But alas... the official acquittal will not come until Wednesday?
Why, you ask? Because Senators each want to take the podium for 10 minutes to listen to their own voices, and that process will take pretty much two full days. Moreover, they decided just to take the weekend off. I mean, couldn't these Senators decide (for the good of the nation) that we don't have to listen to them lecture us about how they personally "feel" about all of this? Or couldn't they just have pulled a breakfast club and had one Senator per side be "Johnson" and write the paper for everyone?
Now taking the weekend off is important for Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and that one loser who thinks she is an American Indian, because they are Presidential candidates and can now go and campaign in Iowa. Unless I am mistaken, they are not even "required" to attend the endless mind numbing droning that will take place starting Monday.
But the winner of Iowa will have to contend not just with the State of the Union coverage the next day, but then the actual impeachment vote two days later. Will anyone even remember who wins Iowa at that point?
51 comments:
How nice of Ch to show such concern for the Iowa candidates.
Of course, what he really dislikes is the fact that the Democrats will be underlining the unfairness of a trial that was not really a trial.
Democrats are so divided right now and in such disarray it is almost impossible to see anything good to come out of their 2020 efforts for Democrats. And President Trump is now capable of putting up a Reagan-like result in the 2020 election.
If so he will likely have a Republican Senate and Congress
And a prosperous and happy nation, except for old bitter partisans and youth who have been handed a bad hand by those same old bitter partisans.
And those old bitter partisans got behind a totally unfair House process.
Easily explained by the president.
The truth is by far mostly on his side, and any fair person can see that.
Of course, what he really dislikes is the fact that the Democrats will be underlining the unfairness of a trial that was not really a trial.
newsflash, pederast -
it was everything that happened BEFORE the trial in the senate that was unfair.
my advice to your team is simple - try beating this man straight up, in an election, and stop playing fucking games trying to take him out by other illegitimate means.
oh, and save the "fairness" chat for bernie sanders. you fucked him in 2016, and you're poised to fuck him again. this time he sees it coming and there's STILL nothing he can do about it.
The truth was by far mostly on his side...
Doubletalk for "Of course he was guilty as charged,but..."
TRUMP: No, dammit, the truth was ENTIRELY on my side. I'm perfect.
McCONNELL: Shut up till we get Bolton denied.
i'm so sorry this is happening to you, pederast.
stiff upper lip, chum...
There's always tomorrow,
For dreams to come true,
Believe in your dreams
Come what may.
There's always tomorrow,
With so much to do,
And so little time in a day.
We all pretend
The rainbow has an end
And you'll be there my friend someday.
There's always tomorrow,
For dreams to come true,
Tomorrow is not far away.
We all pretend,
The rainbow has an end,
And you'll be there my friend someday.
James said...
The truth was by far mostly on his side...
Doubletalk for "Of course he was guilty as charged,but..."
Actually it was not a "perfect" call in my opinion. It was a "near perfect" call but it left a sliver of an opening for desperate bad deep state actors and partisans to attack him.
No double talk but you innuendo is noted.
And the president was right to ask for corruption to be investigated in the Ukraine before US taxpayers dollars funded that corruption.
As it did during the Obama era. To the Obama's administration benefit.
Ever wonder how they all got so rich while in government ?
LOL Thanks, but--
Things are going so badly for me?
Actually, I got a laugh out of my 11:34.
James said...
TRUMP: No, dammit, the truth was ENTIRELY on my side. I'm perfect.
McCONNELL: Shut up till we get Bolton denied.
I see you use Schiff speak. We call that made up lies but you appear fine with that.
And "mistakes", as long as they go one way.
As was previously noted Bolton has MANY ISSUES with his credibility, but feel to free to call him in the HOUSE, where he should have been called. And allow the President counsel. Which he was denied.
Is that really the American way ?
As was previously noted Bolton has MANY ISSUES with his credibility
it turns out that the stache was solely and directly responsible for the hiring of the vindman twins.
