Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 04, 2019

Three of the four legal experts that testified before the House Judiciary Committee said Trump's actions clearly met the historical definition of impeachable offenses.

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.

Why not let the voters testify in 2020? After all, our opinions and speculation rivals these witnesses. What a joke

#1 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Looks like Turley didn't get the script...

#2 | Posted by homerj at 2019-12-04 01:45 PM | Reply

"Why not let the voters testify in 2020?"

It would be nice to be rich and powerful enough to have people say this about me.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-04 01:46 PM | Reply

Why not let the voters testify in 2020?

#1 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12

Are you going to restrain Trump from cheating?

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donald Trump is being impeached. The surest result of this is that he'll spend the rest of his life eating his own liver.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 01:58 PM | Reply

It would be nice if after 3 years, people would acknowledge he won.
Too bad his economic and foreign policy has made us all live on dirt floors, fearing from terrorists and those who would take our Obama phone card minutes.

#6 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 01:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Just like Walker, right Zed? You'll never outgrow stupid

#7 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:00 PM | Reply

Why not let the voters testify in 2020? After all, our opinions and speculation rivals these witnesses. What a joke

#1 | POSTED BY WISGOD AT 2019-12-04 01:39 PM | FLAG | GROW UP

Actually taking him out like this is way more fun. We get to enjoy a replay of your stupid at the same time. Reminds us not to care what you think.

BTW we are going to make the fat orange pig show you his financials just as he promised you he would. Not because we need to see it... but you do.

#8 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-12-04 02:02 PM | Reply

Trump often wins through cheating. Take golf as an example. Just because he wins doesn't mean he isn't a cheater.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 02:02 PM | Reply

Translation: we're screwed in 2020.
Sincerely, cowardly Libs

#10 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:07 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I dont think anyone is even watching outside of Washington DC and California..

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 02:08 PM | Reply

Why not let the voters testify in 2020? After all, our opinions and speculation rivals these witnesses. What a joke

#1 | POSTED BY WISGOD AT 2019-12-04 01:39 PM

Because anything short of impeachment means its ok if the president extorts foreign governments to get dirt on political rivals.

It also means ignoring congressional subpoenas is ok for the president and anyone he chooses to extend that power to.

voting him out of office does not address his crimes.

#12 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-04 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

I don't care about his financials. Doesn't appear black voters do either.
Bwahaha.

#13 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:09 PM | Reply

I dont think anyone is even watching outside of Washington DC and California..

#11 | POSTED BY BOAZ

More than 70 million watched TV coverage of Trump impeachment inquiry

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"Doesn't appear black voters do either. "

YEAH!'

he knows cause he has one black online friend!

#15 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-12-04 02:16 PM | Reply

Live testimony:

Proposal to remove impeachment clause from Constitution because Pres would have to be re-elected.... denied because the Pres "could not allowed to betray his trust to foreign powers"* James Madison.

One of the proposers of the removal then changed his mind and said the Pres had to follow the law, not the election.

And the abuse of office for personal gain was the definition of bribery in high crimes and misdemeanors.

The current testimony more than meets these standards.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 02:16 PM | Reply

I hate to say I told you so, but here are excerpts of Prof. Jonathan Turley's (one of Clinton's defense lawyers during his impeachment proceedings, a registered Democrat and Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at George Washington University) opening statement:

I'm not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama.

My personal and political views of President Trump are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. As I have previously written, such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment.

I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

I get it. You're mad. The President's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad and Luna is a golden-doodle and they don't get mad. So, we're all mad. Where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration? That is why this is wrong...it's wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.

Stunned, House Democratic Counsel had no follow up questions for Turley's opening statement, unlike the opening statements of Professors Gerhardt, Feldman and Karlan, which all fawned over the possibility of impeachment of President Trump.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It's also notable/funny that only after they received Professor Turley's opening statement, both CNN and Axios started calling him "the Republican witness".

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 02:19 PM | Reply

Need some polls Tony? 20% would shock you, wouldn't it?

#19 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:20 PM | Reply

"Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment."

Riiiiiiiight. That's why Obama and Dubya were impeached.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Two polls, one by Emerson College and one from Rasmussen, put black support for Trump at or above 34 percent.
I'm sure Tony can check these out a debunk what his Brothers think

#21 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:24 PM | Reply

"a paucity of evidence"

Is absurd. As is the "anger" nonsense. If Turley is known for anything, it is for making news by saying things people don't have any reason to think he would say given his known positions.

It makes good theater and good press, and keeps him as distinct from, oh, say, the majority of legal opinion that he has skewered.

The history lesson given here made clear what defines impeachment, and why it is important; that the Pres might not repeat his actions... and Trump's actions and his record of actions might have well been a model for the impeachment clause we have.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 02:26 PM | Reply

Let's be honest. He's serving out his whole term. The whole "reversal of election" thing seems contrived if he serves his whole term with a minor administrative note on how he abused his power.

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-04 02:26 PM | Reply

Need some polls Tony? 20% would shock you, wouldn't it?

Washington, DC, December 4, 2019 - Ipsos and FiveThirtyEight have just launched the first wave of our ground-breaking tracker of public opinion around the Trump impeachment saga.

In our first wave of research, we find that a majority of Americans believe President Trump has committed an impeachable offense and are following the hearings closely. Furthermore, most Americans believe that President Trump did engage in most of the alleged actions (asking for an investigation of Biden, withholding aid, and covering up information). Additionally, majorities believe that if these things occurred, they are inappropriate.

www.ipsos.com

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 02:27 PM | Reply

Even Fox is now saying the Prof. Turley was called by the Republicans, if that is in factthe case then I was wrong that Nadler refused to allow the Minority to call a witness today and retract the snark in #18 and in prior threads regarding the witness list.

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 02:28 PM | Reply

So Turley is saying that blatant bribery and obstruction are not grounds for impeachment? Bribery is actually named as a reason in the constitution but we should just ignore that because it is obviously all just a mirage due to anger... LMAO!

#26 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

- Emerson College and one from Rasmussen

Both outlier polls.

drudge.com

And... who knew this impeachment was about the black vote?

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 02:29 PM | Reply

It's also notable/funny that only after they received Professor Turley's opening statement, both CNN and Axios started calling him "the Republican witness".

#18 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

That's because the Republicans requested that he be called as a witness. The other three were requested by the Dems.

