Pelosi officially announces impeachment inquiry

[gemstonefella]

I understand he said they never reached a determination, that's not my point. The point is, they never were going to charge him because of the OLC opinion.

[Tgo01]

I understand he said they never reached a determination, that's not my point. The point is, they never were going to charge him because of the OLC opinion.

And as I said, Ted Lieu gave him a perfect chance to air his opinion on the matter if the only thing preventing him from charging Trump was the OLC opinion and Mueller stated clearly that they never reached a determination. Instead Mueller left the question for the DOJ who then opted not to charge Trump with a crime based on the evidence Mueller collected. You can say Bill Barr was just covering for Trump in this regard but this is how things unfolded. Mueller did state that they found no evidence that Trump or anyone employed by Trump colluded with Russia.

[Parkbandit]

You cared about Hillary's emails because your party told you to. You ignore Ivanka, kushner, and others using private emails for official business because....they told you it's not a big deal. You're willing to act like it's not a big deal that the president is overheard conducting business with regards to Ukraine in the open in front of aids.

He's a walking national security nightmare. But you're stuck on one point, quid quo pro. That's not even the big deal out of all of this.

You didn't care about Hillary's emails because your party told you it was no big deal. You bring up Ivanka, kushner, and others using private emails for official business because....they told you it's the same thing Hillary did, but only a fool like you would actually believe that. You're willing to pretend like it's a big deal that the president is overheard conducting business with regards to Ukraine because "quid pro quo" but when that's proven not to be the case, you change your mind and go with "bribery" or some other bullshit because using quid pro quo makes you look dumber than usual.

[Seran]

No because this isn't a real impeachment inquiry with bogus bullshit rules. Trump isn't even allowed to have a lawyer there like all other impeachments have allowed for. It's a sideshow, I don't blame the president for not wanting to participate in a sideshow.

Trump cannot decide to not comply with a subpeona, that is text book obstruction of justice. If Trump didn't want to comply with a subpeona, his only recourse was filing a court brief requesting a ruling as to whether or not he was required to comply. That hasn't happened. Trump has unilaterally decided he, his entire staff and every other agency person subpeonad is protected by executive privilege.

I literally can't wait for the Supremely court to rule about the violation of checks and balances and order this criminal to comply.

[Seran]

And as I said, Ted Lieu gave him a perfect chance to air his opinion on the matter if the only thing preventing him from charging Trump was the OLC opinion and Mueller stated clearly that they never reached a determination. Instead Mueller left the question for the DOJ who then opted not to charge Trump with a crime based on the evidence Mueller collected. You can say Bill Barr was just covering for Trump in this regard but this is how things unfolded. Mueller did state that they found no evidence that Trump or anyone employed by Trump colluded with Russia.

That's amazing spin. He said he /couldn't/ reach an opinion due to the OLC brief and so it was never explored. Not being permitted to reach a determination is a hell of a lot different than being unable to conclude due to facts.

[Tgo01]

Trump cannot decide to not comply with a subpeona, that is text book obstruction of justice.

The president also has the power of executive privilege which trumps any sort of bogus subpoena. Again this isn't a real impeachment inquiry, this isn't a real trial, congress doesn't have that kind of power. You think congress has the power to prosecute people for failing to comply with their subpoenas?


I literally can't wait for the Supremely court to rule about the violation of checks and balances and order this criminal to comply.

Yeah, not gonna happen, especially not with Ginsburg too sick to do her job.

[Tgo01]

That's amazing spin. He said he /couldn't/ reach an opinion due to the OLC brief and so it was never explored. Not being permitted to reach a determination is a hell of a lot different than being unable to conclude due to facts.

No spin, Ted Lieu asked him point blank: Would you have charged Trump with a crime if not for the OLC opinion? Mueller gave the same answer he has always given: we did not reach a determination either way.

Are facts to Seran what garlic is to vampires?

[Seran]

No spin, Ted Lieu asked him point blank: Would you have charged Trump with a crime if not for the OLC opinion? Mueller gave the same answer he has always given: we did not reach a determination either way.

Are facts to Seran what garlic is to vampires?

Actually Mueller stood up to the hypothetical and did exactly as an independent Justice Department official should and stood his ground

[Wrathbringer]

Actually Mueller stood up to the hypothetical and did exactly as an independent Justice Department official should and stood his ground

You are a retard.

