she's lying.
JAMES: The American people may want to decide whether she's lying or not in the next election.
Trump lyingly campaigned on the promise that he would raise taxes on the wealthy because they SHOULD pay more taxes, a promise he did not keep.
get a life you pathetic stupid old man
JAMES: The American people may want to decide whether she's lying or not in the next election.
OK
And as always note the "pastor" covets.
Right. I "covet" universal healthcare in our land, something other civilized societies already have.
Best meme of the day
Make our guns illegal, we'll just call them undocumented
nice try stupid
Thou Shalt Not Covet
it's one of the big ones, but what does a pederast care?
Why would we want to throw 180 million people off private health insurance to give coverage to 28 million. That's dumb policy. Unless your goal is to move toward socialism.
to give coverage to 28 million.
For $5 trillion a year, that's how stupid these people are
By
Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
November 1, 2019 at 6:00 a.m. PDT
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll should send a shudder through the Republican Party. Only 38 percent of Americans approve of President Trump’s performance, while 58 percent disapprove, 48 percent strongly so. The majority of the poll was taken after the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (for which a majority gives Trump credit). Trump’s approval ratings in battleground states such as Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin (40 to 55 percent) are only slightly better than his overall numbers.
A plurality (49 to 47 percent) approve of impeachment and removal, while a large majority (58 to 34 percent) disapprove of how he is handling impeachment. Perhaps smearing respected civil servants, threatening the whistleblower and insulting members of Congress is not the way to go. By a margin of 55 to 35 percent, Americans think Trump did something wrong regarding Ukraine; 47 percent say he did something seriously wrong. It is a good thing the House is moving to open hearings — by a 65 to 33 percent margin, Americans do not like the closed-door proceedings. Pelosi has been playing with Trump and he is in deep shit.
Sixty-six percent think Trump has behaved in an unpresidential way, and 58 percent say in a way damaging to the United States. A majority thinks the pullout in Syria damaged our image as a reliable ally, and a majority (54 to 28 percent) think he has made us less respected in the world.
=====
He's in deep shit.
from the previous thread and probably not seen yet by CHT:
James said...
RE Ch unTruth's 9:30AM post----
So, Ch, are you claiming that the Trump defenders' redacted transcript (elipses, elipses, omissions, omissions) shows that his call was actually more concerned with 2016 than with 2020?
Is that your lamebrained argument?
It is obvious by his question that the lying POS "pastor" has NEVER READ THE TRANSCRIPT and has just relied on what was spoon fed to him by others.
The accuracy of the transcript, with almost no redactions whatsoever, has been vouched for by others in the room. The witness who wanted to make changes only wanted to do so after talking to Schiff, not spontaneously. Biden and the "favor" comment are not even in the same paragraph are separated by the Ukrainian president speaking. Trump specifically notes issues with the 2016 election, Crowdstrike and corruption. He wanted to get to the bottom of this.
Yes "pastor" if you ever bother to read the transcript you will see it has everything to do with 2016. What a pompous, stupid ass you are.
Said Judge Katanji Brown Jackson:
“We don’t live in a world where your status as a former executive branch official somehow shields you or prevents you from giving information.
“The lawsuit is over whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear for testimony in the House. Democrats issued the subpoena in April, though he ignored their demands and didn’t show up.”
Maybe this Judge should go back to Law School.
Almost as if she has never heard of that thing called attorney client privilege, which exists even after the attorney is no longer representing a client.
Eric Ciaramella is a CIA Mole.
Which Democrat exposed him?
Biden is in dange, the trouble is that the Democratic base is more liberal than Biden represents.
I am thinking that your Senator Klobuchar would be a good candidate. She's from the mid west, along the same lines as Barack Obama in 2008.
She is not supporting Medicare for all. You wouldn't have to lose your own medical coverage.
I think if the Democrats choose someone who could be called a Socialist, Trump might win again.
We know he is a mole. He did as his Socialist Democrat handlers directed him.
Client privilege does not always apply if the attorney is no longer his or her client.