#28 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-04 02:30 PM | Reply

Ipsos and FiveThirtyEight

Who?

#29 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 02:32 PM | Reply

I'm sure Tony can check these out...

"As is so often the case with polls President Trump likes, the Rasmussen and Emerson results appear to be outliers. For example, the straight-down-the-middle Gallup poll finds black support statistically unchanged over the past three years: 10 percent in 2017, 11 percent in 2018, and 10 percent so far this year (to Nov. 20)," Critchley said.

Critchley also cited GOP pollster Frank Luntz's warning that a week before the 2018 elections, Rasmussen showed 40 percent of blacks going with Trump, but then only 8 percent voted Republican.

www.theepochtimes.com

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 02:33 PM | Reply

It would be nice if after 3 years, people would acknowledge he (Trump) won.

#6 | Posted by wisgod at

We'll add that to the list of things it would be nice for everyone to realize, including his mental health issues and criminal lifestyle.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:35 PM | Reply

Ipsos and FiveThirtyEight

Who?

#29 | POSTED BY BOAZ

The only pollster who stated Trump could win in 2016, rated the most accurate of ALL pollsters. Surprised you're ignorant of this..., but then again, look who we're talking about....

For most of the presidential campaign, FiveThirtyEight's forecast gave Trump much better odds than other polling-based models. Our final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.1 By comparison, other models tracked by The New York Times put Trump's odds at: 15 percent, 8 percent, 2 percent and less than 1 percent. And betting markets put Trump's chances at just 18 percent at midnight on Tuesday, when Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, cast its votes.

fivethirtyeight.com

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 02:38 PM | Reply

Outliars. Kinda like 2016? Facts are a bitch.

#33 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:39 PM | Reply

- Facts are a bitch.

Yes, that is the way rwingers treat facts.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 02:41 PM | Reply

Too often in the outlier polls, non-disapproval will masquerade as support. They are not the same things

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 02:41 PM | Reply

"I don't care about his (Trump's)financials'

Well, that's one way to label yourself stupid.

#36 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:42 PM | Reply

He raises it by 2% from 2016, he wins. No wonder impeachment is the only way. Great strategy

#37 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Kinda like 2016?

#33 | Posted by wisgod

No, kinda like 2018.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:44 PM | Reply

Here come the 3 year old weepies. You lefties act like women who always hold a grudge.

#39 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He raises it by 2% from 2016, he (trump) wins.

#37 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04

It drops by 2% he loses?

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:45 PM | Reply

You lefties act like women who always hold a grudge.

#39 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02

Does Trump hold grudges, WISGOD?

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:46 PM | Reply

Sure Zed. Just like your little guy did 10 years ago.

#42 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 02:47 PM | Reply

Impeachment is horrible news for Trump. Everything we know about the man confirms this. WISGOD being present today confirms this.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sure Zed. Just like your little guy did 10 years ago.

#42 | Posted by wisgod at 2019

?

#44 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:47 PM | Reply

He raises it by 2% from 2016, he wins.

The 2020 electorate will be nothing like the 2016 one. The 2018 electorate is a more likely model and you saw how that turned out for Republicans, didn't you? Not to mention there are over 7 million more eligible voters in 2020 than in 2016 and have you seen his support numbers with youth?

And lastly, over 3 million blacks who voted in 2012 didn't vote in 2016. Most returned with a vengeance in 2018 in record-breaking fashion and they weren't led by Trump supporters.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 02:48 PM | Reply

"You lefties act like women who always hold a grudge."

Trump still holds a grudge against the NFL, for not letting him have a team, and his buddy Vince (whose wife is the head of the SBA) is hoping to reboot the XFL next summer. www.independent.co.uk

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 02:49 PM | Reply

And lastly, over 3 million blacks who voted in 2012 didn't vote in 2016. Most returned with a vengeance in 2018 in record-breaking fashion and they weren't led by Trump supporters.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019

Ask WISGOD if he really wants Blacks to vote?

#47 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:50 PM | Reply

Why not let the voters testify in 2020? After all, our opinions and speculation rivals these witnesses. What a joke

#1 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Yeah... why not? Why is Trump abusing his position to smear his political opponents (ask, as a favor, for a foreign country to PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE an investigation into the Bidens) before the election? Is he afraid he is going to lose?

And isn't it important for voters to get a fair chance to "testify"? Trump claims that he has done nothing wrong in trying to put his thumb on the scales of the 2020 election. Why do you think he won't try to do it again? Why do you think he isn't CURRENTLY pressuring foreign governments to interfere in our elections like he did for Ukraine?

#48 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 02:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Funny how Republicans want to pretend that the only evidence of impeachable offences was in the phone call... and not with all of the direct evidence of the Pres asking for a political favor in return for military aid.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 02:53 PM | Reply

Yeah... why not? Why is Trump abusing his position to smear his political opponents (ask, as a favor, for a foreign country to PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE an investigation into the Bidens) before the election?

#48 | Posted by gtbritishskull at

WISGOD will say it's all good, because Trump.

Now, if President Biden does it this behavior will suddenly turn just really awful again.

#50 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:55 PM | Reply

Why do you think he isn't CURRENTLY pressuring foreign governments to interfere in our elections like he did for Ukraine?

#48 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 02:52 PMFlag: ReceivedFunnyNewsworthy

WISGOD will say it's all good, because Trump

#51 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:56 PM | Reply

I hate to behave as if I can read WISGOD'S mind, but.....I can read his mind.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:56 PM | Reply

President Biden

Doesn't exist.

Biden won't/can't beat Trump in the general election.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 02:58 PM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Good of you to actually acknowledge that.

Did you also see the part (after the two 45 minute sessions for the majority and the minority) where Nadler pointed out that now would be the predetermined time for White House counsel to ask questions of the witnesses? Do you STILL think that "Trump's lawyers would be reduced to taking notes"?

#54 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Over 70 percent of the American people think that what the Pres did was wrong."

The only question then, to them, is whether it is impeachable... which can't really be denied that it is given the history lesson and definitions that we got from scholars today.

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 02:58 PM | Reply

Biden won't/can't beat Trump in the general election.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12

If he's nominated will you vote for him?

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 02:59 PM | Reply

"Biden won't/can't beat Trump in the general election. "

Current polls to the contrary.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 03:00 PM | Reply

The GOP strategery continues... talk ad nauseum about anything other than the evidence of the Pres' actions or the definition of impeachment.