Nonpolitical thought of the day...
We are just as close to the year 2050 as we are to 1990.
rrb said...
it turns out that the stache was solely and directly responsible for the hiring of the vindman twins.
Interesting, that's the guy who was offered the defense ministry position 3 times in Ukraine, right? Everybody acknowledges a very corrupt country. But make sure you use his proper title. And he hates Trump's policy regarding fighting Ukrainian corruption
And got married in Moscow.
And was the source for the "whistleblower"
And who has never been cross-examined by presidents counsel but was instructed by Schiff to not answer certain questions. Wonder what a real judge would do.
And so much more.
Schiff really should bring in Bolton in a fair open process. Actually not Schiff but the Senate. I am intrigued. And the Senate needs to be hearing from a bunch of others too including Vindman. Just not in an impeachment process. But maybe a coup attempt.
On the other hand maybe Barr is pursuing this.
HOPE and CHANGE
Feeling that Bern.
"Bernie Sanders, now the frontrunner in both Iowa and New Hampshire." Politico
oh, and by the way pederast, read murkowski's statement. her FULL statement.
you just might have had her voting for witnesses were it not for that cute little "FUCK YOU" question warren gave to chief justice roberts...
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) today released the following statement on the Senate vote regarding additional evidence for the court of impeachment:
“I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more.
“The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.
“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.
“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded our institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.
“We are sadly at a low point of division in this country.”
Jane has contracted a bad case of the Schiff .
When you make up stories in your head about what you wish was true, but then fuck up and tell those stories aloud.
It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law
Blogger Roger Amick said...
It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law
stolen directly from lamar alexander.
good job alky.
At the same time running for president doesn't give you immunity from legitimate criminal investigations and Joe & Hunter's dalliances with Burisma is about as legitimate as you can get.
Of course, what he really dislikes is the fact that the Democrats will be underlining the unfairness of a trial that was not really a trial.
Well assuming anybody other than CSPAN is covering it wall to wall.
Or if they are, people will tune in.
Given the abismal ratings I would doubt it on both counts.
Roger Amick said...
It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law
Of course Trump denies this and it is unproven but a House impeachment manager said it was ok if elected officials paid for interference by a foreign government, such as what the Democrats (DNC and Hillary) actually did and that was the difference between what Trump did and the dems.
So to be clear temporarily withholding aid to a notoriously corrupt foreign government without them even being made aware of it while you wait to see if it will not go to fund corruption and the actually release it is undermining the principle of equal justice under the law, but actually paying the same corrupt foreign country to actually dig up dirt on an actual opponent is not.
Bizarro
Bizarro
quite.
i can't even imagine the personal and private hell it must be to be in the deathgrip of TDS. to be so totally consumed with such an overwhelming hatred of one man, that you are willing to destroy yourself in your desire to destroy him.
Senator Lamar Alexander said that.
Washington, D.C., January 30, 2020 -- United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote regarding additional evidence in the impeachment proceedings:
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.
https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/alexander-statement-on-impeachment-witness-vote
There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens;
Emails Confirm Trump’s Role In Ukraine Aid Freeze
“Hours after the Senate voted against seeking new evidence in the impeachment case against President Trump, the administration acknowledged in a midnight court filing Friday the existence of two dozen emails that reveal the president’s thinking about withholding military aid to Ukraine,” the Washington Post reports.
CNN: “The filing marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President’s thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June. The administration is still blocking those emails from the public and has successfully kept them from Congress.”
😁House impeachment manager said it was ok if elected officials paid for interference by a foreign government, such as what the Democrats (DNC and Hillary) actually did😊
so Lamar Alexander said it.
Alky become a big fan of Lamar on other Policy issues?
Andrew Lamar Alexander Jr. is an American politician who is currently serving as the senior United States Senator from Tennessee, a seat he has held since 2003.
Not an Anti Trump
Justus Priest Alky, you a a broke and broken dumb ads.