[Seran]

The president also has the power of executive privilege which trumps any sort of bogus subpoena. Again this isn't a real impeachment inquiry, this isn't a real trial, congress doesn't have that kind of power. You think congress has the power to prosecute people for failing to comply with their subpoenas?

Yeah, not gonna happen, especially not with Ginsburg too sick to do her job.

No, Congress can't prosecute, but they can tee up the obvious impeachment charge for obstruction.

[Tgo01]

Actually Mueller stood up to the hypothetical and did exactly as an independent Justice Department official should and stood his ground

"Independent." Please. He said the report doesn't exonerate Trump, as if that was ever his job.

[Tgo01]

No, Congress can't prosecute, but they can tee up the obvious impeachment charge for obstruction.

First you think Trump is guilty because he refused to testify against himself in Mueller's investigation, and now you think Trump should be impeached because he is exerting his executive privilege. Seran, you might have a shred of credibility around here if you at least just came out and admitted that you are nothing but a partisan hack who cares nothing for the rule of law, or justice, or even facts, you just want to see Trump burn. At least if you were honest with it everyone would know what to expect from you when they engaged with you.

[Seran]

Your misguided and deranged attempts at convincing people to drink your Koolaid isn't going to work Mr Jones

[Tgo01]

Your misguided and deranged attempts at convincing people to drink your Koolaid isn't going to work Mr Jones

Deflection, deflection, deflection. If only they handed out gold stars for deflection.

[Tgo01]

Adam Schitthead sure has some good friends and donors.

First there was Ed Buck who donated a lot of money to his campaign and the campaigns of other California Democrats. Not one but TWO black men have turned up dead in Ed Buck's home, it's alleged he has a fetish of injecting black men with high amounts of drugs and both men died of apparent over doses. The police basically gave Ed Buck a "get out of jail free" card after the first man died and after another black man managed to escape from his mansion before Ed Buck could kill him, but when the second dead man turned up the police finally said okay, Ed, this is starting to make us look bad so it's time to arrest you.

Now there is Bruce Hensel, a good friend of Adam Schitthead who asked a 9 year old girl for sexually explicit photos. What a bunch of disgusting perverts.

[Parkbandit]

Adam Schitthead sure has some good friends and donors.

First there was Ed Buck who donated a lot of money to his campaign and the campaigns of other California Democrats. Not one but TWO black men have turned up dead in Ed Buck's home, it's alleged he has a fetish of injecting black men with high amounts of drugs and both men died of apparent over doses. The police basically gave Ed Buck a "get out of jail free" card after the first man died and after another black man managed to escape from his mansion before Ed Buck could kill him, but when the second dead man turned up the police finally said okay, Ed, this is starting to make us look bad so it's time to arrest you.

Now there is Bruce Hensel, a good friend of Adam Schitthead who asked a 9 year old girl for sexually explicit photos. What a bunch of disgusting perverts.

Oh come on... a politician isn't responsible for people who donate to them.

Don't be a liberal... and try to make hay where there is none.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'd take money from everyone, myself.

[Methais]

You are a retard.

This is correct.

[gemstonefella]

Actually Mueller stood up to the hypothetical and did exactly as an independent Justice Department official should and stood his ground

Mueller was a disaster in multiple ways.

[Methais]

Mueller was a disaster in multiple ways.

In before Seran calls you a Nazi.

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/TqfmvcU.gif

[Tgo01]

Oh come on... a politician isn't responsible for people who donate to them.

Don't be a liberal... and try to make hay where there is none.

He could have stopped accepting his money after the first black man turned up dead.

[Tgo01]

So today's "witness", Marie Yovanovitch, testified today she has no knowledge about anything having to do with the phone call, the aid, or pretty much anything else because all of that happened after she was removed by Trump and after she had returned to the US. She's just here to talk about how much of a meanie head Trump is.

You Democrats ready to admit this is a sham yet? Or you all going down fighting until the end?

[Some Rogue]

how about the witness tampering in real time? That was cute,

[Tgo01]

how about the witness tampering in real time? That was cute,

You really do have a severe case of TDS.

Trump tweeting during the impeachment hearings! OMG! Witness tampering!!!

What can Trump even do to her? Hasn't she already been removed from her role in government?

Not to mention wasn't she completely unaware of Trump's tweet until Adam Schitthead read it to her? So much for "witness tampering."

