Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 13, 2019

There were some big surprises during the U.S. diplomats' more than five hours before the House Intelligence Committee.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

After the Hearing we learned that Trump claimed not to have watched any of it... this from a guy who would watch a Whataburger cooking if it were on TV.

What we learned from the testimony is that US diplomats know an illegal quid pro quo demand when they hear it.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-11-13 10:19 PM | Reply

We learned "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"

Go with that!

LMAO

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 10:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2 What will you say when Vindman testifies next week?

You'll never be convinced.

#3 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--There were some big surprises

The drag queen was the biggest.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 10:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 |

Rudy was there?

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2019-11-13 10:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You'll never be convinced.

#3 | POSTED BY JOE

Nope. Mackris defines Trump cultist.

Sadly I think he actually believes it.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-13 10:49 PM | Reply

What will you say when Vindman testifies next week?

LOL whats there to say?

The question is what will Vindman say?

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 11:14 PM | Reply

#6 | POSTED BY JPW

Your anger tantrums are legendary. Calling someone a "cultist" is so ridiculous coming from you.

go to sleep, sleep it off .... you still haven't recovered from Nov 2016.

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 takeaway -- the Dems have less than nothing.

They used to have nothing before the Steele/Mueller debacle.

Now they have *less* than nothing.

#9 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-11-13 11:25 PM | Reply

"#1 takeaway -- the Dems have less than nothing. "

What a laugh riot. If this were Obama, your head would be exploding.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:29 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

If this were Obama, your head would be exploding.

Not it wouldn't ... prove it ...

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 11:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Not it wouldn't ... prove it ..."

Well, you're a well-known liar, so if you claim it wouldn't, it would.

Besides, all the regulars here know if it were Dems doing what Trump did, NONE of you would think it was okay. If you want to keep lying about it, go ahead; just don't think you're fooling anyone.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We need to change the Rule of Law so that you don't have the the right to face your accuser?

#13 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-11-13 11:58 PM | Reply

Many of the biggest breaks in an investigation come from hearsay evidence. Vindman was on the call, and we know he'll testify to Drumpf's extortion later this week. Thanks to Taylor's testimony we know his employee David Holmes will be a first party witness to a call between Sonland and Combover Quisling on UNSECURED CELL PHONES in which Drumph is only interested in the sham investigations of Biden and 2016.

#14 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-11-14 12:12 AM | Reply

#13

No need to change a Rule of Law that is crystal clear, "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to ..." (emphasis added).

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-14 12:12 AM | Reply

#13

No need to change a Rule of Law that is crystal clear, "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to ..." (emphasis added).

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-14 12:12 AM | Reply

#15 and #16

Good on you, Et Al. Impeachment is a political remedy. Due process and other similar concepts only apply to the extent the public and the Senate deem they need apply for the purpose of removal.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 12:17 AM | Reply

Todays testimony...
twitter.com

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 12:18 AM | Reply

#13 - The rule of law does not apply dummy, THIS IS NOT A COURTROOM. Again, this is like a Grand Jury, except that my understanding is that Combover Quisling could have a lawyer present to ask questions. What will happen in the Senate would be more like a court of law IF McConnell and Graham let that happen. However, at this point, the whistleblower's testimony is unnecessary because there are witnesses with more direct knowledge who have come forward.

#19 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-11-14 12:19 AM | Reply

Seems to me that if Congress investigates the stories and writes up articles of impeachment.. that would make the House the accuser and the Senate trial a chance to face your accuser?

#20 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-11-14 12:22 AM | Reply

George Kent: "To summarize, we thought the [CEO of Burisma] had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had take an bribe to shut the case."
GOP counsel: "Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?"
twitter.com

Ouch ... more to learn I suppose.

#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 12:56 AM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY 503JC69

Not exactly ... its a metaphor, but not accurate.

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 12:57 AM | Reply

2 What will you say when Vindman testifies next week?
You'll never be convinced.
#3 | POSTED BY JOE

Why don't they just invite Mueller back?

That won't convince you but it would certainly be better than this circus.

#23 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 01:00 AM | Reply

The rule of law does not apply ...

Excuse me? The rule of law always applies. The question of what rule is to be applied by whom in which proceeding at what stage and why must always be considered. The cited rule simply does not apply in this proceeding.

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-14 03:22 AM | Reply

Et al, give me some time, but yeah my accuser doesn't have to take the stand, yeah.

But his identity should still come out at least in disclosure. But if it goes to trial and defense cant know who your defending against???

This is a secret accuser you cant cross-examine.

#25 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-11-14 05:22 AM | Reply

Gunslinger said it. He's absolutely right and people like Et Al just show their dishonestly with their posts. In a Grand Jury the rules are different, the accused does not get to present a defense, that is done in the trial. It shows how dishonest you are that you pretend otherwise when, we both know, you know better. Why do you want to be a liar on an insignificant site like this, get a job on Fox News and get paid for lying. Oh, but then you'd have to be an actual lawyer, not a pretender. And I say that with this perspective, two successful lawyers are among my brothers and sisters, neither one of them would waste five minutes of billable time posting here, they're way too busy making lots of money. If you're posting here you're either not really a lawyer or if you are you aren't very successful at it.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 06:58 AM | Reply

"Excuse me? The rule of law always applies. "

Doesn't understand the Grand Jury process or procedures. Dumb ass pretender.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 07:00 AM | Reply

#1 takeaway -- the Dems have less than nothing.

They used to have nothing before the Steele/Mueller debacle.

Now they have *less* than nothing.