Their only witness could only say the evidence wasn't "plausible" in general, without saying why, and blaming the Hearing on "anger", which must have been what, his minor degree in college?

His testimony was worthless in that it merely repeated the GOP public line.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:04 PM | Reply

#53 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Well, regardless of who gets the Dem nomination I am voting Dem this election. So, if that happens to be Biden he'll get my vote. I hope that you would vote for him whether you thought he could win or not.

**This all changes if Trump is not able to run for re-election and I have another option. Then I would have to see what the choices are.

#59 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Biden won't/can't beat Trump in the general election.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12

If he's nominated will you vote for him?

I would..

#60 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Polls only matter when you win? 2016ish

#61 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 03:06 PM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY BOAZ - Why?

I would honestly be interested in your reasons since you seem to vigorously defend Trump and are very against the Democrats. What do you find appealing in Biden?

#62 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 03:06 PM | Reply

Well, regardless of who gets the Dem nomination I am voting Dem this election. So, if that happens to be Biden he'll get my vote. I hope that you would vote for him whether you thought he could win or not.

Why, you are only voting for him because of a "D" after his name?

#63 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:06 PM | Reply

Louie Gohnert of TX! My favorite of the Seven Dwarfs, Sleepy!

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In this election, yes - I would only be voting for Biden because of a D after his name and just because I am extremely opposed to Trump having a second term. If I dont have to worry about Trump being re-elected then I would be free to look over both candidates and decide whom I prefer. That is not a luxury I allow myself this time.

#65 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 03:10 PM | Reply

The 2018 electorate is a more likely model and you saw how that turned out for Republicans, didn't you?

If the Dems win, the country knows they are going to go about trying to erase Donald Trump from the history books, which includes anything Trump did. They will then go about trying to ensure whatever changes they make cannot be undone somehow.

Democrats dont see the other side actually having a chance to run the nation, they only see their views and ideology always setting the tone. The big question isnt going to be whether the country is tired of Trump, it's going to be whether the nation wants hyper partisan liberals in control.

#66 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If Trump as lost Justagirl, a moderate, and Boaz, a radical rwinger.... then he hasn't a chance.

But really, all the talk about blacks and polls and elections on the thread is just more rwing obfuscation to what the Hearing is about... impeachable offences.

They REALLY don't want to talk about that.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:13 PM | Reply

You just want him to suck your fingers.

#68 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 03:13 PM | Reply

I'll also say that I doubt my vote will matter the least bit anyway. I am in Idaho and it is firmly a red state. Therefore my throw away vote to the Dem candidate wont sway the EC anymore than a fart in the wind.

Boaz, I answered you and I would still like to know what you like about Biden.

#69 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 03:13 PM | Reply

#65,

Fair enough. Just know though, your opinion right now, is why Trump will win a second term.

I just wish you could understand why..

#70 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz, I answered you and I would still like to know what you like about Biden.

I view him as an old style Dixicrat..

You know? The last political ideology that could call itself "moderate".

#71 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:16 PM | Reply

Want to talk about it in 2020, Corky? Want to talk about how those Senate folks can drag that trial out? Want to talk about how unfair this bipartisan ---- show is? Want to talk about what your Party started?

#72 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 03:16 PM | Reply

to what the Hearing is about... impeachable offences.

They REALLY don't want to talk about that.

#67 | Posted by Corky

Corky,

For years, you liberals didnt want to talk about why it was wrong to get your ---- sucked by an intern in the oval office. Dont lecture us on your flimsy impeachment debacle.

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz, my opinion is based on his obstruction and the blatant bribery of a foreign nation to get them involved in our politics. If Obama had done that I would also have been firmly against him. People on here flipped their --- when Obama told Putin he would have more leniency after the election, yet the same people are ok with what Trump was doing in Ukraine.

#74 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I am of the opinion that two consenting adults engaging in an illicit affair is not my business unless one of them is married to me. I dont even care about Trump and Stormy. He has issues there because of how it was handled, not just because of the affair itself.

#75 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#72

Naw, that's just more obfuscation from you, talking about politics, elections, and process. Let's talk about the thread topic; impeachable offences and how many of them your Dear Leader committed.

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:20 PM | Reply

If he's nominated will you vote for him?

I've already stated in prior threads I'm going to vote for whoever democrats nominate.

But. It doesn't matter who I would vote for. California will go blue regardless.

Biden will be another failed Al Gore or John Kerry. The Democratic Party's failure is they are more worried about getting votes from moderates who don't vote for democrats than they are with finding a candidate who actually represents the left.

It was a failed strategy in 2000, 2004 and 2016.

Remember when you were all convinced Hillary would turn Texas blue? How about the fact she won the primaries based on winning the southern states she lost in the general election?

I'll vote for Biden. But Trump will win the election.

#77 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:21 PM | Reply

#74,

To be honest, I dont care what happens with Trump. I am please with his Supreme Court and Federal Judgeships. That in itself will keep a check on liberal abuses for years to come and stop the fake "progress" garbage.

#78 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Thanks for admitting that obfuscation is all you have, even if you blame others for what you are doing... since it is obvious that what Trump did is impeachable.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:22 PM | Reply

Good honesty, Clown. Well done. Hope all is going your way beyond politics

#80 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 03:24 PM | Reply

"For years, you liberals didnt want to talk about why it was wrong to get your ---- sucked by an intern in the oval office." - #73 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:17 PM

"Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do." - P.J. O'Rourke

#81 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-04 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO .... is why I really have no problem with thinking moderate to conservative voters.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:25 PM | Reply

since it is obvious that what Trump did is impeachable.

Almost anything can be contorted to be impeachable.

Now whether it's convictable, that's another story.

#83 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It was a failed strategy in 2000, 2004 and 2016." - #77 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:21 PM

Yet that strategy worked in 1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

#84 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-04 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For years, you liberals didnt want to talk about why it was wrong to get your ---- sucked by an intern in the oval office.

There's nothing wrong or illegal about two consenting adults partaking is sexual acts.

What Bill got busted for was lying under oath.

Which is why Republicans won't let Trump on the stand.

#85 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Mr Buck is talking up historical US domestic politics, not a Pres demanding dirt on political opponents from a foreign power.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:29 PM | Reply

The Democratic Party's failure is they are more worried about getting votes from moderates who don't vote for democrats than they are with finding a candidate who actually represents the left.