[Seran]

So today's "witness", Marie Yovanovitch, testified today she has no knowledge about anything having to do with the phone call, the aid, or pretty much anything else because all of that happened after she was removed by Trump and after she had returned to the US. She's just here to talk about how much of a meanie head Trump is.

You Democrats ready to admit this is a sham yet? Or you all going down fighting until the end?

I'd admit the irrelevance of a witness just a soon as you admit the President is obstructing justice.

[Tgo01]

I'd admit the irrelevance of a witness just a soon as you admit the President is obstructing justice.

This is rich. So tell me the "relevance" of this witness. I'm waiting.

[Some Rogue]

You really do have a severe case of TDS.

Trump tweeting during the impeachment hearings! OMG! Witness tampering!!!

What can Trump even do to her? Hasn't she already been removed from her role in government?

Not to mention wasn't she completely unaware of Trump's tweet until Adam Schitthead read it to her? So much for "witness tampering."

lol, even several fox news people thought it was tampering.

[Tgo01]

lol, even several fox news people thought it was tampering.

Let me guess, the Never Trumpers on Fox News?

[Tgo01]

Trump is the worst Russian stooge ever.

So while Obama was president he was sending blankets over to Ukraine to help them fend off possible Russian aggression. Democrats' witness today testified that lethal aid actually improved under Trump, giving them javelin missiles which are important tank busting missiles to deal with a possible Russian incursion.

But you Democrat lemmings will continue to say Trump is a Russian asset because MSNBC told you to keep repeating it right?

[Methais]

So today's "witness", Marie Yovanovitch, testified today she has no knowledge about anything having to do with the phone call, the aid, or pretty much anything else because all of that happened after she was removed by Trump and after she had returned to the US. She's just here to talk about how much of a meanie head Trump is.

You Democrats ready to admit this is a sham yet? Or you all going down fighting until the end?

I saw a headline saying she got a standing ovation after. :lol:

[Methais]

how about the witness tampering in real time? That was cute,

How would she be reading Trump’s tweets while she’s in the middle of testifying?

[Tgo01]

I saw a headline saying she got a standing ovation after. :lol:

I'm sure she did. The TDS is strong with Capitol Hill Democrats.

[Parkbandit]

how about the witness tampering in real time? That was cute,

Lulz.

You realize there's no such thing as witness tampering in real time.. right?

[Seran]

This is rich. So tell me the "relevance" of this witness. I'm waiting.

If I had my guess, the Democrat plan is to show that the actual corruption which exists is supported by Trump via Giuliani. The line of questioning focused highly on the mayor and that Trump's support of the corrupt prosecutor was a nod towards reestablishing the status quo with the Ukrainian oligarchs. It doesn't hurt that the on record testimony can be used for the grand jury which is working on Giuliani's campaign finance and money laundering indictments. My guess is they're attempting to flip Giuliani like they did Cohen.

[Tgo01]

If I had my guess

So now we're just guessing and speculating as to what the hell the Democrats are trying to do? Sounds about right.

[Tgo01]

From Washington Post: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-calls-trumps-actions-bribery-as-democrats-sharpen-case-for-impeachment/2019/11/14/0ee9a202-0702-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html)


Several Democrats have stopped using the term “quid pro quo,” instead describing “bribery” as a more direct summation of Trump’s alleged conduct.

The shift came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether “quid pro quo,” “extortion” or “bribery” was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct. According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found “bribery” to be most damning. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been made public.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a House Intelligence Committee member, kicked off the effort to retire “quid pro quo” from the Democratic vocabulary during a Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he said “it’s probably best not to use Latin words” to explain Trump’s actions.

Glad to see the Democrats are using focus groups now to determine which crime Trump has committed. If there is still doubt in your mind that you are being played and manipulated then you just might be a useful idiot.

[Back]

From Washington Post: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-calls-trumps-actions-bribery-as-democrats-sharpen-case-for-impeachment/2019/11/14/0ee9a202-0702-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html)

Glad to see the Democrats are using focus groups now to determine which crime Trump has committed. If there is still doubt in your mind that you are being played and manipulated then you just might be a useful idiot.

Thats typical of democrats. They listen to their constituents. As opposed to republicans who tell their constituents what to think.