Trump score
How often Alexander votes in line with Trump’s position
90.7%"
James said...
Emails Confirm Trump’s Role In Ukraine Aid Freeze
That's the FAKE NEWS headline by political_lire (that's 3 times already today "pastor" and waterboy hence the name switch)
This is what someone could have said from a different perspective:
Emails confirm Trump's Role in Fighting Ukraine Corruption.
While Trump continues to protect executive privilege emails exist relating to the temporary aid suspension which were eventually released after anti-corruption methods and directions were corroborated with new Ukrainian government.
Tired of losing all the arguments today "pastor", so resorting back to being an ineffective waterboy?
And corruption in the Ukraine appears to include the Bidens according to all witnesses. And definitely needed to be investigated. No one should be above the law.
Including the Obama Crime Syndicate. but more on that coming later.
A better headline probably would be
TRUMP PROTECTS LARGE US FOREIGN AID PAYMENTS FROM CORRUPT SPENDING
or a host of others not made up by political_lire
ROFLMFAO !!!
From New York Daily News:
(More corruption exposed)
White House counsel Pat Cipollone was named Friday in an explosive new report about John Bolton’s tell-all book, potentially throwing a wrench in Republican plans for a fuss-free acquittal in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
The top defense lawyer in Trump’s impeachment defense was in the room Trump personally ordered the then-National Security Adviser to push Ukraine into launching investigations into Democrats, the New York Times reports in an account of Bolton’s forthcoming memoir.
Cipollone has repeatedly denied that Trump carried out an improper quid pro quo in arguments to the Senate, claims that are dramatically contradicted by Bolton in the new report.
The bombshell gave new ammunition to Democrats seeking to force the Senate to call Bolton as a witness, even as GOP senators appeared to have the votes to shoot that measure down.
“Mr. Cipollone has claimed that all the facts should come out,” Rep. Adam Schiff told the Senate trial. “There is a new fact that indicates Mr. Cipollone (was) among those who were in the loop.”
[More Politics] Trump boasts he’s ‘Greatest Show on Earth’ as impeachment victory looms »
“(It’s) yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses,” the Democratic leader said.
It could also spark questions about the integrity of the entire trial if Trump’s top lawyer failed to mention a potentially giant conflict such as the fact that he is a potential star witness against his client.
Speaking of Fat Ladies.
"Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton criticized the Iowa caucus system in a new interview, calling it “a very undemocratic” way to elect a presidential candidate.
“It is a very undemocratic way of picking a nominee,” Clinton said about the process, adding that despite her love for the state, “it just makes no sense, and so who knows what’s going to happen.”"
We know you suck.
Alky is a boi.
So Roger...
Trump has denied Bolton's allegations he told him to pressure Ukraine, Mulvaney has publicly denied ever hearing anything about quid pro quo in Bolton's presence, and we would all have to assume that Cipollone will deny any allegations that he was present when Bolton was told about some quid pro quo arrangement...
(of course, the actual story is that Bolton claims Trump asked him to get in touch with Giuliani, which would mean that quid pro quo is once again "assumed" and since Bolton claims he never spoke to Giuliani, those assumptions would remain unproven - so what is being "reported" is a DESPERATE distortion of the facts)
So who are we going to believe...
The President of the United States, White House attorney, Chief of Staff all saying the same thing... or what is written in a "tell all book" by a disgruntled fired ex-employee?
You do realize that "he said" "they said" is generally legally resolved by going with the "they said".
Creepy Joe , he like to talk about his green life style.
"Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign spared no travel expense, dropping more than one million dollars on private air charters in the last three months of 2019 alone.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings released late Friday show that Biden shelled out 14 payments, totaling more than one million dollars, to Advanced Aviation. He made the payments between October 1 and December 31, 2019—the end of the fourth quarter FEC filing deadline."
DNC Screwing Bernie Sanders Again.