According to the crime-fraud exception to the privilege, a client’s communication to her attorney isn’t privileged if he or she made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-crime-fraud-exception-the-attorney-client-privilege.html
Roger, are you Done Cheering for Camel-toe Harris ?
You should use Google before you make a fool out of yourself again.
1 of 10 stories
At Long Last, Launch: Impeachment May Gain Momentum From First Big Moment
by Ron Elving
November 1, 2019
Share
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Enlarge for caption
How big a deal was this week's House vote formalizing the ongoing impeachment inquiry against President Trump?
It could be quite a big deal indeed.
As has been noted, the vote opens the impeachment inquiry to public view and responds to complaints about its secrecy. The vote also may, in the view of legal scholars, strengthen the case for courts to enforce congressional subpoenas that have been issued — or soon will be.
But there may be even more to this moment than that. The vote in the House may focus public awareness on what is going on. It may be the event that gives many Americans the sense they need to start paying attention.
Up to now, the impeachment inquiry against Trump has been afloat without ever having been launched. There seemed to be no defining moment that demanded the public engage.
There had been a whistleblower complaint and a partial transcript of a phone call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine. Both could be read as damning, even dramatically so. But both were documents. To be outraged, you probably had to read them. Most people didn't.
Some had felt the chill of history in real time on Sept. 24, when on a Tuesday afternoon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House would commence a formal impeachment inquiry into the whistleblower and the phone call.
This was meant to dispel the fog of words around various probes happening in several committees concerning what might be impeachable offenses (including instances of obstruction of justice identified when special counsel Robert Mueller made his report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election).
But all that talk of impeachable this and that had been confusing and vague, especially to those with lots else on their minds. After all, some Democrats had been referring to impeachment practically since Trump took office — not to mention the chatter on cable TV and social media.
There had been nothing like the thunderclap in September 1998. That's when a flotilla of black SUVs came to the Capitol bearing the report of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, with 18 boxes of evidence, and President Bill Clinton's impeachment became all but inevitable.
Two days later, the House voted to accept the fruit of Starr's lengthy labors, and within the next few days, the House began releasing evidence (including a videotape of grand jury testimony). Thousands of pages were released before the House, a full month later, the House authorized a full impeachment inquiry.
In the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, the moment that riveted the nation was the so-called "Saturday Night Massacre" in October 1973, when Nixon forced out both his attorney general and his deputy attorney general in order to rid himself of special prosecutor Archibald Cox. The TV networks went to live special coverage over the weekend.
Congress convened the following Tuesday with a flurry of impeachment motions, referring them to the Judiciary Committee, and its relatively new chairman, Peter Rodino of New Jersey, who announced there would be "formal preparations for impeachment proceedings."
The House Judiciary Committee of that time, led by a deliberate and cautious Rodino, began staffing up and issuing subpoenas, and it held some closed-door sessions. But it would not have a formal authorization resolution from the full House until February 1974 and did not enact its process procedures until May 1974.
But those procedural authorizing votes would never be the headline events people remembered about the Nixon saga, coming so long after the events that really kicked the process into gear. They do not even appear in most timelines of Nixon's long fall.
The same was true in the Clinton impeachment. The authorizing votes were afterthoughts compared to Starr's report and testimony. In his own memoir, Contempt, Starr dwells on his report and live testimony at length and does not even mention an authorizing vote in the House.
But in the present instance, there was been nothing comparable to a Starr report with its salacious details of Clinton's affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. There has been nothing like the gut punch of the Saturday Night Massacre. So this week's debate on the House floor, and the vote to authorize formal proceedings going forward, may well have a different order of significance.
The vote certainly goes beyond Pelosi's Sept. 24 announcement, the whistleblower complaint and the transcript. And it goes beyond the wave of testimony backing up the complaint that has come from State Department and National Security Council professionals with insider knowledge of the Ukraine relationship broadly and Trump's call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in particular.
None of these steady drip-drip developments had quite become The Moment, the seminal event that moved the story into the category it clearly has entered now.