#9 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-11

I think you may have been listening to The Prarie Home Companion

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-14 08:13 AM | Reply

Doesn't understand the Grand Jury process or procedures. Dumb ass pretender.

#27 | POSTED BY DANNI

Settle down Danni... he is agreeing with you.

As he said... the rule of law does always apply. But, the "rules" are different based upon the circumstances (i.e. the rules for the Grand Jury are different than the rules when you are at trial).

#29 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 08:54 AM | Reply

-Settle down Danni... he is agreeing with you.

Good luck with that. She is so insane that she's actually trying to pretend she knows more about the law than a lawyer.

That's how far gone she is.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 09:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We need to change the Rule of Law so that you don't have the the right to face your accuser?

#13 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

So, please elaborate on this "right".

I will give you a hypothetical. Say the police get an anonymous tip (for simplicity, we will call the "tipster" a "whistleblower") that a specific person at a specific address killed people and had like five bodies hidden in his attic. The police use that tip to get a warrant from a judge and go search the guy's property, and discover three bodies buried in the back yard. And, for simplicity, we will assume that these bodies have DNA evidence all over them, so it is obvious they were killed by the owner of the house. But, the police can never discover who the "whistleblower" is. What happens?

Without knowing who the "whistleblower" is, he cannot "face [his] accuser". When the police realize that they will not be able to discover who the "whistleblower" is, do they release the guy, give him his bodies back, and apologize for the inconvenience? Is that how you think our justice system works?

If you DON'T think this guy would get off scot-free due to his "accuser" being a "whistleblower", please explain how this is different than the situation Trump is in (such that you believe Trump should get off due to being unable to "face [his] accuser").

#31 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 09:07 AM | Reply

--She is so insane that she's actually trying to pretend she knows more about the law than a lawyer.

Well she has a couple of lawyers in the family, so therefore has an honorary JD.

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-14 09:20 AM | Reply

"We need to change the Rule of Law so that you don't have the the right to face your accuser?"

We did that before we were even a country. It's called a Grand Jury. The accused has no right of cross examination in a Grand Jury because no one can be found guilty by a Grand Jury, they only face indictment. Republicans today don't seem capable of understanding the difference between a Grand Jury and a trial with a jury. I suspect they actually do understand but they are counting on the ignorance of the majority of Trump supporters to not know the difference who will be loud and obnoxious screaming for "fairness" in a venue where "fairness" is not part of the process.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 09:22 AM | Reply

Impeachment isn't a legal process. It's a political process.

Democrats control the House therefore they can run the process however they wish.

If the process they put together sucks (I'm not prepared to make that claim at this time) then they won't win over the public or the Senate and this will be a great big waste of time that may cause blow-back. They are taking a big political risk with this. If they fail and the public perceives their impeachment gambit as political retribution in lieu of a serious process, they will likely pay an electoral price, possibly a hefty one.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 09:29 AM | Reply

"--She is so insane that she's actually trying to pretend she knows more about the law than a lawyer."

How much time would you waste here if your time was worth $250.00+ per hour? If mine were you would never see me here. I know for a fact that I've never seen my sister nor my brother here. They're too busy earning big bucks or traveling around with world with the money they earn. This place is for people with time on their hands, face it, that's just the truth.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 09:29 AM | Reply

"If the process they put together sucks (I'm not prepared to make that claim at this time) then they won't win over the public or the Senate and this will be a great big waste of time that may cause blow-back. They are taking a big political risk with this. If they fail and the public perceives their impeachment gambit as political retribution in lieu of a serious process, they will likely pay an electoral price, possibly a hefty one."

Worked out that way for Bill Clinton but Trump isn't as likable as Bill Clinton and his crime is more relevant to governing than was Clinton's. And, what Trump did was actually a serious crime, depriving a nation of the tools to defend themselves unless they will start an investigation of your political rival is pretty despicable and it's pretty obvious to both Democrats and Republicans that he did do that.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 09:32 AM | Reply

"Well she has a couple of lawyers in the family, so therefore has an honorary JD."

You'd laugh to know how many people come to me for questions about infectious diseases.

#37 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-14 09:36 AM | Reply

Calling someone a "cultist" is so ridiculous coming from you.

Nice way to dodge. You're a cultist. You believe anything from a conman no matter how absurd.

go to sleep, sleep it off .... you still haven't recovered from Nov 2016.

#8 | POSTED BY cultistmackris

LOL I was anything but a Hillary fan.

What's funny is you prove your cultist ways by regurgitating that standard Hannity talking point.

You also show the trademark of the true cultist-blind, unaware repetition of irrelevant "points" that are made to convince you, not others you're interacting with.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-14 09:39 AM | Reply

Danni... you are still confusing things. There is no "right to face your accuser". That is made up.

What you are thinking of is the "confrontation clause" of the sixth amendment...

"in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

This basically gives you the right to cross-examine any witnesses. If the "accuser" is not used as evidence at trial (as a witness), then you have no right to "confront" them.

Which is why the whistleblower claims are all being independently verified... so that it is not necessary for the whistleblower to be a "witness" to build the case, so there is no impetus to allow Trump to "confront" them.

That is why I presented my hypothetical in #31, because that is OBVIOUSLY not how things work, even in a criminal trial. It is just a distraction to argue whether Trump has the "right to face [his] accuser" in the person of the whistleblower or someone else, or whether this proceeding is equivalent to a trial or a grand jury or something else, because he does not have that "right" in ANY situation (to which the whistleblower's situation is equivalent).