"Faiz Shakir, campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), ripped the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday for the debate requirements for future debates, which effectively open the door for Michael Bloomberg (D) to participate.
The DNC modified the requirements for upcoming Democrat debates, increasing the polling threshold but ditching the donor requirements, giving Bloomberg the chance to qualify. Until this point, that has remained an impossibility due to the existing donor requirements and the billionaire’s decision to forgo outside donations and instead self-fund his campaign."
It could also spark questions about the integrity of the entire trial if Trump’s top lawyer failed to mention a potentially giant conflict such as the fact that he is a potential star witness against his client.
man, this drips with irony. especially considering that schiff has been the perennial potential star witness of this entire shitshow.
so alky...
getting tired of losing yet?
those walls never seem to completely close in.
the beginning of the end never seems to actually begin. or end.
those bombshells never seem to go off, and all are apparently duds.
it seems that all you assholes have left is another bernie bro/maddow lover like james hodgkinson willing to take a shot.
heh.
The Vindman Twins Are Creatures of John Bolton
Joseph Duggan - January 30th, 2020
...
The extremes to which Bolton goes to enforce his Bolton-centric scheme of things were exposed dramatically in the episode of his handpicked choice as deputy national security advisor, Mira Ricardel. The latter had a well-deserved reputation as “Bolton’s Bolton”—that is, a screamer, a browbeater, and a toxic boss par excellence. Ricardel’s exercises in Attila the Hun’s management methods were so over-the-top that they attracted the displeased attention of First Lady Melania Trump, who took the rare step of publicly calling for Ricardel’s dismissal. Ricardel had denigrated and disparaged members of the first lady’s staff.
Notwithstanding the public denunciation of Ricardel by the first lady, a standoff ensued. Bolton never relented in his support for his hatchetwoman. Ricardel finally was pried away from her White House position in November 2018 at a moment when Bolton was out of the country and unable to barricade her office door.
This incident illumined in high relief that Bolton’s loyalties are never to his superiors but always to himself and to others only so long as they remain his sycophants.
The strange case of the Vindman twins (Alexander and Yevgeny) should be examined in the light of Bolton’s Roi du Soleil management style.
In July 2018, three months or so after becoming President Trump’s national security adviser, Bolton hired both Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman as a Ukraine policy specialist for the National Security Council and his identical twin brother, Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, as deputy legal counsel in the NSC’s “ethics” office.
Bolton is totally responsible for this pair of unusual hires. There is no explaining this strange duo of appointments as something that the bureaucracy simply slipped over on Bolton. That is not Bolton’s way.
Anyone who has been involved in national security affairs in Republican administrations since 1981 knows that it is impossible that the Vindman brothers were given sensitive jobs in Bolton’s NSC without Bolton having become assured of their usefulness and loyalty to Bolton and his agenda. Both the Ukraine policy and the “ethics attorney” slots are of vast personal priority to Bolton.
On the face of it, it is very odd for any administration to hire a pair of identical twin Army lieutenant colonels to work at the very same time in the same office in any part of the government, much less on the elite, super-sensitive National Security Council staff. Concerns over conflicts of interest are magnified when one of the identical twins is an “ethics counsel” privy both to allegations and self-disclosures of sensitive financial data and any legally and ethically questionable actions by NSC staffers.
In Washington, if a person in Yevgeny’s position and with his political bias breaks the seal of the confessional, he doesn’t get excommunicated; he gets lionized in the mainstream media.
Given the bizarre situation Bolton had brought about with the twins serving in sensitive positions on his staff, one might have expected that Alexander and Yevgeny would have recused themselves from dealing with one another in any fashion that could be construed as a possible conflict of interests.
But the NSC is a particularly gassy precinct of the swamp, so expectations of prudence and “abundance of caution” between identical twin Army officers on the NSC staff of course were misbegotten.