But with this week's 232-196 vote, impeachment inquiry is happening. In the shorthand of the news reporting world, the first "impeachment vote" has happened. Of course, this is only the beginning, and approval of actual articles of impeachment may be months away. But for those who had hoped all this would simply go away, those hopes are dashed.
Important as all the testimony gathered behind closed doors may prove in a legal sense, its main political impact thus far was probably in uniting the Democratic caucus. In the end, all but two of the chamber's 234 Democrats supported Pelosi and the inquiry.
In the next phase, the popular standing of impeachment will largely depend on the impact of witnesses in open hearings. And this week's vote is what will make those hearings happen.
Copyright 2019 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.
They've quit calling it a Witch hunt and are now calling it a Soviet style process. Could that be because it's becoming clearer and clearer that there really is a "witch"?
Vindman Was Told to Not Talk About Trump Ukraine Call
“The senior White House lawyer who placed a record of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president in a top-secret system also instructed at least one official who heard the call not to tell anyone about it,” Politico reports.
“Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Army officer who served as the National Security Council’s director for Ukraine, told lawmakers that he went to the lawyer, John Eisenberg, to register his concerns about the call…
“Eisenberg recorded Vindman’s complaints in notes on a yellow legal pad… The lawyers then decided to move the record of the call into the NSC’s top-secret codeword system—a server normally used to store highly classified material that only a small group of officials can access.
“Vindman did not consider the move itself as evidence of a cover-up… But he said he became disturbed when, a few days later, Eisenberg instructed him not to tell anyone about the call.”
YEAH? AND WHO TOLD EISENBERG TO TELL VINDMAN THAT?
Trump Keeps Adding to Obstruction Charge
“President Trump has sought to intimidate witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, attacking them as ‘Never Trumpers’ and badgering an anonymous whistleblower. He has directed the White House to withhold documents and block testimony requested by Congress. And he has labored to publicly discredit the investigation as a ‘scam’ overseen by ‘a totally compromised kangaroo court,'” the Washington Post reports.
“To the Democratic leaders directing the impeachment proceedings, Trump’s actions to stymie their probe into his conduct with Ukraine add up to another likely article of impeachment: Obstruction.
“The centerpiece of House Democrats’ eventual impeachment charges is widely expected to be Trump’s alleged abuse of power over Ukraine. But OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS is now all but certain to be introduced as well, according to multiple Democratic lawmakers and aides, just as it was five decades ago when the House impeached then-president Richard Nixon.”
DOOOO KEEP ON TRYING TO OBSTRUCT, MR. PRESIDENT.
The New GOP Strategy Appears to Be Misdirection
Aaron Blake:
“In recent days, Republicans have maintained a laserlike focus on a very narrow defense of Trump: that there was nothing illegal about his July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president. In doing so, they are glossing over and even outright ignoring a growing mountain of evidence that much more explicit quid pro quos existed OUTSIDE that call."
[REPEAT: OUTSIDE that call!]
“I’ve said from the beginning that the call contains no explicit quid pro quo, but that DOES NOT mean one didn’t exist ELSEWHERE.
Indeed, SIX people have now said as much publicly — including THREE UNDER OATH. If anything, the call fills out the details of a president who badly WANTED these investigations, and now we’re learning about WHAT PEOPLE DID BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO MAKE THEM HAPPEN — including allegedly dangling hundreds of millions of U.S. government dollars and a long-sought White House meeting.”
IS MISDIRECTION A FORM OF OBSTRUCTION?
AND DID SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT "BEHIND CLOSED DOORS" (OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW)?
Client privilege does not always apply if the attorney is no longer his or her client.
Yes it does. Attorney/client privilege remains even if the relationship has been severed. The privilege remains with the client and only he/she can release the attorney from it. The crime/fraud exception to the privilege only engages if a prosecutor can show reasonable cause (and it would be a high bar) that the attorney engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the client.
And Congress not being a criminal prosecutor can never breach it.
You should use Google before you make a fool out of yourself again
Ironic for one who regularity makes a fool of himself because doesn't bother to do minimal research.