No one outside of NY, Cali and Portland Ore, wants a liberal/left agenda. That's why you keep failing.

Yet that strategy worked in 1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

None of those was a left/liberal agenda except 2008 and 2012, they were all moderate, especially 1948 - 1992. Back then Republicans and Democrats at least thought alike on some topics. Now both parties look and act like they come from two different countries.

#87 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:30 PM | Reply

- Almost anything can be contorted to be impeachable.

What Trump did doesn't require any contortion.

- Now whether it's convictable, that's another story.

That story is about the GOP being unwilling to convict their cash cow.... even if he shot someone to death on 5th Ave.

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:32 PM | Reply

Do you idiots really think these big thinkers are helping your cause? These opinions are great but a fact witness might help. The Perry Mason Party is making the 2020 election a slam dunk.
I hope you all send Warren some beads

#89 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 03:40 PM | Reply

No one outside of NY, Cali and Portland Ore, wants a liberal/left agenda.

We get the city of Portland this time? Last time we got Washington state.

You're very delusional if you think all people in any state think alike.

Nearly 50% of North Carolinians are liberals. Nearly 45% or Californians are conservatives.

If you want to ever be taken seriously, you should stop saying such stupid shht.

#90 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So.... Turley just admitted that he could be wrong about the quid pro quo; that he just hasn't heard from enough other witnesses.

Presumably like those the Pres is obstructing Congress by refusing to let testify.

What he's saying is that he doesn't approve of the process, not that Trump is not guilty of what he has been accused.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now both parties look and act like they come from two different countries.

You act like we all live in 50 different countries.

What's your point? You're part of the problem?

#92 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:43 PM | Reply

#81 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2019-12-04 03:24 PM

I gave that a NW because PJ O'Rourke really does put things in perspective and he does so in a very colorful way.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 03:45 PM | Reply

"Now both parties look and act like they come from two different countries."

One from a country that's racially homogenized.
The other from a country that's racially diverse.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 03:46 PM | Reply

One from a country that's racially homogenized.
The other from a country that's racially diverse.

#94 | Posted by snoofy

Maybe if you stop worrying about race so much, the country could actually come together.

#95 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 03:52 PM | Reply

That's rich. So the voters and Electoral College be damned.
That's your platform because you're somehow more important or smarter? We'll see how important and smart.

#96 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 03:53 PM | Reply

"Maybe if you stop worrying about race so much, the country could actually come together."

I'll never be on your side, racist trash.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 03:54 PM | Reply

"The will of the People most recently elected a House to control the actions of this President." not verbatim

#98 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 03:58 PM | Reply

Do you idiots really think these big thinkers are helping your cause? These opinions are great but a fact witness might help.

#89 | POSTED BY WISGOD

I would LOVE to hear from more "fact witnesses".

Which fact witnesses do you want to hear from? All the ones we were able to hear from (even the ones the Republicans called) have just bolstered the case for impeachment.

And the rest are being blocked from testifying by the Trump administration. Lets get Mulvaney an the stand. Or Giuliani. Or Bolton. Or someone from the OMB who can explain what the exact justification was when they held up the military aid.

The only reason we haven't heard from these "fact witnesses" is because of obstruction from the Trump administration. Maybe we should add that to the list of things he is being impeached for.

#99 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#89 | POSTED BY WISGOD

My number one "fact witness" would be Trump. How about he comes in and tells his side of the story all under oath? How would that be Wisgod? I will even go remove you from my killfile and await your answer...

#100 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 04:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Translation: we're screwed in 2020.
Sincerely, cowardly Libs

#10 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Translation: I'm a f$)!ing idiot who thinks Trump cares about me and my doublewide.

#101 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 04:04 PM | Reply

#17 cool you found one idiot who thinks riding the fence makes them smart and noble.

#102 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 04:06 PM | Reply

I am of the opinion that two consenting adults engaging in an illicit affair is not my business unless one of them is married to me. I dont even care about Trump and Stormy....

#75 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Exactly. I think a lot of guys would jump at the opportunity to have sex with one of the stars of The Witches of Breastwick.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 04:09 PM | Reply

#17 cool you found one idiot who thinks riding the fence makes them smart and noble.

#102 | POSTED BY JPW A

I'm not sure I'd describe Jonathon Turley as an idiot.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 04:10 PM | Reply

The Republican's fact witness already testified. Mulvaney told everyone Trump did wrong and that we should get over it. That's all they have. No one is denying that Trump is incompetent. Hell, Lindsay Graham said as much.

#105 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now, if President Biden does it this behavior will suddenly turn just really awful again.

#50 | POSTED BY ZED

And will think he's slick by saying "you thought it was bad when Trump did it".

Because he thinks we're all as stupid as he is and won't remember his 180.

#106 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 04:11 PM | Reply

#104 anybody still on the fence is an idiot.

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 04:12 PM | Reply

All this rot about overturning the election is B.S. If Trump is removed it won't make Hillary president.

#108 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#104 lol.... you would 364 days a year.

#109 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 04:12 PM | Reply

If the Dems win, the country knows they are going to go about trying to erase Donald Trump from the history books, which includes anything Trump did.

Nice projection, boaz.

I disagree though. Trump will definitely not be erased just as W wasn't erased because we want to leave those piles there to rub your noses in when you start schitting the rug again.

#110 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 04:15 PM | Reply

Let's hear from Eric. If you have such a solid case, what are you afraid of? Now your Adam Schiff wanna be, JPee can call me a name. Typical empty handed ----.

#111 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 04:15 PM | Reply

16 rock solid conservatives and y'all pick Trump. Nobody forced you. Now we have to go through this.

#112 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You think I care JustaGirl? God, you need a life.

#113 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 04:19 PM | Reply

#113 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Pretty clear I have one and you are struggling with reality.

#114 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 04:20 PM | Reply

You idiots should listen to President Co-Co Wheats

#115 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 04:23 PM | Reply

Now is the time to choose a side. America or Trump.

#116 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 04:23 PM | Reply

Turley is two-faced. Turley opposes impeaching Trump, yet he supported impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998.

Here's what he told Congress back then: "If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct."

#117 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because you don't like being called out? Great life you're leading.

#118 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 04:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

16 rock solid conservatives and y'all pick Trump. Nobody forced you. Now we have to go through this.

#112 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

By the time the primary reached Michigan only 1 candidate remained who had a viable chance to beat Trump and that was Ted Cruz. I didn't care for Cruz but I voted for him over Trump. Had he won the primary and the election things might have actually turned out worse? Why? Because I remember plenty of liberals saying that while they hated Trump they really hated and feared Cruz.

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 04:26 PM | Reply

#54

Unlike 99% of the DR I have no problem admitting when I was wrong, but to be fair, there was no announcement that I could find, until today, that Prof. Turley had been invited by the Minority. That being said, my prediction of what Prof. Turley would say was 100% correct.

As for the President's lawyers taking notes, I don't think that they would have done much else since attacking expert witnesses as a defense lawyer is not a good look, they obviously have the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee to do that for them. Once fact witnesses get called, my guess is that they will be there in full attack mode.

#120 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 04:27 PM | Reply

#104 lol.... you would 364 days a year.

#109 | POSTED BY CORKY

Um, no. I recognize that some people who disagree with me politically are still really smart people.

Liberals and conservatives span a full spectrum from sycophantic idiots to highly intelligent independent thinkers.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 04:29 PM | Reply

Q: "It is not hearsay when [Trump] tells the president of Ukraine to investigate his political adversary?"
A: "It is not."

Q: "It is not hearsay when [Trump] then confesses on national television to doing that?"
A: "It is not"

I guess that ---- ain't hearsay.

#122 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 04:30 PM | Reply

On the topic of the witnesses, did Prof. "Larry David in Drag" really make a snide remark about a 13 year old in Congressional testimony?

Wow.

#123 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 04:32 PM | Reply

That opinion has changed. At least Cruz has integrity. Ted Cruz hates Russians. Hell, I'd take a Pence/Cruz ticket against a socialist in 2020. Fact.

#124 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 04:34 PM | Reply

#123 | Excellent legal point, councilor.

On topic..

So.... Turley just admitted that he could be wrong about the quid pro quo; that he just hasn't heard from enough other witnesses.
Presumably like those the Pres is obstructing Congress by refusing to let testify.
What he's saying is that he doesn't approve of the process, not that Trump is not guilty of what he has been accused.
#91 | POSTED BY CORKY

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 04:37 PM | Reply

You'll be stuck with Warren and Pete. Haha. They'll never have each other's back.

#126 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 04:39 PM | Reply

There's a 3rd branch of Government but Corky likes to ignore it when he's in a hurry

#127 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 04:42 PM | Reply

#127

From someone who has ignored the entire thread topic and insisted on obfuscation instead, that whine is... unsurprising.

#128 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 04:49 PM | Reply

#118 | POSTED BY WISGOD -- When have you ever called anyone out? You are a shameless hack and troll who never adds anything to the topic so I had you killfiled. I chose to engage you this time and removed you in order to see if you would surprise me with a reply. You havent, so enjoy being ignored again.

On topic, I can see how it would have been a "bad look" (per ROC) for the defense to attack expert witnesses. It was probably a good strategic move to sit this one out. Who do you see being called as "fact witnesses"? I cant imagine that we are going to hear from the same few people over and over, and since everyone close to Trump is ignoring subpoenas where do they go next?

#129 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 04:50 PM | Reply

Turley again... says he has no idea what the evidence would show about Trump's action because there have not been enough witnesses called.

His only role here is disapproving of the process.... one which has been stymied by the Pres directing witnesses not to cooperate.

#130 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 04:52 PM | Reply

Drama Queen thinks I give a hoot in hell. On, off, on. You could have just said that, tater

#131 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 05:10 PM | Reply

The thread is about opinions, Corky. Not any facts by anyone involved. If that puts lead in your pencil, fine. The Country doesn't buy this waste of time.

#132 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 05:13 PM | Reply

One supposes that 70 percent of the people thinking that what Trump did was wrong is unimportant.

- Not any facts by anyone involved.

We have tons of facts from many people involved... just not the top admin officials that were involved who have been instructed not to testify.

Even the Repubs witness says he just doesn't have enough testimony from witnesses, who have been instructed not to testify, to know what Trump did.

#133 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 05:32 PM | Reply

EVERYONE has acknowledged Trump won the electoral college, WIS.

Not sure what your gripe is about.

#134 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:32 PM | Reply

Even the Repubs witness says he just doesn't have enough testimony from witnesses, who have been instructed not to testify, to know what Trump did.
#133 | POSTED BY CORKY

Nobody should expect Republican acknowledgement of this fact. The "unfair process" excuse will be sufficient for Repubs to choose ignorance.

Doubt even the Senate calls these rubes to testify once impeachment goes to trial. Truth can NOT come out, democracy be damned. Sad so many have ignored the 2018 election results.

#135 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"unfair process"

Yeah... that's their whine. The most unfair thing about the process so far is Trump obstructing justice by trying to shut down the investigation, intimidate witnesses, and keeping subpoenaed witnesses from testifying.

Which makes Turley's Complaint laughable.

#136 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 05:42 PM | Reply

Which makes Turley's Complaint laughable.
#136 | POSTED BY CORKY

Fully sold his soul. I appreciated his POV on CNN, etc.

Not anymore. Incredibly unconvincing was he.

#137 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:46 PM | Reply

"EVERYONE has acknowledged Trump won the electoral college, WIS.
Not sure what your gripe is about."

A defining feature of Trumpers and Deplorables is, even after winning, they're still just as full of misery and spite!

"Nobody likes a sore loser, but a sore winner is ten times worse." (Phil Hellmuth to Tony G.)

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 05:46 PM | Reply

snide remark about a 13 year old

Leave Greta out of this.

#139 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-04 05:52 PM | Reply

- Incredibly unconvincing was he.

He just was again made to agree that Trump's attempt to obstruct justice by keeping his staff from testifying is historic; not even Nixon was able to get away with that.

In light of that, Turley's insistence on witnesses that are not available is not convincing.

#140 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 05:53 PM | Reply

Rsty, so why the last 3 years. Should the public forget the speculation before the Mueller report went public? Should we forget the FBI lovers texts? Should we forget Trump released the call? Or should we believe what the DNC and Clinton paid for? Should we believe what Eric and his best friend did? Should we believe Schiff hired Eric's best fiend a day after the call Trump made? Should we believe that?

#141 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 05:54 PM | Reply

"Should we forget Trump released the call?"

Never happened.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 05:59 PM | Reply

"Rsty, so why the last 3 years."