#39 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 09:42 AM | Reply

That won't convince you but it would certainly be better than this circus.

#23 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Your incessant lying and regurgitation of the "Mueller showed nothing" garbage is why we know that you'll never be convinced.

And why you'll go a step further and distort the facts to make Trump a victim.

Don't bother denying it, cultist. It's the norm for cultists to be unaware of how deep they are in the nonsense.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-14 09:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#37 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

"Hey Doc Hagbard, I have this weird skin growth on my forearm. Take a look. Any idea what it is?"

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-14 09:45 AM | Reply

Your incessant lying and regurgitation of the "Mueller showed nothing"

Then where is the there there ... the only liar is you.

#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 09:55 AM | Reply

LOL whats there to say?

You criticized yesterday's witnesses for having secondhand information. Vindman was on the call and has firsthand information. What will your spin be at that time?

The question is what will Vindman say?

There's already a transcript of his existing deposition so there's no question as to what he's going to say.

You really are stupid aren't you?

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 09:56 AM | Reply

"Hey Doc Hagbard, I have this weird skin growth on my forearm. Take a look. Any idea what it is?"

I wish the questions were that impersonal.

But it's probably a lypoma.

#44 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-14 09:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Then where is the there there"

Over 100 lies about contacts with Russia, and a half-dozen attempts to obstruct justice.

More to the point, why is it okay Team Trump was lying to you about contacts with Russia, and expecting you to swallow those lies whole?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 09:57 AM | Reply

Don't bother denying it, cultist.

I haven't been believing, hoping praying to falsehoods that would by you and the Democrats. You are the cultist with your fantasies.

Now we have to wait for Vindman to speak, he'll tell us the "truth" ....

You calling people cultist is projection of biblical proportions.

#46 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Over 100 lies about contacts with Russia, and a half-dozen attempts to obstruct justice.

So? So what ... I mean again is there any THERE there, did anything come of it?

Absolutely NOTHING. Send up Mueller to talk some.

#47 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 09:59 AM | Reply

"You are the cultist "

Flag: DARVO

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 09:59 AM | Reply

Over 100 lies about contacts with Russia

"So? So what"

So you're being treated like a battered spouse. Why do you accept that? Why do you accept lies from a President who believes you don't deserve the truth?

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We did learn PaP was framed ...
www.washingtontimes.com

And we will learn the repercussions of that framing.

#50 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 10:00 AM | Reply

""in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.""

A Grand Jury hearing determining if the state has enough evidence to bring an indictnment is not a prosecution, that is the trial. Trump will have his trial in the Senate as the Constitution says. Whether his "jury" will be willing to convict based on the efidence is very doubtful because they are not an impartial "jury."

#51 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 10:01 AM | Reply

"We did learn PaP was framed ..."

You had no right to discover my wrongs!

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:01 AM | Reply

So you're being treated like a battered spouse.

Yeah and you've under a rock for 3yrs hoping something if anything will stick and nothing has.

Why do you accept that?

This what you should be asking yourself

Why do you accept lies from a President who believes you don't deserve the truth?

We talking about Obama and Obamacare? Ala Gruber?

#53 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 10:03 AM | Reply

You had no right to discover my wrongs!

Again what wrongs, he just forwarded planted information, which sprung a false FISA application ... keeps swinging DNCDanny ....

#54 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 10:04 AM | Reply

"Well she has a couple of lawyers in the family, so therefore has an honorary JD."

Unlike others here, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, I can't provide legal advice but I can attest to my seeing how they use their time and they don't waste it here. My time, not being so valuable, is sometimes wasted here, but that isn't costing me hundreds or even thousands of dollars. That is what real lawyers would say about us posting for hours.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 10:04 AM | Reply

"Yeah and you've under a rock for 3yrs hoping something if anything will stick and nothing has. "

That doesn't answer my question. Why don't YOU deserve the truth?

"We talking about Obama and Obamacare? "

No, but deflection noted. We're talking about Trump, his penchant for jizzing out lies, and your propensity to swallow. Again, why don't you (and other Americans) deserve the truth?

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:06 AM | Reply

"Again what wrongs"

If they're laid out, and you keep asking, your head is in the sand.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:07 AM | Reply

Danni, unless someone's gunning for a bonus their salary is the same regardless of how many hours they bill. There are also plenty of in-house, corporate and government lawyers who don't bill hours in the first place. Think of it as a desk job; that's what a lot of lawyering is despite what you see on TV.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 10:08 AM | Reply

"I haven't been believing, hoping praying to falsehoods that would by you and the Democrats. You are the cultist with your fantasies."

The crime he is accused by Democrats is completely admitted in the non-transcript that he keeps referring to as the "transcript" which it is not.
This whole thing has been admitted by Trump and members of his administration, there isn't any real doubt about what he did, it is only a matter of how well the Republican defenders can confuse the public. Folks like Andrea encourage and assist in the attempts to confuse because they can't refute the things they have already admitted did occur.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 10:08 AM | Reply

"I haven't been believing, hoping praying to falsehood..."

You've been too busy swallowing them.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:10 AM | Reply

--That is what real lawyers would say about us posting for hours.

Oh please. Someone could post a dozen times during their lunch hour, and Et Al probably doesn't post more than a dozen times in a week.

#61 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-14 10:13 AM | Reply

This IMPEACHMENT is a farce. It's an abuse of the power of the House of Reps. The President is being victimized and harassed by the Democrats in the HoR. They know they cannot defeat Pres Trump in the elections so they plan to remove him by a fake Impeachment process. It won't work. And Pres Trump will win with a landslide victory in 2020.