Socialism is terrible!
Feel free to copy/paste. It's not mine.
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF SUE REPUBLICAN: (Copied from another source)
Sue gets up at 6 a.m. and fills her coffeepot with water to prepare her morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With her first swallow of coffee, she takes her daily medication. Her medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of her medications are paid for by her employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Sue gets it too.
She prepares her morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Sue's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Sue reaches for her shampoo. Her bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for her right to know what she was putting on her body and how much it contained.
Sue dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air she breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
She walks to the subway station for her government-subsidized ride to work. It saves her considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Sue begins her work day. She has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Sue's employer pays these standards because Sue's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Sue is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, she'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think she should lose her home because of her temporary misfortune.
Its noontime and Sue needs to make a bank deposit so she can pay some bills. Sue's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Sue's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Sue has to pay her Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and her below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Sue and the government would be better off if she was educated and earned more money over her lifetime.
Sue is home from work. She plans to visit her father this evening at his farm home in the country. She gets in her car for the drive. Her car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. She arrives at her childhood home. Her generation was the third to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
She is happy to see her father, who is now retired. Her father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Sue wouldn't have to.
Her father was also a WWII Veteran, who was given a free College education, after returning from the war, by that damned Democratic socialist, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Sue gets back in her car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Sue enjoys throughout her day. Sue agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm self-made and believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
You have been spreading the lies about regulated capitalism has worked since FDR was sworn in and created Social Security.
LBJ signed the Medicare law, that Saint Ronald Reagan said that it would destroy our health care system.
Barack Obama signed the ACA aka Obamacare and insured over 21 million Americans who had nothing before.
The impeachment proceedings are an investigation into high crimes and misdemeanors.
The judge clearly said that the client privilege did not apply. If you actually read exactly what he said that you would not make a fool out of yourself again.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't a "big fan" of Medicare for All, calling the program "expensive." I agree with her.
So, if strong-arming a foreign country into intervening in a U.S. election isn’t an abuse of power, what is?
Boy is Cali stupid.
"Thou shalt not covet" means, thou shalt not covet (desire to have) things you should not desire to have... your neighbor's wife, properties, etc.
To covet wrongly is only to desire to have or possess something one should not desire to have.
There's nothing wrong at all with desiring to have the right sort of things, like good healthcare for EVERYone.
LOL.
Blogger James said...
Boy is Cali stupid.
I have some other adjectives to use, James....but I'll be nice and spare your sensibilities......!!!!!
@EmeraldRobinson
If you still cling to the notion that Congress is run by adults, just remember that the House of Reps has been brought to a standstill over closed door hearings where intel officials give their opinions about a phone call that every American can read for himself.
but obviously james hasn't yet read for himself. In fact he doesn't even think for himself.
@Jim_Jordan
5 weeks ago @RepAdamSchiff said we need to hear from the “Whistleblower.”
Now Schiff says we don’t need to hear from him.
What changed? We learned:
-That the “Whistleblower” met with Schiff’s staff
-That Schiff hid that meeting from the American people
@SenRonJohnson
Sent a request to @USNatArchives for Clinton-Obama emails based on this text we found from Peter Strzok: “I have the POTUS – HRC emails requested at end of briefing yesterday. I hesitate to leave them, please let me know a convenient time to drop them off."https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019-10-31%20RHJ%20to%20National%20Archives%20re%20DOJ%20Email%20Request.pdf …
Interesting approach
Blogger Roger Amick said...
So, if strong-arming a foreign country into intervening in a U.S. election isn’t an abuse of power, what is?
well fuckstick,
for starters that's not what happened. the call transcript supports this.
second, if "abuse of power" is your "crime," then every president back to geo. washington himself is guilty and should be impeached post facto and in absentia.
lincoln - suspension of habeas corpus: abuse of power
kennedy - bay of pigs: abuse of power
johnson - gulf of tonkin and maybe even the pentagon papers: abuse of power.
and if we try hard enough we can come up with some solid examples from ford to W.
the truth is alky that if you assholes actually had a fucking legitimate case this thing would be in the senate by now. the truth is you had to game the system by putting a clown in charge of it. and where are all those GOP'ers who you promised would come around, see the light, and vote with the dems?
you're an imbecile alky. and a fool. and a liar. and the absolute worst political prognosticator i have ever seen. by a fucking landslide.
