Originally posted by rinselberg: Picking up on that last remark, about Obama vs Trump, and Obama's resistance against the provision of battlefield weapons for the Ukraine, it would seem relevant to consider that Obama reached the end of his second term. What might Obama have decided if he were still in office, in response to changing conditions or the persistence of the conflict between the Ukraine and Russian-backed insurgents?
As he told his buddy Vlad, he had more flexibility after he won his second term.
Any more questions ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: What might Hillary Clinton have decided (about Ukraine,) if she had become POTUS..?
Kept milking the money ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Not such a simple or obvious comparison.
What might Hillary Clinton have decided (about Ukraine,) if she had become POTUS..?
If Hillary had stolen been elected to the Presidency, we would not be hearing much at all about Ukraine, because, well, you know, some things are better kept in the family. And that's none of your business, anyway.
What we would be hearing about is how we all need to sacrifice a little more because we have been living high on the hog for far too long, as more and more people loose their jobs and join the rolls of public assistance. The mean old Republicans would rather see them starve, though. But don't you worry your poor deplorable little head, she's got you covered and at a price that everyone can afford: Your immortal soul.
Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia... "DC"
quote
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.
Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to "invoke executive privilege where appropriate" during his appearance.
"It is clear to this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist," Jackson said in her ruling.
My sources are describing it as interesting and important news, but not something that is going to put points on the scoreboard for either team as the Impeachment Game Clock ticks down to the end of 2019. So, not a "game changer."
ESPN's Booger McFarland has the update
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-26-2019).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: How honorable do you find it for a man to criticize a woman’s looks, or apply derogatory nicknames to her? You don’t have to like her, but I’m quite sure based on your age you were taught better than that when it comes to women.
My gosh man, are you that soft ? I was taught better than that. If a woman acts like a man, if she insists on being treated like a man, equal to a man. I should treat them as a man. My gosh. Are you a man ? If Shillary can call me a sexist, a deplorable, irredeemable, a homo phobe, and much worse, lines are drawn. I am a honorable man. I am not trying to put a woman in 'her' place, I am trying to honer her and put her in the place she wants to be, .
I am an equal opportunity honorable man. How 'bout these guys ?
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: How do you expect any of that you typed in RED to be taken seriously if you continually regress to 4th grade antics?
Your not smarter than a forth grader !
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: The equivalent of a schoolgirl plugging her ears and scream "nanananananana".
Yet what does Threedog want ? His first sentence in this quote ...
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: I disappear because people here want to hurl insults and ignore whatever I write instead of actually discuss the facts of what is going on.
I did not hurl insults. I offered for discussion every point he brought up. What did I do wrong ? I even gave him a few days to think about it. Did my red type trigger him ? Did he run to his safe space ?
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: I disappear because people here want to hurl insults and ignore whatever I write instead of actually discuss the facts of what is going on.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: P.S. Almost every “talking point” you typed in red is complete horse-sh!t. I mean, you know that, right?
You were invited to refute them, TWICE ! I should refer to your horsezhit opinion, just because you can not handle the truth ?
@ Threedog ... I have been in touch with Kania. He has no safe spaces available and you better reserve your cry closets before Nov 2020. 1/2 price off for PFF T/OT members but time is running out.
These are just a couple of impeachment-related trifles or hors d'oeuvres. Although the first one that I am laying out here has a bit more substance to it. It starts with a brief and fairly gentle skewering of Trump White House fixture Kellyanne Conway, but quickly segues to the ruminations of Ezra Klein, who articulates the idea that the possibility of Impeachment has become permeated with a trepidation or reluctance that actually represents a modern departure from the mindset of the Founding Fathers.
What do "we" want from an Impeachment-related podcast? New Yorker Magazine staff writer Sarah Larson shared her thoughts in a page-long column on "The Art of the Impeachment Podcast" from November 21. https://www.newyorker.com/c...-impeachment-podcast
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
This caption is carefully color-coordinated with his pocket handkerchief.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-27-2019).]
dreadlocks are for them not to have to wash their hair. Theyre nasty. I was behind a woman in line to pick up my laundry a while back and something just caught my attention...there were dozens of little bugs crawling all over her head. I about puked on the spot.