#62 | Posted by SJHamilton at 2019-11-14 10:14 AM | Reply

"It's an abuse of the power of the House of Reps."

Is this where Constitution-loving Republicans show their hate for the Constitution?

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:16 AM | Reply

And you believe the 'prosecutors' aka the Democrats in the HoR ARE impartial and fair? Not did NO GOP vote for the Impeachment inquiry, 2 -- TWO -- Dems voted against it?

#64 | Posted by SJHamilton at 2019-11-14 10:19 AM | Reply

I just read that Kent expressed concerns over Hunter Biden's appointment to Burisma would constitutue a conflict of interest and that he brought his concern to the Obama administration and was basically shooed away. I read that the also stated that he felt Burisma was corrupt and should be investigated.

That being the case wouldn't that bring a degree of legitimate justification for Trump to seek a Ukrainian investigation into Burisma?

If we are truly interested in rooting out corruption...

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 10:20 AM | Reply

My wife watched it. I have a job and frankly don't trust any media outlet to provide with anything other than spin and opinion.

In the end, this is simple theater designed to have Trump tried in the court of public opinion, because I just do not foresee a case where 67 senators vote together against him.

#66 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-14 10:21 AM | Reply

Just the opposite. The constitution says that IF proof exists and conviction occurs for high crimes and misdemeanors or bribery, then the elected official, in this case the President, can be IMPEACHED. Here the Dems are abusing their power performing an Impeachment 'in search of a crime'. Shame on them!!

#67 | Posted by SJHamilton at 2019-11-14 10:22 AM | Reply

Yes it does and the Dems and the media completely deny this even happened!!

#68 | Posted by SJHamilton at 2019-11-14 10:24 AM | Reply

"wouldn't that bring a degree of legitimate justification for Trump to seek a Ukrainian investigation into Burisma?"

Yeah, maybe. I mean, if you're really, really digging to find SOMETHING. But Trump never mentioned "corruption" on the call, yet he brought up Biden three times.

In addition, if an investigation is warranted, the best investigators in the world are right down the street. Trump didn't go through any normal channels, in fact, he tried doing an end-run around them.

Of course, more to the point: what does it mean to you that the only two times Trump has EVER been concerned with anything but him personally, was when it helps him personally?

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:26 AM | Reply

"The constitution says that IF proof exists and conviction occurs for high crimes and misdemeanors or bribery, then the elected official, in this case the President, can be IMPEACHED. "

Two big errors there:
1. Impeachment is from the House, and Impeachment is NOT conviction.
2. If the trial gets to the Senate, Trump has already been impeached.

IOW, impeachment comes from the House, and the Senate decides if the impeachment rises to removal.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:29 AM | Reply

If we are truly interested in rooting out corruption...
#65 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It isnt that Trump tried to root out corruption, it is the WAY he went about it. He used back door tactics and Rudy Giuliani to subvert the process and get what he hoped would be dirt on Joe. It was shady and for you to try to trivialize this and normalize the shady crap that went on really irritates me. I thought you were better than that but you are just a hack. Disappointing to say the least.

#71 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 10:29 AM | Reply

It isnt that Trump tried to root out corruption, it is the WAY he went about it. - Idaho

I agree that's a big problem.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 10:31 AM | Reply

"Dems are abusing their power performing an Impeachment 'in search of a crime'"

So...is it okay for a President to withhold ~$400 million of Congressionally-approved aid until getting political dirt on his rival?

Pretend it's President Liz Warren, and she's demanding dirt on Nikki Haley. No prob?

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It isnt that Trump tried to root out corruption..."

Um...we all know that's simply the lie-of-the-day, right? It would take a room temperature IQ to believe Trump has ANY interest in corruption, other than avoiding exposing his.

Seriously....stop even suggesting it.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

I agree that's a big problem.

#72 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You agree while you still try to find a way to say that this isnt so bad. If it was Obama that had abused his office this way and it was made public I would have been outraged and supported the impeachment process the same as I am today. We need to find the truth and ensure that no POTUS abuses the power of their office this way again. If we allow this to become precedent then what will the next thing be we sweep under the rug? If Trump wins with the executive power arguments we will effectively have no oversight of the President no matter which party is in office. Can you say that doesn't bother you?

#75 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 10:36 AM | Reply

-How much time would you waste here if your time was worth $250.00+ per hour?

Mine's worth more...and yet here I am.

#76 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 10:36 AM | Reply

"Here the Dems are abusing their power performing an Impeachment 'in search of a crime'. Shame on them!!"

Just more partisan nonsense. WE all know exactly what the President did. He held up aid which was approved by Congress which was desperately need to repel Russian invaders in Ukraine who are killing Ukrainians on a daily basis. He, very likely, could be accused of causing the deaths of Ukrainians during the time he held up that aid which included weapons to repel tanks. My daughter-in-law owns a condo in Ukrain where her son lives, it is about 35 miles from where the Russians are killing people. Y'all defending the actions of Trump on this matter don't know what the f**k are talking about. Real people's live were put at increased risk because he wanted a politically motivated investigation of Biden who he, at the time, believed would probably be his opponent in 2020. It was shameful and deserving of impeachment.

#77 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 10:37 AM | Reply

"Mine's worth more...and yet here I am."

If mine were I wouldn't be here. But if you say that is so, I'll be honest, I believe you.

#78 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 10:38 AM | Reply

Pretend it's President Liz Warren, and she's demanding dirt on Nikki Haley. No prob?