Maybe this Judge should go back to Law School.
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 2016, she was reportedly interviewed as one of Barack Obama's potential nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson
man, did we ever dodge a bullet with this 0linsky-appointed dumb fuck.
for starters that's not what happened. the call transcript supports this.
How long will it take some of you to get it through your thick skulls that the evidence for attempted wrongdoing DOES NOT REST on the redacted (edited) transcript alone?
It transpired over months.
And why have we never been given the original unedited transcript? And why have we not been given the Pence-Trump correspondence on the matter? (Pence promised it, but it's been days and days...and days...and days...)
Your low digit IQ is evident again
Speaking about dementia.
It was a vivid scene worthy of the ending of a Hollywood thriller, the image of a ruthless terrorist mastermind finally brought to justice “whimpering and crying and screaming all the way” to his death. But it may be no more true than a movie script.
In the days since President Trump gave the world a graphic account of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s last minutes, no evidence has emerged to confirm it. The secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the regional commander who oversaw the operation that killed the leader of the Islamic State, all say they have no idea what the president was talking about.
Four other Defense Department officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share details of the raid, said they had seen no after-action reports, situation reports or other communications that support Mr. Trump’s claim. Nor did they have any indication that Mr. Trump spoke with any of the Delta Force commandos or ground commanders in the hours between the Saturday night raid and his Sunday morning televised announcement.
One American official who is deeply familiar with the operation dismissed the president’s version of events as mere grandstanding. Another senior official briefed extensively on the mission said, “I don’t know how he would know that. It sounds like something he made up.” The surveillance drone video Mr. Trump watched in the Situation Room had no audio.
"...the House of Reps has been brought to a standstill over closed door hearings where intel officials give their opinions about a phone call that every American can read for himself..."
or herself.
Funny how those opinions don't always match up with the redacted (edited, censored) transcript of the call.
"Another senior official briefed extensively on the mission said, 'I don’t know how he would know that. It sounds like something he made up."
The surveillance drone video Mr. Trump watched in the Situation Room HAD NO AUDIO.
____________
Maybe the whimpering, crying and screaming Trump heard was coming from next door where his defense team were frantically struggling to come up with some defense for his impeachable offense.
It's quite difficult to do that, you know.
Difficult to come up with an unimpeachable defense of an impeachable offense.
@AnOpenSecret
Prominent Democrat Donor & LGBT Activist Arrested For Child Sex Abuse
Terry Bean, 71, Portland, OR
Raised over $500,000 for Obama 2012, 6 White House visits
Hosted Clinton, Gore & Obama events at his home
@DNC Committee Member
Will @TomPerez remove?
The DEMOCRATS are the PARTY of PEDOPHILES
I thought a lot of pedophiles and pederasts were conservative Catholic priests.
The ‘Whimpering’ Terrorist Only Trump Heard
November 1, 2019 at 9:17 pm
New York Times:
“It was a vivid scene worthy of the ending of a Hollywood thriller, the image of a ruthless terrorist mastermind finally brought to justice “whimpering and crying and screaming all the way” to his death. But it may be no more true than a movie script.
“In the days since President Trump gave the world a graphic account of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s last minutes, no evidence has emerged to confirm it. The secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the regional commander who oversaw the operation that killed the leader of the Islamic State, all say they have no idea what the president was talking about.”
The video of the mission he watched had NO SOUND.
Republicans Consider Admitting Quid Pro Quo
November 1, 2019 at 8:16 pm EDT
“A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo,” the Washington Post reports.
“In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.
“But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.”
________
OH MY GOODNESS.
DO THOSE GOP SENATORS MEAN THE PRESIDENT LIED?
LIED?