You should be questioning Congressional and WH Republicans "Why NOT three years ago?" As in, why not investigate Ukrainian corruption, especially tied to the Bidens, while Republicans had full power to take Biden to task.

The timing of Trump's July 25th phone call is amazingly suspicious and considering the now public context justifies these hearings. Further, Trump's obstruction tied to those who have pertinent knowledge of this context intensifies said suspicion.

Let me ask you this, WIS. Had Biden NOT declared a campaign for 2020 election, would this be an issue at all?

#143 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 06:00 PM | Reply

#141

Should you believe that the Pres is currently obstructing justice by refusing to cooperate with the investigation and refusing to allow his staff to testify... which is what lead to an article of impeachment and Nixon's resignation.

#144 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 06:02 PM | Reply

-16 rock solid conservatives and y'all pick Trump

rock solid? I believe they were all referenced as the "Klown Kar"

#145 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 06:06 PM | Reply

"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics," Trump said Wednesday on Twitter. "Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it." ~ Melania Trump

And even when the b--ch tried to apologize after the tweet was added to the hearing record she couldn't do it without turning it around to Trump. What a pathetic piece of ----.

#146 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-12-04 06:09 PM | Reply

- she couldn't do it without turning it around to Trump. What a pathetic piece of ----.

She apologized for what she said. We have yet to hear Trump apologize for intimidating witnesses, including military and career diplomats, demonizing anyone who speaks against him, women he molested, and brown children he caged.

#147 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 06:14 PM | Reply

And sad so many ignored the 2018 election results? WTF does that mean?

#148 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 06:15 PM | Reply

"Not one person of color': Congressman scolds fellow Democrats for choosing only white impeachment witnesses"

#149 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-04 06:19 PM | Reply

Rsty, Joe was what in 2016?VP? Did his son work there in 2016? Did Joe hold up aid for 6 hours to get the investigation squelched?
I don't understand this Quid.

#150 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-04 06:19 PM | Reply

Rsty, Joe was what in 2016?VP? Did his son work there in 2016? Did Joe hold up aid for 6 hours to get the investigation squelched?
I don't understand this Quid.
#150 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Which will most likely be inquired about during the impeachment trial in the Senate. So wait and see.

Yet, Republicans had plenty of time to inquire about exactly that with full power of government, yet decided not to. Only when Biden was a clear contender against Trump did Bidens' issue become an issue.

That is evidence in and of itself, IMO.

Now, with that established, maybe you'll address my question: Had Biden NOT declared a campaign for 2020 election, would this be an issue at all?

#151 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 06:31 PM | Reply

And sad so many ignored the 2018 election results? WTF does that mean?
#148 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Within the Republican talking points that Democrats in Congress have been trying to impeach Trump since his inauguration, and that impeachment starts in the House, 2018 handing power of the House to the Democrats through the will of the people established power of intent. If the people wanted to block Dems attempt to impeach Trump, they should have blocked them in 2018.

That didn't happen.

#152 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 06:34 PM | Reply

"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics," Trump said Wednesday on Twitter.

He wasn't brought into politics. His name is a homonym that also describes a title of royalty, that's all she alluded to: Trump has every right to name his son Baron but he can't bestow the monarchial title to him. There is nothing to be taken as negative from a simple, non-accusatory statement of fact.

After all the things Trump as uttered against those he negatively perceives I find it hard to believe this analogy caused outrage. Anyone with any sense of the English language should understand the point - which had nothing to do with Trump's son other than his name.

#153 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 06:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#153 Tony,

She later went on to apologize for her remark and admitted it was wrong to bring up Trump's son.

You don't need to spin for her.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#153

He wasn't brought into politics. His name is a homonym that also describes a title of royalty, that's all she alluded to

Are you actually trying to defend Prof. Karlan for what she said or is that the latest Talking Point from TPM to try to rehabilitate her testimony?

Even Prof. Karlan had the sense to recognize that it was not appropriate and apologized for saying that about Barron:

"I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the President's son, it was wrong for me to do that."

#155 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#154

Beat me to it.

#156 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 06:46 PM | Reply

I agree that it was out of bounds, but that never stopped all the yahoos from talking about Chelsea and the Obama daughters... Cry me a river.

#157 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She later went on to apologize for her remark and admitted it was wrong to bring up Trump's son.

Thank goodness she has the wherewithal to understand many would blow her comments into something they were never intended to be and make sure everyone knows she had nothing negative in mind about Trump's son who rightly should be left out of political discourse.

She apologizes, something most Trumpers never demand that he does when his remarks go far out of bounds.

#158 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-04 07:00 PM | Reply

I agree that it was out of bounds, but that never stopped all the yahoos from talking about Chelsea and the Obama daughters... Cry me a river.

#157 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Now do the Bush daughters

#159 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:02 PM | Reply

#147 Apples and oranges. She only fake apologized because one of her handlers told her to after they admitted the tweet to the record. She thought she was brilliant when she made the comment and had to eat crow when it was pointed out she was anything but brilliant.

#160 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-12-04 07:02 PM | Reply

[Gracie the mysterious mind reader inserts her trite speculation.]

#161 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 07:04 PM | Reply

Thank goodness she has the wherewithal to understand many would blow her comments into something they were never intended to be and make sure everyone knows she had nothing negative in mind about Trump's son who rightly should be left out of political discourse.

Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick.

She stepped in it over a clear and obvious bias against Trump personally.

Someone probably whispered in her ear that she effed up. She probably gave it a moment's thought and realized she did in fact screw up and she then did the right thing and apologized.

Yet, here's Tony trying to blame conservatives for reacting to what she said. Keep being you, Tony.

#162 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I agree that it was out of bounds, but that never stopped all the yahoos from talking about Chelsea and the Bush/Obama daughters... Cry me a river.

JFC that was easy.

#163 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 07:06 PM | Reply

Gracie,

I listened to her apology. She came across as sincere but she marred it by then adding that Trump should apologize too, or something.

She's clearly hyper-partisan with a particularly strong animus against Trump.

This really wasn't a big deal.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:06 PM | Reply

#161 So you deny her fake heartfelt (not) apology was made right after her comment and not after the tweet was read and admitted to record?

#165 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-12-04 07:07 PM | Reply

I agree that it was out of bounds, but that never stopped all the yahoos from talking about Chelsea and the Bush/Obama daughters... Cry me a river.