#73 | Posted by Danforth

You don't understand. Trump has special powers and special rights.

#79 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-14 10:41 AM | Reply

#78 | POSTED BY DANNI

It is his time to use any way that pleases him. Why does it matter how much someone pays him during the hours he works?

Setting that aside, you have no idea if your relatives post on random anonymous blogs or not. Maybe they spend an hour playing candy crush on their expensive smart phones. It literally doesnt matter how much someone makes, they will spend their free time doing whatever they want.

#80 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 10:44 AM | Reply

It would take a room temperature IQ to believe Trump has ANY interest in corruption,

I get that. My point is Clark Kent gave him and his supporters a powerful talking point. I'll say it for the umpteenth time. Impeachment is a political process.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 10:54 AM | Reply

"My point is Clark Kent gave him and his supporters a powerful talking point."

And you'll boost the signal, even though you know it's 110% bullschitt.

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm pointing out a political reality, Danforth.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Also, is it BS because Kent isn't credible?

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 10:59 AM | Reply

I was kinda hoping SOMEONE would respond to my #31 and #39 pointing out that the "right to confront accuser" talking point is complete BS. Especially since conservatives have latched on to that is a talking point. And has been repeated many times by conservatives on this site. Can I assume that the lack of anyone refuting it is an acknowledgement that it is correct?

"Lindsey Graham: Every American has a right to confront their accuser, even the president."

So, is he a liar or just ignorant?

#84 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 11:00 AM | Reply

"Lindsey Graham: Every American has a right to confront their accuser, even the president."

If the House impeaches McConnell will probably provide that opportunity in the Senate trial.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 11:04 AM | Reply

-I'm pointing out a political reality, Danforth.

People really don't like the truth. Rather, they want to be told what they want to hear.

This is why when you point out "reality", you immediately get accused of being a cheerleader for that reality.

It's a defense mechanism....

Today it's "boost the signal"

The other day you were gang-raped for pointing out Mitch McConnell was brilliant. That was interpreted as being a fan of his.

Why? You even qualified your statement to reflect your lack of support for the man...but that didn't matter and that's because when you put the truth in front of someone...their defense mechanisms take over and they attack you for it.

And it's not limited to one side here....it's a huge problem everywhere here.

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Setting that aside, you have no idea if your relatives post on random anonymous blogs or not. "

You have absolutely no idea what I know or don't know. I know that both of the are driven harder than I ever have been. That's a big part of the reason I've never resented their success. Trust me on this, they don't waste time like I do posting on a blog like this. I have often wished I had their drive but, in reality, I just wouldn't want to work so many hours.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 11:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If the House impeaches McConnell will probably provide that opportunity in the Senate trial.

#85 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Again... you don't have a right to confront your "accusers". You have a right to confront witnesses giving evidence against (accusing) you at trial. The whistleblower has given no "evidence". Much of what they said was hearsay, and pretty much everything he (or she) has given has been independently verified.

So, why would the President have a "right" to confront the whistleblower?

#88 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 11:07 AM | Reply

-If mine were I wouldn't be here. But if you say that is so, I'll be honest, I believe you.

I also serve on boards, committees, donate time to my church, etc.

I could work instead.....but there has to be a balance.

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So, is he a liar or just ignorant?"

Most of the people trying to push the talking point about confronting his accuser are lawyers. They are only using that talking point to fool their stupid base who don't know anything about anything.

#90 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 11:10 AM | Reply

#88 I didn't make the claim that he has that right. What I said was that if it goes to a Senate trial McConnell may very well grant that opportunity.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 11:16 AM | Reply

"Lindsey Graham: Every American has a right to confront their accuser, even the president."

If the House impeaches McConnell will probably provide that opportunity in the Senate trial.

#85 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 11:04 AM | FLAG:

This republican talking point is so beyond stupid it hurts. And to see anyone give it any attention is worse.

The WB isn't the 'accuser' anymore than someone that calls "Submit A Tip " Crime Stoppers USA 1-800-222-TIPS" is an accuser. The WB's complaint has been born out, and the evidence is piling up.

Anyone using this, including Graham, should have it shoved right in their face as being disingenuous lying sacks of s**t that they are.

All IMHO, of course.

#92 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 11:18 AM | Reply

"The other day you were gang-raped for pointing out Mitch McConnell was brilliant."

That wasn't me.

#93 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 11:18 AM | Reply

"Don't shoot the messenger."

I'm shooting the re-tweeter.

Why proffer even an suggestion of something you know is 100% crap?

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 11:20 AM | Reply

You calling people cultist is projection of biblical proportions.

#46 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS A

You either lack the capacity to view reality accurately or you are mentally ill.

Yes, I consider partisanship to the point of ignoring clear, documented reality as being mentally ill.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-14 11:56 AM | Reply

#92 It's not a talking point, Yav.

If the House impeaches, McConnell could very well subpoena the WB and compel him to testify in the Senate trial.

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 12:01 PM | Reply

I'm shooting the re-tweeter.
Why proffer even an suggestion of something you know is 100% crap?

#94 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

What I'm saying is that Clark Kent delivered Trump and the GOP a very effective talking point.

Fair or not that is a political reality.

#97 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 12:04 PM | Reply

"McConnell could very well subpoena the WB and compel him to testify "

Because we can skip that whole "retaliation" phrase in the law.

Seriously...is there anyone out there who doesn't believe identification will lead to retaliation? If so, a guy who owns a pizza parlor with no basement is on line #1 for you.