LIED?
LIED?
THIS PRESIDENT LIED?
HE'S BEEN CONSTANTLY SAYING,
"NO QUID PRO QUO! NO QUID PRO QUO!
NO OBSTRUCTION! NO COLLUSION!
NO CONSPIRACY! NO QUID PRO QUO!"
@thebradfordfile
Beto drops out, Kamala lays off staff, Biden is running out of money...
And President @realDonaldTrump is breaking the record books in fundraising.
I love it.
@thebradfordfile
President Trump is literally having a party with his people tonight, as Nancy Pelosi pretends she is going to impeach the most successful president in modern times.
Democrats are TOAST.
Dan Rather
The impeachment process is not about undoing the results of 2016. It’s about protecting the integrity of 2020.
James said...
I thought a lot of pedophiles and pederasts were conservative Catholic priests.>
You'd be wrong again, just Catholic priests but this is timely:
Former (Republican) Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman says she would have preferred a criminal investigation of child sex abuse in the state’s three Catholic dioceses and that she talked to former (Democrat) Gov. John Hickenlooper about the prospect of launching one.
But as Coffman worked to find a way last year to account for priests’ behavior, she realized the most realistic route was an independent review with the cooperation of the church. She couldn’t initiate a criminal investigation herself — only the governor could have done that through executive action.
---------------
He didn't
another Democrat protecting Pedophiles, consistently. Sure fundraise a bunch with them too
“Judicial resolution of disputes directly between the Executive Branch and Congress has been virtually unknown in American history, and is inconsistent with the Constitution’s fundamental principle that the surest safeguard for liberty was to separately equip co-equal Branches with ‘the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the other,’” attorneys for the Justice Department. The Nixon tapes?
They should go back to law school!
@unscriptedmike
Pelosi: “If impeachment goes forward it has to be bipartisan”
Pelosi: “No, I didn’t say that.”
You said it, Nancy, and you were correct. And now you know it’s not, and you’re totally screwed. And you know that too.
https://twitter.com/unscriptedmike/status/1190304085817413633
@TrumpWarRoom
@RepRatcliffe: "Tim Morrison was just the latest to confirm that there was nothing illegal or improper. Witness after witness that the Democrats have brought in have expressed concerns about the policy of Donald Trump, but can't articulate any high crime or impeachable offense."
The Socialist Democrats held a vote, it was Bi-Partisan AGAINST it.
The Republican Russian whores in the Senate will never vote to impeach Putin’s Bitch from office; however, the Articles of Impeachment will serve to expose tRump, as a clear and present danger to our Democracy, so that Patriotic rational thinking Americans vote this corrupt scumbag out of office!
President Trump tweeted about a “blowout” 303,000 jobs that the economy added in October, more than twice the 128,000 that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported early Friday.
Is our GDP at the 4, 5, or 6 percent Trump predicted? NO.
Is it at the 3 percent he guaranteed? NO.
Is it at the 2 percent he said was terrible under Obama? NO.
U.S. GDP during the last quarter dropped to 1.9%.
After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration in May, Vindman was eager to brief Donald Trump on the implications of the change in leadership in Kyiv. Politico reported, however, on why that did not happen.
He was instructed “at the last second” not to attend the debriefing, Vindman told lawmakers, because Trump’s advisers worried it might confuse the president: Trump believed at the time that Kashyap Patel, a longtime Nunes staffer who joined the White House in February and had no discernible Ukraine experience or expertise, was actually the NSC’s top Ukraine expert instead of Vindman.
Vindman testified that he was told this directly by his boss at the time, NSC senior director for European and Russian affairs Fiona Hill.
It’s an amazing dynamic, which helps shed new light on just how dysfunctional Trump’s West Wing is.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-steps-team-trump-will-take-avoid-confusing-the-president?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Trump's little polling bounce is already disappearing. For just one day his REALCLEARPOLITICS disapproval dropped to TEN something. Now it's back up to 11.8.
Even the Rasmussen has him at minus 9.
Even the Rasmussen!
Post a Comment