JFC that was easy.
#163 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Sometimes the mean-spiritedness is funny.

I've pointed this out before - on inauguration day, someone from the MSM tweeted out this comment (Paraphrased from memory): "Barron is wondering around the White House looking for things to burn."

That is mean as heck but it made me laugh out loud.

#166 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:09 PM | Reply

- Apples and oranges.

True... comparing all the awful things Trump has never apologized for to the one thing this Prof did apologize for is not the same thing.

#167 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 07:09 PM | Reply

#161 So you deny her fake heartfelt (not) apology was made right after her comment and not after the tweet was read and admitted to record?

#165 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

The problem with her comment is the way she said his name (it wouldn't come through on a transcript).

I don't know if she truly felt sorry or was just in CYA mode. Regardless, she did apologize and, at least for me, that is good enough.

Maybe she came to the realization on her own. I remember during the Kavanaugh hearings during the intense back and forth with one Senator he invoked alcoholism with a Senator whose father was an alcoholic. Before the next round of questioning began he offered up an apology and claimed he was out of line. He seemed sincere about it and the Senator graciously accepted his apology. This woman didn't apologize with "I'm sorry you were offended." She flat-out admitted she was wrong. Like I said, that is good enough for me.

#168 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:14 PM | Reply

#165 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

For the sake of argument, damn straight.

#169 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 07:15 PM | Reply

Now do the Bush daughters
#159 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

They were alcoholics.

What's your point?

#170 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 07:17 PM | Reply

You should be questioning Congressional and WH Republicans "Why NOT three years ago?" As in, why not investigate Ukrainian corruption, especially tied to the Bidens, while Republicans had full power to take Biden to task.

Because there's nothing there.

Just like they didn't go after Hillary for anything.

Republicans are morons.

#171 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 07:20 PM | Reply

Now do the Bush daughters
#159 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

They were alcoholics.

What's your point?

#170 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

As was Chelsea Clinton, if we are going to define "alcoholic" as a person who partied in their late teens and early 20's.

#172 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:37 PM | Reply

"As was Chelsea Clinton, if we are going to define "alcoholic" as a person who partied in their late teens and early 20's."

Jenna Bush got a DUI; Chelsea Clinton did not.

#173 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 07:43 PM | Reply

Jenna Bush got a DUI; Chelsea Clinton did not.

#173 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Chelsea Clinton fell out of a limousine a la Jeff Spicoli falling out of a Microbus, Jenna Bush did not.

#174 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:49 PM | Reply

How dare you criticize the Chosen One's daughter!!

-Donkey Suit Dan

#175 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-04 10:09 PM | Reply

She apologizes, something most Trumpers never demand that he does when his remarks go far out of bounds.

#158 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2019-12-04 07:00 PM | FLAG: Fact is, the O SO INTELLIGENT TWIT should have never said it in the first place, but then again when one has TDS the professionalism is swept away.

#176 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-04 10:33 PM | Reply

I agree that it was out of bounds, but that never stopped all the yahoos from talking about Chelsea and the Obama daughters... Cry me a river.

#157 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2019-12-04 06:51 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1: I cannot recall which conservative publicly attached the Clinton daughter while Bill was in office; could you please remind all of us?

#177 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-04 10:35 PM | Reply

www.nydailynews.com

... after the bombastic conservative radio host compared the 12-year-old first daughter to a dog in 1992.

#178 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-04 11:10 PM | Reply

Big to do over nothing. Trump never gave two schits when he used his son's name to make his fake phone calls to the press:

Joe Sudbay @JoeSudbay

Karlan apologized for her earlier remark. Would have been no fake controversy for GOP to stir up if she said, "So while Trump used to call himself 'John Barron,' he can't make himself an actual baron."
3:02 PM - 4 Dec 2019

#179 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 11:14 PM | Reply

"Chelsea Clinton fell out of a limousine"

Link?

#180 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 11:36 PM | Reply

"How dare you criticize the Chosen One's daughter!!"

Retard-O-Center must be particularly butt-hurt after today's hearings.

#181 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 11:37 PM | Reply

Retard-O-Center must be particularly butt-hurt after today's hearings.

#181 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Which part? Would it be when rabid pant-suit prof had to walk back and apologize for going after a 13-year old child?

Or was it when a lifelong Democrat and staunch Hillary supporter broke ranks and chastised the overall process?

#182 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:46 PM | Reply

"Which part? "

The part where had Obama done what Trump did, you would've had an aneurysm. We both know you would never accept this behavior from the "other" party; only from your own.

#183 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 11:51 PM | Reply

The part where had Obama done what Trump did, you would've had an aneurysm. We both know you would never accept this behavior from the "other" party; only from your own.

#183 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You need to seriously look in the mirror.

I think what Trump tried to do with Ukraine is impeachable.

Are you capable of ditching the straw?

#184 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:53 PM | Reply

"Would it be when rabid pant-suit prof had to walk back and apologize for going after a 13-year old child?"

Geez Louise, she didn't go after Barron. Even Melania knows that, but the right needed something to distract from the real life narrative that Trump is the man who would be king.

#185 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 11:54 PM | Reply

Geez Louise, she didn't go after Barron....

#185 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Actually, she did. But she then apologized for it and admitted fault in the process. Good enough for me. Why do you feel compelled to run interference for her on this?

#186 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:56 PM | Reply

She went after Donald Trump, not Barron. I'm not running interference for anyone. Just calling what she said the way I heard it. She was making an important point. See post #179 for more of my thoughts on the topic.

#187 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 12:03 AM | Reply

The part where had Obama done what Trump did, you would've had an aneurysm....

#183 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Dear lord. The lack of self-awareness is absolutely hilarious. Your sycophancy for the Obama administration was (and is) legendary around these parts. You'd claim he was infallible and then lose your ---- when your "messiah language" was pointed out.

#188 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 12:04 AM | Reply

"Why do you feel compelled to run interference for her on this?"

Why do you feel compelled to make this into a fake controversy?

#189 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 12:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"but the right needed something to distract..."

That sounds like a job for Jeff "I hate Republicans every place but the voting booth" Jaglowski!

#190 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 12:05 AM | Reply

She went after Donald Trump, not Barron.

She went after his name. The derision was evident. She was wrong. She admitted it and apologized. Case closed IMO. No need to catty her water.

#191 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 12:06 AM | Reply

"Your sycophancy for the Obama..."

SQUIRREL!

#192 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 12:08 AM | Reply

That sounds like a job for Jeff "I hate Republicans every place but the voting booth" Jaglowski!

#190 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Extract that DNC ------- from your mouth and I'd be happy to engage in discourse...

#193 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 12:09 AM | Reply

"She went after his name."

A name his daddy liked to use for more than just naming him:

The amazing story of Donald Trump's old spokesman, John Barron " who was actually Donald Trump himself

www.washingtonpost.com

#194 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 12:13 AM | Reply

" The lack of self-awareness is absolutely hilarious"

Well, feel free to tell us how President Biden withholding arms sales to Saudi Arabia until he got dirt on Nikki Haley would be okay. Tell us how AG Kamala Harris lying about the results of an investigation would be good in your world. Reinforce how you'll give a thumbs-up if Senate Majority Leader Maxine Waters refused to investigate a named molestation witness against SCOTUS nominee Barack Obama.

Show us how self-aware you are.

#195 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 12:14 AM | Reply

" I'd be happy to engage in discourse..."

You're too busy swallowing the latest Republican ----.

#196 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 12:14 AM | Reply

Why Is Barron Trump Named Barron? His Dad's Kind Of Obsessed With The Name

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump trotted out his entire family for last week's Republican National convention, with his four older children making speeches on their father's behalf. Of course, his youngest, at 10 years old, didn't speak, but he did appear. But there are questions about the youngest Trump, first and foremost, why is Barron Trump named Barron? To be honest, I'm surprised all five of Trump's kids aren't named Barron, because he's been obsessed with the name for decades.

www.romper.com

#197 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 12:15 AM | Reply

Wow, Trump really does like the name:

According to the Washington Post, Donald has used the alias "John Barron" when speaking to the press as far back as 1980. And in 2004, after the success of The Apprentice reality show, there was a brief attempt to create a scripted drama based on Donald's life. When screenwriter Gay Walch delivered the pilot to her subject, he had only one note: change the protagonist's last name to Barron. A year later, Donald married Melania Knauss, and a year after that, Barron Trump was born.

#198 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 12:19 AM | Reply

Dear lord. The lack of self-awareness is absolutely hilarious. Your sycophancy for the Obama administration was (and is) legendary around these parts. You'd claim he was infallible and then lose your ---- when your "messiah language" was pointed out.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-12-05 12:04 AM | REPLY

Danforth criticized Obama a lot. You were too busy accusing Democrats in believing Obama was the Messiah. Oh and spewing Hussein Hussein Hussein.

#199 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-05 12:21 AM | Reply

"Danforth criticized Obama a lot."

And Democrats. I don't know how Jeff missed that.

"You were too busy accusing Democrats in believing Obama was the Messiah."

It was a stupid fake accusation then; it's an even more stupid fake accusation now.

#200 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 12:25 AM | Reply

Jeff's repeated accusation that Danforth is, was and always has been DNC Dan is truly bizarre.

#201 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-05 12:27 AM | Reply

Geez Louise, she didn't go after Barron....

#185 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY
Actually, she did. But she then apologized for it and admitted fault in the process. Good enough for me. Why do you feel compelled to run interference for her on this?

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-12-04 11:56 PM | REPLY

Gal's correct here.

#202 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-05 12:28 AM | Reply

"Jeff's repeated accusation that Danforth is, was and always has been DNC Dan is truly bizarre."

It's not his fault.

Hyperpartisans always want to believe others are hyperpartisan. Not unlike the unfaithful husband who accuses everyone else of cheating: it assuages the conscience.

#203 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 12:36 AM | Reply

"Danforth criticized Obama a lot."
And Democrats. I don't know how Jeff missed that.

He criticized Obama once and it was very early in his tenure and it was over something trivial.

About once a quarter he'll throw out some soft criticism of Democrats.

#204 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 09:12 AM | Reply

Hyperpartisans always want to believe others are hyperpartisan. Not unlike the unfaithful husband who accuses everyone else of cheating: it assuages the conscience.

#203 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You calling anybody hyper-partisan is absolutely hilarious given your lack of self-awareness.

#205 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 09:14 AM | Reply

"He criticized Obama once and it was very early in his tenure and it was over something trivial."

Great. Now you're reduced to lying about what others have witnessed. You, whose self-memory has been called into question many times.

"You calling anybody hyper-partisan is absolutely hilarious given your lack of self-awareness."

Irony, thy name is JeffJ.

#206 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:05 AM | Reply

"About once a quarter he'll throw out some soft criticism of Democrats."

Well, next time they slash taxes for the wealthiest, gut EPA standards at every opportunity, and endorse a pathological liar, I'll start criticizing them even more.

And if Liz Warren asks Iran to hack Saudi Arabia for dirt on Jared, I'll be first in line to condemn.

#207 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:08 AM | Reply

No one cares about this impeachment..

www.louderwithcrowder.com

#208 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-05 10:30 AM | Reply

"No one cares about this impeachment."

Aren't you the guy always telling others not to speak for you?

#209 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:35 AM | Reply

Okaaaaay,

Still no one cares about this impeachment.

#210 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-05 11:16 AM | Reply

"Still I don't care about this impeachment."

FTFY.

#211 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 11:32 AM | Reply

Great. Now you're reduced to lying about what others have witnessed.

I only personally remember you criticizing Obama once and it happened during his first year in office.

He campaigned that any bill that reached his desk would be posted online for 5 days, so the public could view it, before he signed it.

Well, a certain bill hit his desk and he signed it immediately.

You called it out.

Other than that, I honestly don't remember you ever criticizing Obama for anything else.

#212 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 11:45 AM | Reply

"I only personally remember you criticizing Obama once "

You also personally remembered folks affected by the Cadillac Tax.

"Other than that, I honestly don't remember you ever criticizing Obama for anything else."

Getting hammered too often kills memory cells.
www.verywellmind.com

#213 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 11:48 AM | Reply

"I only personally remember you criticizing Obama once and it happened during his first year in office."

Trump has lied over 13,000 times now.

There really is no comparison.

#214 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-06 11:16 AM | Reply

Still no one cares about this impeachment.

#210 | POSTED BY NO ONE

It's true! It is so good of you to care!

You are No One!

And you obviously care!

Or you would not bother to post that you do not.

#215 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-06 12:12 PM | 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