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 12:06 PM | Reply

#87 | POSTED BY DANNI

Even my husband does not know or care that I post here. They could literally be someone you argue with daily and you wouldnt have a clue unless they told you. It is anonymous. You dont even know my name. I may not even live in Idaho.

#99 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 12:07 PM | Reply

If the House impeaches, McConnell could very well subpoena the WB and compel him to testify in the Senate trial.

#96 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Which will be nothing more than an attempt to paint him or her as a Dem Trump hater, as if that mitigates everything we've learned since.

And the idiot cultists will eat it up.

#100 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-14 12:10 PM | Reply

The number one thing I've learned about Trump supporters is, lacking video documentation of Trump literally pulling the trigger, while saying "I Donald J Trump am pulling this trigger", while holding up his drivers license and social security cards, and Ivanka standing to his right saying "yep, that's definitely my dad pulling the trigger." They won't believe he's done anything wrong.

Just ask #NeverTrump Jeff, Trump's biggest supporter who swears he doesn't support Trump.

Or ask #IceCold Eberly, he swears he hates Trump, but regardless of Trump's actions, he's sure everyone is overreacting.

As for #TrumpHumpers Nulli, Mattress, RoLCL, etc... they're all sure Trump is doing great thing for this country. If only the democrats could stop harassing the guy.

#101 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:21 PM | Reply

#96 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Can he? What subpoena power does McConnell have? Multiple Republican Senators have advocated for protecting the identity of the whistleblower. Can McConnell subpoena someone for an impeachment trial without support of the majority of the chamber?

Who actually GETS subpoena power in an impeachment trial?

#102 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 12:23 PM | Reply

-Or ask #IceCold Eberly, he swears he hates Trump, but regardless of Trump's actions, he's sure everyone is overreacting.

name is cool...might even change it to that. The rest of it's crap, though.

I never sworn to hate anybody...and I've not accused everyone of overreacting...just some, including you.

you're welcome.

#103 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 12:35 PM | Reply

#103

I forgot, you're a literalist.

#104 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:39 PM | Reply

"It is anonymous. You dont even know my name. I may not even live in Idaho."
#99 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2019-11-14 12:07 PM

But you're still Hispanic, right?

#105 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-14 12:47 PM | Reply

Hahahahaah! I have never claimed to be Hispanic.

#106 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 12:49 PM | Reply

"I was trying to root out corruption," said the president who hired his unqualified daughter to a top White House position, earns millions from foreign governments at his hotels, refused to put his business holdings in a blind trust, uses taxpayer dollars to spend 25% of his presidency at his own properties, uses sanctions to benefit his own business, etc etc etc

Yeah, he has very firm footing to claim he is anti-corruption

#107 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hahahahaah! I have never claimed to be Hispanic."

But it can be inferred from your user name. :)

#108 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-14 01:33 PM | Reply

Jeff?

#92 It's not a talking point, Yav.
If the House impeaches, McConnell could very well subpoena the WB and compel him to testify in the Senate trial.
#96 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 12:01 PM | FLAG:

3 minutes later...

What I'm saying is that Clark Kent delivered Trump and the GOP a very effective talking point.
Fair or not that is a political reality.
#97 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 12:04 PM | FLAG:

#109 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 02:10 PM | Reply

But it can be inferred from your user name. :)

#108 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Really, how? If someone said they are just some girl in Idaho that infers hispanic? I am really surprised and confused by that. It doesn't matter, but I am not for the record.

#110 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 02:13 PM | Reply

I see Danforth's post - however:

My entire point is that the WB is not the accuser. There is no right to meet him/her. It's a bulls**t talking point and if the GOP does call the WB, then the WB identity would have been compromised, illegally unless the one person that knows their name is under a very specific condition as called out by law. I've quoted the law a couple of times and can pull it up again if needed.

So how can the WB be subpoenaed without violating the law? The only way is by confirmation of the rumors (founded or not) by the WB or the DOJ IG (I believe).

If they play this game it's going to have serious reverberations.

#111 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 02:18 PM | Reply

#109 | POSTED BY YAV

I was speaking to 2 very different things.

#111 Whistleblowers are afforded protection against retaliation (firing, demotion, etc). I don't think that applies to anonymity though.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 02:30 PM | Reply

This is an administrative hearing, Not a trial. It is analogous to a grand jury. Until you are indicted the rights you are demanding do not exist.

#113 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 02:30 PM | Reply

#110 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Everybody knows you're Latino. Just embrace it. It's cool in a Ricky Ricardo kind of way.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 02:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Whistleblowers are afforded protection against retaliation (firing, demotion, etc). I don't think that applies to anonymity though."

Retaliation is forbidden by law. Is your actual position identification will not lead to retaliation?

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 02:42 PM | Reply

#111 Whistleblowers are afforded protection against retaliation (firing, demotion, etc). I don't think that applies to anonymity though.

Re: Disclosure of the Identity of a Whistle Blower:

Illegal to disclose the WB's name. U.S. Code 3033. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. 2014 CIA Addendum.

(A) the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken, and this provision shall qualify as a withholding statute pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the "Freedom of Information Act"); and

(B) no action constituting a reprisal, or threat of reprisal, for making such complaint or disclosing such information to the Inspector General may be taken by any employee in a position to take such actions, unless the complaint was made or the information was disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.

www.law.cornell.edu

fas.org references the above in footnote 10:
10 Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable...


Jeff, this is not to say that the WB's identity, if it becomes known, can't be disseminated. The GOP would be on the hook for explaining how they came to know who it was, who confirmed it, and for what legal reason.