[Tgo01]

Thats typical of democrats. They listen to their constituents. As opposed to republicans who tell their constituents what to think.

They listen to their constituents to determine what crime the president committed?

Speaking of useful idiots. I bet that's the first time you've ever been called "useful" in your entire life.

[Seran]

From Washington Post: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-calls-trumps-actions-bribery-as-democrats-sharpen-case-for-impeachment/2019/11/14/0ee9a202-0702-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html)



Glad to see the Democrats are using focus groups now to determine which crime Trump has committed. If there is still doubt in your mind that you are being played and manipulated then you just might be a useful idiot.

I mean, you're surprised to learn that a political party would be capitalizing on the weakness of their opponents? The gentleman will suspend.

[Tgo01]

I mean, you're surprised to learn that a political party would be capitalizing on the weakness of their opponents? The gentleman will suspend.

I'm not the least bit surprised that you see nothing wrong with Democrats calling this a quid pro quo and thus is an impeachable offense, then they get together a focus group to determine calling it "bribery" sounds much worse so they are now going to accuse Trump of bribery.

I just don't understand how people like you are Back are so willing to be stooges for the political elite. I couldn't imagine going through life having no mind or thoughts of my own, just existing to further the narrative of a political party who wouldn't care if you died tomorrow.

[Tgo01]

Trump has released the first phone call he had with the president of Ukraine in which aid was not conditioned on anything there either.

That makes 6 meetings/calls between Trump, Pence, and other Trump administration officials that have been released in which aid was never conditioned on anything.

Are you Democrats ready to throw in the towel yet? Like I said yesterday to Seran, the least you can do is admit you don't care about facts or justice and just want to watch Trump burn. If you're not going to be honest with us at least be honest with yourself.

[Seran]

I admit you're misguided in thinking a memo of a congratulatory phone call is evidence of anything. That the call transcript itself contradicted the White House's summary of the call is just more evidence that people are desperately trying to cover this irrational and juvenile President

[Seran]

I still wonder if Dreaven is trying to convince himself of Trump's innocent more than anything else.

[Tgo01]

I admit you're misguided in thinking a memo of a congratulatory phone call is evidence of anything.

True, it's not as good as calling in a witness who admitted she has absolutely no knowledge of anything going on in regards to this impeachment sham.


I still wonder if Dreaven is trying to convince himself of Trump's innocent more than anything else.

The beauty is I don't have to prove Trump is innocent, it's up to you and Democrats to prove he's guilty. So far we have two witnesses who talked about their feelings on their third and fourth hand information, and a third witness who once again admitted she has no knowledge about any of this but thinks Trump is a mean person.

I used to think simpletons like you only existed in movies and books, but here you.

[Seran]

Yes, some of the testimony has been second and third hand, but the testimony of Volker, Kent and Taylor also contain remarkable first hand testimony of calls, emails, notes and text messages, which proves evidence exists which is being hidden or withheld from legal subpeonas.

[Wrathbringer]

This is correct.

This is correct.

[Wrathbringer]

Thats typical of democrats. They listen to their constituents. As opposed to republicans who tell their constituents what to think.

Says the retard too retarded to post retardation he hasn't been retardedly coached by bigger retarded retards to retardedly post.

[Wrathbringer]

I still wonder if Dreaven is trying to convince himself of Trump's innocent more than anything else.

As Dreaven is a fictional character in a text based rpg where Trump doesn't exist, the answer is no. You're welcome. Any other patently stupid things you need help figuring out? If so, just continue posting them for everyone to laugh at -I mean, help you with.

[Some Rogue]

Lulz.

You realize there's no such thing as witness tampering in real time.. right?
You realize this wasn't the first time he had done it either right?
And several lawyers have said, if was trying a case against a mob boss for example, who tweeted in the middle of a trial that I would get any rat who speaks up, I would stop right there and have him arrested as witness intimidation right?

[Parkbandit]

You realize this wasn't the first time he had done it either right?
And several lawyers have said, if was trying a case against a mob boss for example, who tweeted in the middle of a trial that I would get any rat who speaks up, I would stop right there and have him arrested as witness intimidation right?

Be specific. How did he intimidate the witness over Twitter as she was giving testimony?

[Tgo01]

You realize this wasn't the first time he had done it either right?
And several lawyers have said, if was trying a case against a mob boss for example, who tweeted in the middle of a trial that I would get any rat who speaks up, I would stop right there and have him arrested as witness intimidation right?