So here we are. Acting on his own, without authorization, Alexander Vindman reported his jaundiced view of President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to friends in the State Department and intelligence agencies whom Vindman—unilaterally and going over the head of his superiors—asserted had a “need to know.” This led directly to the “whistleblower” complaint that ignited the impeachment conflagration.
muhttps://www.amgreatness.com/2020/01/30/the-vindman-twins-are-creatures-of-john-bolton/#.XjSCOhFFpPA
Dems are throwing shit on the wall to see what will stick again. If the media weren't such lapdog todies, they may actually resent being used like this.
But there credibility is shot and they're good with that.
STUNNING !!! and hidden by the FAKE NEWS MEDIA who must have some knowledge
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
Here are the other "Three Amigos" whom Democrats and the MSM don't want you to know about ...
Alexander Vindman, Eric Ciaramella & Sean Misko
https://twitter.com/ShawnLarson23/status/1223566567251828738
look at that...Vindman replaced Eric the whistleblower under Bolton !!! and his 2 co-workers left to work for Adam Schiff who lied about it and then hid the whistleblower.
No wonder SCHIFF LIES WITH IMPUNITY. At this point what difference does it make. He is in the middle of a coup attempt and is chair of the Intelligence committee !!! explains the urgency.no urgency too
probably won't even make the evening news...
Hurry up Barr and you need a bigger boat !!!
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role
By Katelyn Polantz, CNN
Updated 1 hour ago Feb 1, 2020
Washington (CNN) - The Department of Justice revealed in a court filing late Friday that it has two dozen emails related to President Donald Trump's involvement in the withholding of millions in security assistance to Ukraine - a disclosure that came just hours after the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial, paving the way for his acquittal.
The filing, released near midnight Friday, marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President's thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June. The administration is still blocking those emails from the public and has successfully kept them from Congress.
A lawyer with the Office of Management and Budget wrote to the court that 24 emails between June and September 2019 - including an internal discussion among DOD officials called "POTUS follow-up" on June 24 - should stay confidential because the emails describe " communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine. "
Trump's decision to hold nearly $ 400 million in US military aid to Ukraine as he pressed the country to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, his potential 2020 general election rival, are at the center of the President's impeachment trial. Trump and his allies have repeatedly made unfounded and false claims to allege that the Bidens acted corruptly in Ukraine.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement on Saturday, "Every single Republican Senator voted to endorse the White House cover-up of these potentially important truth-revealing emails. Make no mistake, the full truth will eventually come out and Republicans will have to answer for why they were so determined to enable the president to hide it. "
The Senate on Friday defeated an attempt to subpoena documents and witnesses, which could have revealed more about the actions of Trump and the officials closest to him related to Ukraine. Senate leadership on Wednesday plans to hold the final vote to acquit Trump on cartoons of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Government officials testified in the House's impeachment inquiry to the existence of what appears to be some of the emails.
"The day after DOD issued its June 18 press release announcing $ 250 million in security assistance funds for Ukraine, President Trump started asking OMB questions about the funding for Ukraine," the House outlined in its impeachment report.
The House noted that the OMB refused to turn over any documents when subpoenaed during the probe, and that emails may exist showing acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney passing along the President's order to halt the aid to Ukraine.
"The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the Office of Management and Budget is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to the subpoena and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry," the House wrote before it voted to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress.
The filings from the executive branch came Friday to meet a court-ordered January 31 deadline. A judge had specifically asked for an email-by-email breakdown of what the Justice Department redacted or withheld in Defense Department and OMB emails about the aid, and why it did so, after the Center for Public Integrity sued and got access to them in December through the Freedom of Information Act.
TM & © 2020 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
The WarnerMedia Company.
All Rights Reserved.
Rand Paul: Alleged Whistleblower, Friend Plotted For Over A Year To Bring Down Trump
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) explains why he thinks Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read aloud a question he submitted to the entire body of Senators in an interview with One America's John Hines.