#116 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 02:43 PM | Reply

Retaliation is forbidden by law. Is your actual position identification will not lead to retaliation?

When I said that the reason the GOP wanted to expose the WB was for retaliation and to silence other WB's from coming forward (in any other instance) I was told I was "stalinist" and wanted to implement "gulags" and "reeducation camps" by Null. That's how off-the-rails insane some folks are when common sense sits right there in front of them.

#117 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 02:46 PM | Reply

#114 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That is hilarious. I totally will. I did once (several years back) share pictures with Corky, Goatman, and Eberly if they recall, probably more people but those are the ones I remember what they looked like then. But if they dont, what the heck, full Latina now... ^_^

#118 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 02:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

... people like Et Al just show their dishonestly with their posts. In a Grand Jury the rules are different, the accused does not get to present a defense, that is done in the trial. It shows how dishonest you are that you pretend ...

Day late and a dollar short.

The target of the grand jury investigation has no right to participate in the process. The target has no right to counsel to participate, no right to cross examine witnesses, no right to subpoena documents or witnesses, no right to present evidence. In fact, the target has no right to even know of the existence of the proceeding.
Due process kicks in at trial not before.
drudge.com See also #s 20 and 28 on that thread.

Btw, there's another alternative that accounts for my time. Semi-retired and can do what the f**k and when the f**k ... Perhaps one day you too will have that luxury.

#119 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-14 02:57 PM | Reply

-Is your actual position identification will not lead to retaliation?

No, rather that they aren't the same thing.

and if anonymity should be assured...then the code should contain that language.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 02:58 PM | Reply

"No, rather that they aren't the same thing."

I never asked if they were the same thing. I asked if it's reasonable to assume in this case, identification will most certainly lead to retaliation.

Yes or No?

Also: Why do you believe "retaliation" is forbidden in the law in the first place?

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 03:01 PM | Reply

121

so what if it's yes?

and why is is forbidden? protection

#122 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 03:06 PM | Reply

"so what if it's yes?"

Then you've broken the law.

"why is is forbidden? protection"

Is there an exception for this guy? If not, why is even the possibility of outing him being discussed?

#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 03:08 PM | Reply

-Then you've broken the law.

after retaliation occurs...not before.

#124 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 03:10 PM | Reply

Obviously, I think the WB's identity remain hidden.

"The GOP would be on the hook for explaining how they came to know who it was, who confirmed it, and for what legal reason."

one person would but the rest can say they they saw it on Twitter.

#125 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 03:15 PM | Reply

Would "outing" the whistleblower be illegal? No. Can't see how it could be (unless you learn who it is from the IG).

Would it be irresponsible and violating the spirit of the law? Of course. But that has never stopped conservatives in the past. Don't know why anyone would think it should stop them now.

Conservatives only care about whether or not something is illegal (and whether they will get caught if they do it). Doing the "right" thing, or expecting their elected representatives to do the "right" thing, disappeared from them a long time ago.

#126 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 03:37 PM | Reply

"Lindsey Graham: Every American has a right to confront their accuser, even the president."
So, is he a liar or just ignorant?

#84 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-11-14 11:00 AM | REPLY |

Both. Grand Juries are always secret. The rights he is talking about do not exist in an INVESTIGATION, only in a trial

#127 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 04:02 PM | Reply

Rep. Mike Quigley defended the impeachment testimony of two witnesses by asserting that hearsay evidence is sometimes admitted into court.

Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, said to close his questioning of Kent and Taylor. "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."

Hearsay is better than direct; sure.

#128 | Posted by homerj at 2019-11-14 04:18 PM | Reply

#127 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

Even in a trial you cannot face your accuser if it was an anonymous tip on a hotline. Once evidence is found the source of the tip is unnecessary anyway. At this point the WB does not matter. Let whomever it is remain nameless and not have to face the backlash of Trumps psycho base, which we all know exists.

#129 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 05:03 PM | Reply

What we learned from the testimony is that US diplomats know an illegal quid pro quo demand when they hear it.
#1 | POSTED BY CORKY

I'd love to know what law that is.
Foreign giveaways always come with strings attached.
That begs the question. What was the original quid pro quo?

#130 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-14 06:00 PM | Reply

"Foreign giveaways always come with strings attached."

Those "strings" should be for the country's benefit not the presidents personal political benefit.

#131 | Posted by Scotty at 2019-11-14 06:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Foreign giveaways always come with strings attached."
Those "strings" should be for the country's benefit not the presidents personal political benefit.
#131 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

And there in lies the rub. Of which, so many on the Right are CHOOSING to ignore.

#132 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-14 06:28 PM | Reply

Those "strings" should be for the country's benefit not the presidents personal political benefit.
#131 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

Like the Bidens? Like the MIC who got paid at taxpayer expense?

Military aid is never for this country's benefit. It's a quid pro quo between Congress and the MIC.

#133 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-14 06:47 PM | Reply

Those "strings" should be for the country's benefit not the presidents personal political benefit.
#131 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

Like the Bidens? Like the MIC who got paid at taxpayer expense?

Military aid is never for this country's benefit. It's a quid pro quo between Congress and the MIC.

#133 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-14 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

So your logic is Trump deserves immunity for his personal actions because "Like the Bidens" ?

#134 | Posted by Scotty at 2019-11-14 07:08 PM | Reply

Trump asked for something of value (solicited a bribe) from Ukraine or else he wouldn't (extortion) release funds for Ukraine's needed weapons to defend themselves.