Does President Trump have a "perfect" Caller Rating? Here's what the Truth-O-Meter FactCheck process reveals about the Chief Executive's calling record, going back to January 1, 2019.
Telephone calls to foreign heads of state...
Attempted 37, Completed 33, Resulted in 10 or more minutes of conversation 19, Intercepted by one or more foreign intelligence services 18, Quae pro quibus (quid pro quos) 6, Conformed to established national security protocols 16, Call transcript or parts of conversation leaked to news media 9, Average conversation per attempt 7.5 minutes, Caller Power Ranking (CPR) among NATO Heads of State of "3" (behind Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron.)
Caller Rating ("do the math") of 104.9
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-03-2019).]
What is the different between a dead skunk in the middle of the road and a dead lawyer in the middle of the road ? A dead skunk has skid marks in front of it.
Today, in the impeachment follies, the Dumbs introduced three Constitutional scholars, and allowed the republicans to introduce one.
The Dumbs : Noah Feldman, who had a podcast about impeaching Trump three months after his election. He is an esteemed professor of the University of MSNBCHarvard University.
Michael Gerhar, a renowned professor of CNN Univerity UNC.
Pamala Karlan, a legend in the Dumb's mind from the University of NBC Sheeple Herders Standard University.
The Dumbs think someone needs an education of what is impeachable. I question if they are trying to sway Congressional representatives or the voting public, who's opinion has not been swayed one bit since the farce started. As well as any republican representatives.
The Republicans introduced Professor Jonathon Turley, of George Washington University.
Turley spoke open minded while the others seemed rabid about "guilty", speaking of the founding fathers intentions like they hung out with them everyday. To the point of suggesting that they thought the Constitution was an evolving document (where have we heard that before). Using today's definitions in place of the ones in existence when they crafted the Constitution.
It should be noted that the Republican 'witness', Jonathan Turley, is a Liberal Democrat, and did not vote for President Trump. He was also the only unbiased, most thoughtful and most logical of the four lawyers that testified. He was a credit to the profession of law.
The swamp dwellers are ramping up the rhetoric in an effort to create a cacophony of chaos sufficient to drown out the impending release of the IG report. Pay close attention, at the beginning of next week, not only to what is being reported, but how it is being reported. Don’t be fooled by the surface scum. You will have to dig through the mud.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-05-2019).]
If you saw her this morning, less than an hour ago (I think) you likely heard her say that.
"Mitch" said just the other day that it is inconceivable that the Senate will arrive at the Two Thirds of all voting members to remove him from office.
I'm just calling it a "long shot."
I think it's a lead (Pb) pipe cinch that the House will approve Articles of Impeachment on a very sharply divided partisan or D vs R kind of vote. There could be a few "D"s in the House that will not approve the Articles. Not a single "R" will approve the Articles. (Justin Amash, not an "R" anymore. I have to think he will vote to approve the Articles.)
My sources have said that Mitch McConnell is not likely to try to avoid an IT (impeachment trial) in the Senate with a motion to dismiss, but that even if he tried it, he wouldn't have the simple majority vote that would be required. The motion would be opposed by almost every Senator with a "D", and there would be enough "R"s that would prefer to have an IT. Even if they expect to conduct themselves in such a way that not one of the Articles or charges (indictments, in effect) will receive the Two Thirds ...
Using "IT"... more polite than using that "dirty I-word." If you can believe that. I'm not sure I can believe that. OK, it's a pun.
Y'all be able to remind me soon--early next year--if I was "not seeing things too clear" when I submitted this message. Bonus points if you get the cultural reference.
That's what I think is goin' down. It's not an opportune moment for me to say anything more about this.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-05-2019).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Legislate, Investigate, Litigate."
Y'all can think of her as LIL' Nancy. If you saw her this morning, less than an hour ago (I think) you likely heard her say that.
LIL' Nancy, do you mean Nancy Botox ? What did they legislate that passed ? Perhaps Madam Speaker ought to read the "Art of the Deal".
Investigate ? With a 'guilty' conclusion they want to be true.
Litigate ? With unfair hearings ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Mitch" said just the other day that it is inconceivable that the Senate will arrive at the Two Thirds of all voting members to remove him from office.
I'm just calling it a "long shot."
It is best to remember that to other be thought of as brain dead, it is best not to open your mouth and to be proved so.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think it's a lead (Pb) pipe cinch that the House will approve Articles of Impeachment on a very sharply divided partisan or D vs R kind of vote.
Nancy Botox says that will not be good.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: My sources ...
Your source ? Or the voices in your head, from MSNBC, CNN, et al.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Y'all be able to remind me soon--early next year--if I was "not seeing things too clear" when I submitted this message. Bonus points if you get the cultural reference.
We won't have to remind you, you will know.
I don't know of a cultural reference, nor do I need bonus points. Curious though.
My sources have said that Mitch McConnell is not likely to try to avoid an IT (impeachment trial) in the Senate with a motion to dismiss, but that even if he tried it, he wouldn't have the simple majority vote that would be required. The motion would be opposed by almost every Senator with a "D", and there would be enough "R"s that would prefer to have an IT. Even if they expect to conduct themselves in such a way that not one of the Articles or charges (indictments, in effect) will receive the Two Thirds ...
Why would he want to avoid such a great opportunity to expose the facts to the harsh light of day? I would love to see the Bidens squirm testify.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
I don't know of a cultural reference, nor do I need bonus points. Curious though.
Another one of renselberg's starry eyed "show tune" references, I'll bet you are shocked, huh?
A little digging found some of Pelosi's skeletons. Her father was in a very cozy relationship with the Boston mob boss. Her brother was accused in a gang rape of 2 girls, 11 and 13. He was acquitted by a purported payoff. Her son was charged with a securities fraud scheme.. but acquitted for lack of evidence. Snopes reports (which I accept with a grain of salt usually) reported everything in accusations was lacking enough evidence to base as truth or not. The only thing Snopes agreed with was Pelosi being the owner of a pizza shop that operated a child **** ring was found to be untrue.
A little digging found some of Pelosi's skeletons.
They all have skeletons in the dark and deep closets and I don't care which side of the aisle we're talking about. Show me a Politician that left office poorer than when they were elected. The question in my mind is, is this an impeachable offense. Was this request for investigation only benefitting President Trump or, do we have a right to know what Hunter Biden got paid to do and what VP Biden did to help himself and son.
Personally, I still want to know what Hunter Biden got paid to do and what he actually did. The question of whether or not the request of President Trump for an investigation was just for his benefit or for ours appears to be dependent on which side of the aisle you reside on.
They all have skeletons in the dark and deep closets and I don't care which side of the aisle we're talking about. Show me a Politician that left office poorer than when they were elected.
Yup.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: The question in my mind is, is this an impeachable offense.
I believe it was.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:Was this request for investigation only benefitting President Trump or, do we have a right to know what Hunter Biden got paid to do and what VP Biden did to help himself and son.
I believe he attempted it for his own political gain. I don't believe he cares one bit about corruption unless it benefits him. He's untrustworthy, plain and simple.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: Personally, I still want to know what Hunter Biden got paid to do and what he actually did.
Oh, I'm sure those doing the hiring thought it couldn't hurt hiring the son of an influential politician. Whether anyone made an actual deal as a condition of employment is what is worth knowing.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:The question of whether or not the request of President Trump for an investigation was just for his benefit or for ours appears to be dependent on which side of the aisle you reside on.
I believe anyone that has been on the planet Earth dealing with other humans from all walks of life for any length of time knows full-well exactly what he was trying to do, regardless of where one stands politically. He tried to do what he has always tried to do as a businessman; Increase the odds in his favor. By hook or crook.
It's the proven nature of his known character. He may have been the hopeful lessor of two evils, but we shouldn't be in the market for evils at all.
We deserve better, but who that could be I have no idea. Nothing within current eyesight, that's for sure.
P.S. That being said, impeachment is not something I desire. It's not going to bring us together as a nation, it's going to tear us farther apart. In this instance of attempt, I would much rather see some lessor alterative, i.e. warning/reprimand/censure etc.
I put a fresh coat of paint on the shop walls today after spending the earlier part of the week prepping. Five gallons of primer and five gallons of paint.
Thanks President Trump for Making America Great Again!
Again, friends, family, and neighbors. Look around you. Who is prospering? Why are they prospering? Who is failing? Wash, rinse, repeat.
A very small percentage of America is anti-Trump. Some complain, while others accomplish.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 12-05-2019).]
I believe anyone that has been on the planet Earth dealing with other humans from all walks of life for any length of time knows full-well exactly what he was trying to do, regardless of where one stands politically. He tried to do what he has always tried to do as a businessman; Increase the odds in his favor. By hook or crook.
It's the proven nature of his known character. He may have been the hopeful lessor of two evils, but we shouldn't be in the market for evils at all.
We deserve better, but who that could be I have no idea. Nothing within current eyesight, that's for sure.
P.S. That being said, impeachment is not something I desire. It's not going to bring us together as a nation, it's going to tear us farther apart. In this instance of attempt, I would much rather see some lessor alterative, i.e. warning/reprimand/censure etc.
Precisely, what would a "lessor alterative" accomplish? Would you prefer a "Time Out". I'd support taking his Twitter account away. Congress is so wrapped up in this, nothing is getting done. There are Bi-Partisan bills waiting to be voted on just sitting on some shelf that both sides are for and yet, there they sit. At least President Trump is still marching forward for all of our benefit. Remember, I'm one of those folks that don't like him much...….
Your beliefs are obviously very biased. I have admitted many times that I am not a Trump fan. I don't really like him personally. Having said that, I do agree with the vast majority of his policies. Regardless of how I feel about the President personally, I believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Have you watched any of the inquiries/proceedings? Any fair minded person can see this is and has been a focused attempt to bring him down by hook or crook for political gain. Again, I don't like him, his tweeting or his inflated ego but, that has nothing to do with his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
If you believe everything you've heard or read that has been put out by a very biased media, then you are not someone who I would want on any jury.
As a registered Democrat with Conservative views, I'm embarrassed by the Democratic leadership. I won't be changing my party affiliation any time soon but, this lynching will definitely effect how and who I vote for in the future. I suspect and hope these proceedings will result in new Democrat leadership. I'm disgusted with all the I've been watching.
While they (whoever they are) have the whole country watching the Trump phenomenon like it was the Superbowl, things that should get our attention are being ignored and there are likely things happening that should not be.
Regardless of which team you are rooting for, be aware that much of what you see is just magician’s sleight of hand.
Without a doubt, this sham is bias to an extreme. The dems were saying that Trump needs to be impeached from the first moments in office. This entire process had nothing to do with truth, it was based on lies and a burning desire to screw Trump. Both nancy and adam said that this impeachment would be bipartisan, BUT has never been. So being that this process is unjustified and bias, revenge........ this leads me to ask if Trump can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court? Possibly have it overturned or dismissed?
Removing DJT's access to Twitter? Isn't the President entitled to communicate without the filter of the media? The media is the Progressive Left's sharp stick. The President uses Twitter to poke the Twats.
During Wednesday's proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee, the lawyer that was representing the Republicans read out a brief excerpt from a new book:
quote
"Is what Hunter Biden did wrong? Absolutely. Hunter Biden had no real experience in the energy sector, which made him wholly unqualified to sit on the board of Burisma. The only logical reason the company could have had for appointing him was his ties to Vice President Biden.
"This kind of nepotism isn't only wrong; it is a potential danger to our country, since it makes it easier for foreign powers to buy influence [...] No politician, from either party, should allow a foreign power to conduct this kind of influence-peddling with their family members."
The book title is "Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump."
That's where the Republican's lawyer stopped his reading. The book's author, Neal Katyal, was quick to react by providing the paragraph that comes next:
quote
"The thing is: it's not illegal. That's why Hunter Biden didn't hide his involvement with Burisma. And it's why President Trump's children - Ivanka, Don Jr., and Eric - continue to conduct business around the world with impunity. As does President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who works in the White House."
This is the banner that appears above that report in Newsweek:
quote
AUTHOR OF TRUMP IMPEACHMENT BOOK SHAMES GOP LAWYER WHO USED SELECTIVE BIDEN QUOTE: 'IT'S SO PATHETIC'
I don't know about the ALL CAPS, or the wording of the banner (as I call it.) That's how it appears in Newsweek. My first inclination (had I been the page editor) would likely have been to "tone it down" or use a more distant kind of perspective. Like this:
quote
Author of "Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump" weighs in on how his book was used during the impeachment hearings.
"The blindfold is meant for Lady Justice--but not for us." ~ rinselberg
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-06-2019).]
Even though three 'witnesses' were chosen by the Democrats and one by the Republicans, the reason they were there was to (ostensibly) represent the Constitution. This is important to note, as impeachment should be for "high crimes and misdemeanors" - NOT POLITICAL DIFFERENCES. Only one of the four represented the Constitution with the words that were spoken.
Perhaps the 'witness' only read the exerpt from the book, because the Presidents family members have no bearing on this issue, whereas the Biden family name has ties to the issue, going back several years before the President entered politics.
Originally posted by olejoedad: Even though three 'witnesses' were chosen by the Democrats and one by the Republicans, the reason they were there was to (ostensibly) represent the Constitution. This is important to note, as impeachment should be for "high crimes and misdemeanors" - NOT POLITICAL DIFFERENCES. Only one of the four represented the Constitution with the words that were spoken.
Perhaps the 'witness' only read the exerpt from the book, because the Presidents family members have no bearing on this issue, whereas the Biden family name has ties to the issue, going back several years before the President entered politics.
I do think that the President's family members are tied to what's at stake, as it raises a question in my mind:
quote
Does it seem credible that President Trump has an honest concern about the Biden family's connections with Ukraine, when he has created a very similar appearance himself, that there could be Influence Peddling going on, even at this very moment, involving Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump and their connections with foreign governments and overseas business venues?
But here's a new report that I think is even more intriguing:
"Phone Logs in Impeachment Report renew concern about security of Trump communications" Paul Sonne, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller; for the Washington Post; December 6, 2019. PAGE LINK
Here's how the report opens:
quote
President Trump has routinely communicated with his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and other individuals speaking on cellphones vulnerable to monitoring by Russian and other foreign intelligence services, current and former U.S. officials said.
Phone records released this week by the House Intelligence Committee revealed extensive communications between Giuliani, unidentified people at the White House and others involved in the campaign to pressure Ukraine, with no indication that those calls were encrypted or otherwise shielded from foreign surveillance.
The revelations raise the possibility that Moscow was able to learn about aspects of Trump’s attempt to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival months before that effort was exposed by a whistleblower report and the impeachment inquiry, officials said.
I have got this idea for a fictional "spy thriller", about a Russian mole who manages to get himself elected as the President of the United States and uses open, unencrypted cellphone communications with his confederates--a former mayor of New York City, in one chapter--as a Hiding In Plain Sight method that enables Russian military intelligence and ultimately Vladimir Putin to keep an uninterrupted watch over his progress.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-06-2019).]
"Philip Wegmann of RealClearPolitics reported that Schiff and his impeachment investigators mistook a generic number generated by the White House switchboard to mask outgoing calls for an actual OMB telephone number:"
That does not debunk or contradict the new report in the Washington Post about the President's cellphone habits.
The report that is referenced in my previous message.
quote
Trump is not identified by name in the House phone records, but investigators said they suspect he may be a person with a blocked number listed as “-1” in the files. And administration officials said separately that Trump has communicated regularly with Giuliani on unsecured lines.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-06-2019).]
Trump is not identified by name in the House phone records, .......
Do you even READ mentally ill the sh*t you post Ronald or does it just sort of "free flow" out of your diseased head onto the keyboard?
It has to be horribly difficult for you to manage day to day in a bizarre world where your mentally ill fantasies override reality in every aspect of your life.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-06-2019).]
.
Congress is so wrapped up in this, nothing is getting done. There are Bi-Partisan bills waiting to be voted on just sitting on some shelf that both sides are for and yet, there they sit. At least President Trump is still marching forward for all of our benefit. 
Remember, I'm one of those folks that don't like him much...….
I've been watching.