"I didn't identify anybody or propose that anyone was the whistleblower," Paul said. "But I did identify two Obama partisans that have worked in the National Security Council. Sean Misko, who works for Adam Schiff, and then I also identified Eric Ciaramella. They're friends. They worked together on the National Security Council."
"There are allegations that they actually plotted together as much as a year or two ago to say that 'we've got to bring this president down,'" Paul revealed. "So it's kind of extraordinary all the people who actually came to the National Security Council. I count maybe 6 people who know each other really well. So you've got Sean Misko, two other people on Adam Schiff's team from the National Security Council, all activist Democrats who used to be in the National Security Council. You've got the Vindman, Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman and his brother. So there's two Vindmans. They're over at the National Security Council and this fellow Eric Ciaramella. So you've got 6 people who know each other and the question is: Wouldn't we want to know if they've been discussing for maybe months a plan to bring the president down once they got a chance?"
"I wonder if it was coordinated," Paul mused. "I have no proof that it was coordinated but I certainly think somebody ought to ask. And you shouldn't just get a free pass to 'I'm going to attack the president and we're going to plot to bring down the president and get him impeached but I don't have to testify and nobody gets to scrutinize my background. I don't think that's fair to the president."
Paul said no one has acknowledged who the whistleblower is, including Adam Schiff, so how would Chief Justice Roberts know to block the question with a person's name.
"I don't know who the whistleblower is," Paul said. "I've never seen any government documents of who it is. I don't think the president's defense knows who it is. And Adam Schiff has gone off all the time saying he doesn't know who it is, which I personally don't believe... Everybody is saying they don't know who it is. How does the Chief Justice know who it is? So how does everybody say they don't know who the whistleblower is and yet they do know who it is and yet when I ask to have a partisan Obama person who worked with Sean Misko who actually was overheard talking about bringing down the president is? How come we can't discuss it? I think it was a big mistake. Judges should be more open to dialogue and not limiting dialogue so I think the Chief Justice made a big mistake."
"In no way did I propose that anybody was the whistleblower. In no way did I insinuate anybody was. I just said that two Obama partisans that worked in the National Security Council, who knew each other for years, have been reported that they were plotting years ago. Shouldn't that come up? Shouldn't we have a discussion of that?" Paul asked.
--------
The walls are really closing in, REAL BOMBSHELLS and why the silence ???
To be clear the Left has never accepted Trumps amazing win in 2016.
Will they accept his win in 2020?
First Bernie complained and now Pocahontas .
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) expressed frustration on Friday that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) removed the donor requirements for upcoming debates — a move that opens the door for Michael Bloomberg (D) to participate.
The DNC is adjusting the requirements to qualify for upcoming debates, raising the polling threshold but ditching the donor requirements altogether. The move effectively opens the door for Bloomberg, who has been rising in the polls but has been unable to participate in Democrat debates due to the donor requirements and his decision to self-fund his campaign."
Bloomberg has Bought the Broke DNC.
Jane said we are no longer a Republic, she failed say what we are?
2020 Electorial College is still valid against this kind of faux elitism .
"The next nine months will present our raucous coalition a rare opportunity to establish a new Democratic “metropolitan majority” that could last for years. We can’t afford to let internecine disagreements about how to reach our common goals get in the way.
…
In recent months both Presidents Clinton and Obama have come under withering criticism—not from conservatives but from Democrats arguing they were insufficiently progressive while in office. Set aside the unforced error of attacking fellow Democrats at a moment when retiring Donald Trump ought to be our singular goal. The underlying critique fundamentally misunderstands how we should judge any given leader’s stewardship of our agenda.
…
The question before Democrats is whether to continue working in the same reform-oriented vein or to embrace the sort of revolutionary strategy that would have tanked in 1992 or 2008, but might work if the electorate is, as some believe, more left today than it is center-left."
Sound like a commentary right out of CNN.
Somehow I think that "metropolitan majority" is neither metropolitan nor a majority.
Post a Comment