This isn't complicated. His ask was for his political gain, against his primary opponent. The value of having the new President of Ukraine go to the microphone and announce that he was opening investigations into Biden, Clinton, and the Ukraine's actions in the U.S. election of 2016 would have been HUGELY beneficial and worth millions to him, personally. Not to the U.S..

#135 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 07:14 PM | Reply

So your logic is Trump deserves immunity for his personal actions because "Like the Bidens" ?
#134 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

Sorry man. I don't see anything Trump did that can be remotely justified as an impeachable offense. The Biden's corruption is as plain as day.

To follow your logic, Biden should be untouchable because he's running for president.

This isn't complicated. His ask was for his political gain, against his primary opponent.
#135 | POSTED BY YAV

You can say it a million times won't make it any more of an impeachable offense.

The real motive behind the Schiff trial is to make Trump unelectable in 2020.

#136 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-14 07:23 PM | Reply

Do I need to quote the Constitution of the United States, Ray? Fine.

Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution provides that: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors."

The "real" motive as you fantasize and create, doesn't matter. What matters is Trump violated the law, the Oath to the Constitution, and betrayed the United States and an ally where people were being killed by the Russians for his own personal political gain.

I knew when I said it wasn't complicated someone would come along and swear "nuh-un! is too!"

No. It's not. That's why not a single Republican has defended it. All they've said is the robber didn't get the money from the bank, so there couldn't be a crime! Or "hearsay! hearsay!" like they forgot Evidence 101 in law school, and that this isn't a trail.
All are equally inane (or insane) arguments.

All you're trying to do is an equally ridiculous false equivalence,

#137 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 07:43 PM | Reply

dagnabit. I apologize for the missing "/" close tag:

Do I need to quote the Constitution of the United States, Ray? Fine.

Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution provides that: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachmentfor, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors."
The "real" motive as you fantasize and create, doesn't matter. What matters is Trump violated the law, the Oath to the Constitution, and betrayed the United States and an ally where people were being killed by the Russians for his own personal political gain.
I knew when I said it wasn't complicated someone would come along and swear "nuh-un! is too!"

No. It's not. That's why not a single Republican has defended it. All they've said is the robber didn't get the money from the bank, so there couldn't be a crime! Or "hearsay! hearsay!" like they forgot Evidence 101 in law school, and that this isn't a trail.
All are equally inane (or insane) arguments.
All you're trying to do is an equally ridiculous false equivalence,

#138 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 07:46 PM | Reply

What matters is Trump violated the law, the Oath to the Constitution, and betrayed the United States and an ally where people were being killed by the Russians for his own personal political gain.
#137 | POSTED BY YAV

So far, the Dems have wasted three years trying to prove it.

#139 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-14 10:18 PM | Reply

"So far, the Dems have wasted three years trying to prove it."

Two years of Paul Ryan on line #1 for you.

#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:19 PM | Reply

"So far, the Dems have wasted three years trying to prove it."

Yeah, why didn't those stupid Dems know Trump would just confess on live TV!

Ray, do you not think Trump committed a crime, or do you just not care?

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 10:22 PM | Reply

"Really, how? If someone said they are just some girl in Idaho that infers hispanic?"

You're a fair girl.

#142 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-14 10:36 PM | Reply

Ray, do you not think Trump committed a crime, or do you just not care?
#141 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Trump did not commit a crime and I do not care.
If the Dems do manage to drive Trump out of office, it fits what I saw coming decades ago, the moral and economic decline of the US.

#143 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-14 10:46 PM | Reply

"Trump did not commit a crime and I do not care."

Know-Nothing is perfect for you then.

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 11:03 PM | Reply

Know-Nothing is perfect for you then.
#144 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Saying it doesn't make it true.

The Democrats might very well vote to impeach Trump.
For sure, it won't get past the Senate.
And it won't stop the reelection of Trump.

#145 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-14 11:13 PM | Reply

6. dems are in a total panic and trying their best to carry the narrative of an "embattled preznint" into the next year because none of the open-borders, freebies for everyone crypto-commies in their lineup are appealing at all.

#146 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-14 11:45 PM | Reply

6. dems are in a total panic and trying their best to carry the narrative of an "embattled preznint" into the next year because none of the open-borders, freebies for everyone crypto-commies in their lineup are appealing at all.

The Dem candidates are kinda meh.

But don't force a connection where there is none. Trump is scum who deserves to be impeached.

#147 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-15 01:17 AM | Reply

If the Dems do manage to drive Trump out of office, it fits what I saw coming decades ago, the moral and economic decline of the US.

#143 | POSTED BY RAY

The "moral" decline in America is due to people not holding those in power accountable to our standards of morality. Oh look... that is what YOU are doing.

You are like one of those parents who refuse to punish their kid because they don't want to hurt the kid's "self-esteem", and then are SHOCKED when the kid turns out to be a spoiled little hellion.

You said it yourself... "Trump did not commit a crime and I do not care." You sit on your high horse and claim you don't support either party because they both suck. But, that is the (low) standard you set for your politicians. You can claim whatever you want as your "affiliation", your lack of standards for people in power shows you are a conservative.

#148 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-15 08:54 AM | Reply

Headline should read "5 Things Republicans refuse to believe."

(Because if they did they would be forced to vote to impeach the President.)

#149 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-15 11:45 AM | Reply

it fits what I saw coming decades ago, the moral and economic decline of the US.

#143 | POSTED BY RAY

I suggest you stop believing everything you think.

This President will be impeached because Congress really has no choice.

"You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body (Congress) determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

I BET you have no idea who said that.

#150 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-15 11:49 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort