| Author | Message | ||
     Whisperstealth |
The "Mr" is flat out intentional. Get the public away from thinking of him as the President of The United States of America. | ||
| Sifo |
As a "professional", it's complete disrespect. Did they just assume a gender? | ||
| Steveford |
The rats are squeaking up. It looks like a conversation with Australia's PM is on that server with The Donald wanting dirt on the origins of the Mueller investigation. Drunken George Papadopoulos and all of that. Guess the implications of the Watergate break in went right over his head. Too busy avoiding STDs, no doubt. His own personal Viet Nam. | ||
| Sifo |
Not sure what the Australia PM would know about the origins of the Mueller investigation, but what's the issue with finding out about it? Other than exposing crimes of deep state actors of course. | ||
| Hootowl |
The president is tasked with upholding the laws of the united states. Rooting out corruption is in his wheelhouse. Inquiring about illegal activity is perfectly legal. Paying for false information, laundering it via leaks to the media, and lying to a judge about it are not. You sure have a warped view of the world. | ||
| Ratbuell |
What President in our nation's history was unable to speak in private to other world leaders? The Left may not "like" it...but shit happens in private. Deals are made under the proverbial bare light bulb, with whisky and cigars. It's how things happen. | ||
| Hootowl |
Different things happen with cigars when there’s a democrat in the oval office. Sorry, brother, but you teed that one up.  | ||
| Pwnzor |
Kill your television | ||
| Sifo |
Kill your television
The problem is that the complaint was hearsay, and as soon as it was compared to the transcript of the phone call (something that was done long before the transcript was made public, to be sure), it was clear that the transcript simply didn't support the allegations made in the complaint. That should have been the end of it right there. Then you get into the issues of people with clearance to view these transcripts are providing information about these transcripts to people who don't have clearance for that information. Under those circumstances it certainly seems natural that security would be tightened on that information, at least until you address the problem of the leakers. That's exactly what was done when transcripts were moved to a more secure server. Somehow they try to equate this to something worse than what Hillary had done with her private server, which was clearly compromised. It's not that I disagree with the rest of that piece. It never should have gone this far. It never should have been brought out in public. There is an effort to harm, not just this President, but out nation, by making it clear to other world leaders that what is said in private conversation with US officials, will not stay private. This is an incredibly dangerous road to be traveling. | ||
| Ratbuell |
That should have been the end of it right there Except the Dems changed the rules,and such things no longer require firsthand knowledge. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/six_w ays_to_sunday_intelligence_chiefs_not_only_altered _rules_about_firsthand_knowledge_to_file_whistlebl ower_report.html | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/why_i rans_rouhani_refuses_to_meet_with_president_trump. html The Iranian Mullahs don't want a deal. They want concessions by extortion. Trump makes deals. So they refuse to meet, since that would screw them multiple ways. If they moved on their position, which is support terrorism inside Iran against it's people, and outside against The West & every one who isn't "twelver Shia". Then they would be deposed. If they don't, from Trump, they'd get worse than nothing. He's not going to back off sanctions and will increase aid to their enemies, unless they change. The Mullah's enemies are pretty much the rest of the planet except the Asad regime and Russia, both who they'll turn on once they've beaten everyone else. In this game of thrones, it's last man standing, and betrayal is the historical end game for Islam. See the Caliphate, where murdering your brother was the most common way to ( determine succession of leadership ) get Daddy's old job. Frequently after you or your brother murdered Dad to make a job opening at the top. Seriously. I'm not saying the French Aristocracy was more than an order of magnitude less likely to use that method to determine who was King, and the current British Royal family didn't get where it is without Regicide & Fratricide, but it wasn't the business as usual practice. | ||
| Sifo |
Well, some seem to think it could theoretically happen... Could President Trump be impeached and convicted – but also reelected? | ||
| Pwnzor |
What else ya got? | ||
| Pwnzor |
Bwahaaahahaahahaaa!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-lau nched-july-probe-military-hardware-sales-adam-schi ff-fundraiser | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/02/mcal eenan-defies-trump-border-policy-went-too-far-ille gal-alien-term-has-racial-overtones/ If you can't use the proper legal language, don't support the policies of your boss, and refuse to admit your political bias, you should resign in protest, not break the law, refuse to do your job, criminally leak notice of a raid to criminals, and undermine your underlings. Or prison. I'm good with prison. | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/02/trumps-worldwid e-dragnet-to-catch-the-hoaxers/ I want to see politicians sent to prison. I don't care which Party, I don't care how powerful they are, I don't care if their name is Schiff or Trump. All I care about is the charges be true. Objective factual Truth. I don't want politicians to go to prison enough to overthrow the elected government and rule like Robespierre during the French Revolution. Yet. Ok maybe to send Schiff to prison.  | ||
| Aesquire |
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/464140-ign ore-the-hype-this-is-not-an-impeachment-inquiry If I was Sec State Pompeo, I'd show up without a scrap of paper. | ||
| Oldog |
I got this thru my elected rep to dc. a Letter from the Republicans (McCarthy) The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives H-232, The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515 Speaker Pelosi: I am writing to request you suspend all efforts surrounding your “impeachment inquiry” until transparent and equitable rules and procedures are established to govern the inquiry, as is customary. As you know, there have been only three prior instances in our nation’s history when the full House has moved to formally investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of a sitting President. I should hope that if such an extraordinary step were to be contemplated a fourth time it would be conducted with an eye towards fairness, objectivity, and impartiality. Unfortunately, you have given no clear indication as to how your impeachment inquiry will proceed—including whether key historical precedents or basic standards of due process will be observed. In addition, the swiftness and recklessness with which you have proceeded has already resulted in committee chairs attempting to limit minority participation in scheduled interviews, calling into question the integrity of such an inquiry. Below are several questions to which I request a public response before the House of Representatives moves forward: Do you intend to hold a vote of the full House authorizing your impeachment inquiry? Do you intend to involve the full House in each critical step of this inquiry, including defining its scope and establishing its rules and procedures? Do you intend to grant co-equal subpoena power to both the Chair and Ranking Member at the committee level? Do you intend to require that all subpoenas be subject to a vote of the full committee at the request of either the Chair or Ranking Member? Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to attend all hearings and depositions? Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to present evidence? Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to object to the admittance of evidence? Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to cross-examine witnesses? Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to recommend a witness list? Do you intend to refer all findings on impeachment to Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee, as prescribed by Rule X of the Rules of the House, or is Chairman Schiff in charge of leading this inquiry, as has been reported in the press? By answering “no” to any of the above, you would be acting in direct contradiction to all modern impeachment inquiries of a sitting president. By answering “no” to any of the above, you would be denying the President the bare minimum rights granted to his predecessors. By answering “no” to any of the above, you would create a process completely devoid of any merit or legitimacy. At a news conference yesterday you insisted, “we have to be fair to the President.” If those words are taken to be sincere, the American people deserve assurance that basic standards of due process will be present. Given the enormity of the question at hand – the removal of a duly-elected sitting President – anything less than a thorough, transparent, and fair process would represent a supreme insult to our Constitution and the millions of Americans who rely on their voices being heard through our democratic system of government. I look forward to your prompt response on this critical matter. Sincerely, Kevin McCarthy Republican Leader | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/a _way_for_trump_to_drain_the_swamp.html | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment -inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-st unt/ For a couple of years I've been joking that Donald is draining the swamp by hiring the alligators and letting them ruin themselves as part of his administration. Can't get to them in Congress or in the bowels of Injustice Department, so invite them to the White House and watch them melt down, and resign in disgrace & fury. You think anybody who served Trump is going to get back into power in D.C.? Now, it's a joke, not my real analysis of political policy. But it's hard to tell. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/m r_trump_goes_to_washington.html As a follow up to my joke above, I could just see Donald in a Oval Office meeting, "I want to fire ( fill in the blank ). I can't fire him? Why? Because he doesn't work for me, he works for Congress/Justice/Labor/etc.? How about if he works for me? Can I fire him then? Really? Send him an invitation to work for me. They're Toast." It'd be a great SNL skit. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/tru mp-the-constitution-made-me-do-it.php The entire "Ukraine Scandal" rests on one side of an unargued question. Is it a campaign contribution to investigate a crime, just because the alleged criminal is running for office? ( not that I have any doubt the Bidens are guilty, but fair is fair ) It's the President's job to uphold the law. He does have discretion on involving himself personally, for what should be obvious reasons. Obama's refusal to enforce laws he disagreed with us a different story. As is his intrusion into the Justice department to block an ongoing investigation into Hamas's drug trafficking operation to please Iran. That's actual Obstruction & possibly Treason. But Trump wanting to investigate the crimes of American politicians is, actually, doing his job, & honoring his oath. ( Biden is NOT the only target here, although the press & Donald's enemies don't want you to know that ) At what point is investigating crime a smear job? I'd say that it is proper to ask for an investigation, but not to announce it until it's completed, as that would potentially be libel. Trump's unstoppable mouth is his worst enemy here. But commenting on news reports of another's alleged corruption is fine, as far as I know. Commenting on a criminal investigation is not. Opinions? | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/the_i mpeachment_mere_anarchy_as_politics.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/pelos i_defends_schiffs_version_of_trumpzelensky_phone_c all_he_did_not_make_it_up.html UH, Nancy, he SAID HE MADE IT UP! Maybe she doesn't know what "parody" means? | ||
| Ratbuell |
So, I was on the rowing machine after work. Music blaring for motivation, and the TV on Fox News...also for (anger) motivation. The ticker on the bottom of the screen was about "bipartisan attacks against Trump for Syrian pullout" or some such verbiage. And, I had a thought. Nobody has mentioned this, but it occurred to me. Yes, it's strategic to bring our troops home and let the locals fight for themselves. Yes, it's a promise he made on the campaign trail to bring our troops home. But. It was posted elsewhere, I think in the Dem terrorist thread, that the Dems have been dealt their last card, which is outright violence against the GOP, and against the President. Could he be bringing our troops home so he has boots on the ground here in the USA, in case the SHTF? The man DOES thrive on 3D chess, after all.... | ||
| Hootowl |
Thank you, President Trump, for reducing regulations. Sounds like we have more work to do. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/06/the-madness-of- progressive-projection/ | ||
| Sifo |
Long video, but worth your time IMO... |