Good thing this shitshow isn't anywhere close to any semblance to a trial huh?

Some Rogue: Trump should have to be a witness against himself! Constitution be damned!
Some Rogue: Trump shouldn't be able to face his own accuser! Our justice system be damned!
Some Rogue: Hearsay should be considered evidence! Our justice system be damned!
Some Rogue: Trump shouldn't be able to have a lawyer present during these hearings! Precedent and fairness be damned!
Some Rogue: This should be taken seriously like a real trial and Trump shouldn't be able to tweet anything during said trial!

If I didn't know any better I would say you're just against Trump no matter what. What's the term people have coined for this again?

[Tgo01]

Obama literally fired each and every single Bush appointed ambassador.

Democrats:

Trump fired Obama's appointed Ukraine ambassador.

Democrats: OMG! Trump fired a good woman for no reason! He must be impeached!

Do you guys ever tire of being two faced lemmings?

[Candor]

Good thing this shitshow isn't anywhere close to any semblance to a trial huh?

I agree, what is going on has little semblance to a trial. In a actual trial, the state produces evidence that a crime has been committed.

[Methais]

Lulz.

You realize there's no such thing as witness tampering in real time.. right?

YES THERE IS THEY JUST INVENTED IT AND ONLY RACISTS AND RUSSIAN SPIES DISAGREE

[Methais]

If I had my guess, the Democrat plan is https://media1.giphy.com/media/Gt4FaBEFngjL2/source.gif

This is correct.

[Methais]

Thats typical of democrats. They listen to their constituents. As opposed to republicans who tell their constituents what to think.

Why are you this stupid? I think we deserve a real answer by now.

[Seran]

Obama literally fired each and every single Bush appointed ambassador.

Obama fired all of Bush's political appointees in 2007, just as Trump did in 2017 and George W Bush did before that. This isn't news. Firing career, Senate confirmed ambassador's is far less common and done with extreme care. Nice job quoting Breitbart without confirming that this is the reality of every new administration for political appointees.

[Back]

Why are you this stupid? I think we deserve a real answer by now.

Yeah yeah. Its not my fault that the republican leadership bends over for Trump, lowers taxes on the corporations and super wealthy to balloon the deficit, while telling you to be skurd of immigrants and socialists so you'll keep voting them into power.

[Seran]

To be completely fair, Democrats tried to make the same irrational claims about Trump firing Obama's political appointees. It was just as irrelevant then as it is Breitbart and the Daily Caller trying to argue it now.

[Methais]

Says the retard too retarded to post retardation he hasn't been retardedly coached by bigger retarded retards to retardedly post.

This is correct.


This is correct.

This is correct.

[Some Rogue]

Good thing this shitshow isn't anywhere close to any semblance to a trial huh?

Some Rogue: Trump should have to be a witness against himself! Constitution be damned!
Some Rogue: Trump shouldn't be able to face his own accuser! Our justice system be damned!
Some Rogue: Hearsay should be considered evidence! Our justice system be damned!
Some Rogue: Trump shouldn't be able to have a lawyer present during these hearings! Precedent and fairness be damned!
Some Rogue: This should be taken seriously like a real trial and Trump shouldn't be able to tweet anything during said trial!

If I didn't know any better I would say you're just against Trump no matter what. What's the term people have coined for this again?

Oh look, making arguments nobody made and then knocking them down. Par for the course. Also, this is not a trial, this is basically a grand jury. It did not have to be public, but the repbulicans wanted that and they got it. Opposing counsel is not allowed in a grand jury either. Keep attacking the process. That's the republican playbook.

[Some Rogue]

Obama literally fired each and every single Bush appointed ambassador.

Democrats:

Trump fired Obama's appointed Ukraine ambassador.

Democrats: OMG! Trump fired a good woman for no reason! He must be impeached!

Do you guys ever tire of being two faced lemmings?

He fired the political ones which are basically honorary ones. Not the actual ambassadors who are Foreign Service Officers.

"An ambassador may be a career Foreign Service Officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Service_Officer) (career diplomat – CD) or a political appointee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States) (PA). In most cases, career foreign service officers serve a tour of approximately three years per ambassadorship whereas political appointees customarily tender their resignations upon the inauguration of a new president."

[Methais]

Do you guys ever tire of being two faced lemmings?

That would require self awareness.

[Methais]

Yeah yeah. Its not my fault that the republican leadership bends over for Trump, lowers taxes on the corporations and super wealthy to balloon the deficit

Know who else's taxes got lowered? Mine. Know what I'm not? Rich.


while telling you to be skurd of immigrants

All immigrants? Or just those who come here illegally? Please clarify. You won't though, because you'll just ignore this because you know how dumb answering honestly will make you look.


while telling you to be skurd of immigrants and socialists so you'll keep voting them into power.

People not wanting socialism in the US is a new thing under Trump? Please clarify. You won't though, because you'll just ignore this as you know how dumb answering honestly will make you look.

Which brings me back to the original question...

Why are you this stupid? I think we deserve a real answer by now.

[Back]

Know who else's taxes got lowered? Mine. Know what I'm not? Rich.

Yeah, you got a paltry pat on the head while Exxon, Amazon, and the wealthiest 1% paid little to zero.


All immigrants? Or just those who come here illegally? Please clarify. You won't though, because you'll just ignore this because you know how dumb answering honestly will make you look.

Just the ones from shit-hole countries.


People not wanting socialism in the US is a new thing under Trump? Please clarify. You won't though, because you'll just ignore this as you know how dumb answering honestly will make you look.

Try to keep up. My statement was about the republican leadership who serve the wealthy. The wealthy have an interest in stopping any and all social programs and outlawing unions in order to satisfy their unlimited greed while billions of people around the world starve while working for unlivable wages. That is why they will tell you socialism is evil and that the poorest and weakest of our population are to be feared. So you'll keep voting them in power and they can keep not paying taxes.

[Neveragain]

Try to keep up. My statement was about the republican leadership who serve the wealthy. The wealthy have an interest in stopping any and all social programs and outlawing unions in order to satisfy their unlimited greed while billions of people around the world starve while working for unlivable wages. That is why they will tell you socialism is evil and that the poorest and weakest of our population are to be feared. So you'll keep voting them in power and they can keep not paying taxes.

You're extremely retarded if you believe only the Republicans serve the wealthy.

You're even more retarded if you think taxing the shit out of the "wealthy" won't either drive the wealthy out of our economy or increase the price of goods and services provided by wealthy people. You're fucking dumb and nobody should listen to your drivel.

[Methais]

Yeah, you got a paltry pat on the head while Exxon, Amazon, and the wealthiest 1% paid little to zero.

Does this change the fact that what you said about him only giving tax breaks to corporations and rich people is a false statement?


Just the ones from shit-hole countries.

Let's recap how predictable you are, because you're a fucking idiot:


All immigrants? Or just those who come here illegally? Please clarify. You won't though, because you'll just ignore this because you know how dumb answering honestly will make you look.


Let's try again though just to see how you attempt to deflect this time...

So if for example someone from Mexico, a shithole country, tries to immigrate here legally, and by legally I mean not illegally, Trump is against that too? Please clarify. You won't though, because you'll just ignore this as you know how dumb answering honestly will make you look. Just like you already tried once. Or maybe you don't know, because self awareness isn't exactly your strong point either.



Try to keep up. My statement was about the republican leadership who serve the wealthy. The wealthy have an interest in stopping any and all social programs and outlawing unions in order to satisfy their unlimited greed while billions of people around the world starve while working for unlivable wages. That is why they will tell you socialism is evil and that the poorest and weakest of our population are to be feared. So you'll keep voting them in power and they can keep not paying taxes.

Your statement specifically said this:


while telling you to be skurd of immigrants and socialists so you'll keep voting them into power.

Social services isn't socialism btw, dumbass. Oh yeah, we also have actual socialists in office and running for higher office right now who will tell you themselves they're socialists and want America to become a socialist country. But clearly it's just Trump using scare tactics and making all that up, right?

When are you going to be less stupid to the point where you can understand basic things like this? Because the only alternative to you being extremely stupid is you being extremely full of shit.

Which one is it?

No need to answer, we all know it's both.

[Tgo01]

Obama fired all of Bush's political appointees in 2007, just as Trump did in 2017 and George W Bush did before that. This isn't news. Firing career, Senate confirmed ambassador's is far less common and done with extreme care. Nice job quoting Breitbart without confirming that this is the reality of every new administration for political appointees.

I never said it wasn’t typical of a new administration, I just love using Obama as an example because simpletons like yourself feel he could do no wrong.

[Tgo01]

Oh look, making arguments nobody made and then knocking them down. Par for the course. Also, this is not a trial, this is basically a grand jury. It did not have to be public, but the repbulicans wanted that and they got it. Opposing counsel is not allowed in a grand jury either. Keep attacking the process. That's the republican playbook.

Oh please, you said those things, I wasn’t quoting you verbatim. Stop being so disingenuous.

Also it has been precedent that the president is allowed to have someone there during impeachment hearings and the minority party can actually call witnesses. Don’t be a weasel like Adam Schitthead and call this “procedure.”

Just admit you hate Trump and want to see him burn. At least be honest when it’s so fucking obvious.

[Tgo01]

He fired the political ones which are basically honorary ones. Not the actual ambassadors who are Foreign Service Officers.

"An ambassador may be a career Foreign Service Officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Service_Officer) (career diplomat – CD) or a political appointee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States) (PA). In most cases, career foreign service officers serve a tour of approximately three years per ambassadorship whereas political appointees customarily tender their resignations upon the inauguration of a new president."

So? Trump could have fired each and every single one if he wanted, he was kind enough to let the obvious Obama supporters keep their jobs for as long as they did. Also we can stop using the word "fired" when talking about "actual ambassadors," she was recalled.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Just the ones from shit-hole countries.

I good that you've finally come around to agreeing with Trump that all those countries are shitholes, pedophile.

[Ashlander]

I good that you've finally come around to agreeing with Trump that all those countries are shitholes, pedophile.

With Back being a racist pedophile and all does that mean he's more or less likely to diddle the brown kids?

[Seran]

I never said it wasn’t typical of a new administration, I just love using Obama as an example because simpletons like yourself feel he could do no wrong.

Ah, thanks for confirming you're a troll.

[Tgo01]

Ah, thanks for confirming you're a troll.

I'm a troll for stating a fact?

Seran has lost it. He's already proven himself to be a bigger piece of shit than Androidpk when it comes to politics, but now he appears to be coming after Back's title.

Come on, Seran, no need for you to be the champion in all of the worst categories on the PC. Leave some recognition for others.

[gemstonefella]

With Back being a racist pedophile and all does that mean he's more or less likely to diddle the brown kids?

He's a priest too?

[Tgo01]

Tim Morrison testified in the secret meetings that the call transcript was accurate and that he didn't think anything improper or illegal happened during the call.

Going to be interesting to see his public testimony Tuesday.

[Ashlander]

He's a priest too?

He does like to virtue signal a lot.

[Methais]

With Back being a racist pedophile and all does that mean he's more or less likely to diddle the brown kids?

It means he’ll tell them he’s helping them while performing said pedo acts. Because minorities clearly need his help. Because they’re brown.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah yeah. Its not my fault that the republican leadership bends over for Trump, lowers taxes on the corporations and super wealthy to balloon the deficit, while telling you to be skurd of immigrants and socialists so you'll keep voting them into power.

My tax accountant just sent out a letter last week. He said that of all the returns he has done in 2019 for FY 2018, 55% of his clients saved a great deal of money. 25% saved some money and 20% actually paid more. Most of the 20% that actually paid more were large corporations in high state tax states.

I was part of that 55% that saved a great deal of money. I'm neither super wealthy or a large corporation.

You keep regurgitating a tired and old talking point that has been proven to be untrue. Do you ever get tired of carrying that filthy water?

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, you got a paltry pat on the head while Exxon, Amazon, and the wealthiest 1% paid little to zero.

Spoiler: You have no idea how taxes are paid or collected.. do you?

Can you be specific about which US citizen that is part of the wealthiest 1% that "paid little to zero" in taxes?

Stop regurgitating every dumb thing you read on the Internet.. it'll make you look less stupid and you could use all the help you can.

[Back]

My tax accountant just sent out a letter last week. He said that of all the returns he has done in 2019 for FY 2018, 55% of his clients saved a great deal of money. 25% saved some money and 20% actually paid more. Most of the 20% that actually paid more were large corporations in high state tax states.

I was part of that 55% that saved a great deal of money. I'm neither super wealthy or a large corporation.

You keep regurgitating a tired and old talking point that has been proven to be untrue. Do you ever get tired of carrying that filthy water?

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. But, regardless of that, regardless of what you think is fair, or what I think is fair, the deficit is ballooning. And not just some party balloon for your 80th birthday, I'm talking Hindenberg ballooning.

[Back]

Spoiler: You have no idea how taxes are paid or collected.. do you?

Can you be specific about which US citizen that is part of the wealthiest 1% that "paid little to zero" in taxes?

Stop regurgitating every dumb thing you read on the Internet.. it'll make you look less stupid and you could use all the help you can.

According to Citizens United, corporations are citizens, so to answer your question you need only look at Amazon alone.

Why do you consistently side with the people who want to remain in power on our backs?

[Back]

Its starting to look like this is all a coup. By insider republicans!

Bolton could very well be the whistle blower. We know from testimony he wanted no part of "whatever drug deal" they were cooking up. We heard testimony from Nicki Haley about how Tillerson and Kelly worked a shadow campaign against Trump. Could the whistle blower be Holier Than Thou Pence? Is he behind this coup of Crooked Trump?

[Parkbandit]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. But, regardless of that, regardless of what you think is fair, or what I think is fair, the deficit is ballooning. And not just some party balloon for your 80th birthday, I'm talking Hindenberg ballooning.

He works for one of the biggest accounting firms in the country.... so it's a bit more than "anecdotal evidence", wouldn't you agree?

And I love how post 2016, you've become concerned about the deficit. I share your concerns... it's one of the biggest failures of this President. He never should have signed that omnibus spending bill.

[Back]

He works for one of the biggest accounting firms in the country.... so it's a bit more than "anecdotal evidence", wouldn't you agree?

And I love how post 2016, you've become concerned about the deficit. I share your concerns... it's one of the biggest failures of this President. He never should have signed that omnibus spending bill.

Because it has become an issue, and is part of a cycle where democrats fix the economy and while increasing social services, then republicans get back into power, tear it all down, raid the coffers for their rich buddies, then stick the bill to the next generation to pay off.

[Parkbandit]

According to Citizens United, corporations are citizens, so to answer your question you need only look at Amazon alone.

Once again regurgitating things you know nothing about. Citizens United was only about campaign donations.. not about taxes.

So... let's go back to your previous statement that the weathiest 1% "paid little to zero" in taxes. Given that there are roughly 126 million households in the US... that 1.26 million people that you claim "paid little to zero in taxes". So give us some examples.


Why do you consistently side with the people who want to remain in power on our backs?

There is the problem with you in a nutshell. Your entire existence is based upon you being the victim of someone..

Be specific: What specific people are remaining in power that are using you?

[Parkbandit]

Because it has become an issue, and is part of a cycle where democrats fix the economy and while increasing social services, then republicans get back into power, tear it all down, raid the coffers for their rich buddies, then stick the bill to the next generation to pay off.

Dude, what?

Deficit spending has always been an issue. It's only an issue with you when a Republican does it though.

And seriously LOL at a Democrat "fixing the economy". Have you heard what the current crop of Democrats are planning to do to the economy if they get elected?

This quote might have to go into the Hall of Fame... that's how dumb it is.

[Back]

Dude, what?

Deficit spending has always been an issue. It's only an issue with you when a Republican does it though.

And seriously LOL at a Democrat "fixing the economy". Have you heard what the current crop of Democrats are planning to do to the economy if they get elected?

This quote might have to go into the Hall of Fame... that's how dumb it is.

Not nearly as dumb as you defending a $30+ trillion deficit. That should be in the Hall of Fame.

Why not use the riches of our nation and people to take care of our nation and people instead of continuing to allow a system that rewards the lucky and connected few an undue and imbalanced portion of everyone's well being?

People have recognized this for a long time, longer than our country has been around, and the cycle has not been broken because its feeds itself. The wealthy buy the power to keep the wealth and the power.

[Back]

Once again regurgitating things you know nothing about. Citizens United was only about campaign donations.. not about taxes.

So... let's go back to your previous statement that the weathiest 1% "paid little to zero" in taxes. Given that there are roughly 126 million households in the US... that 1.26 million people that you claim "paid little to zero in taxes". So give us some examples.



There is the problem with you in a nutshell. Your entire existence is based upon you being the victim of someone..

Be specific: What specific people are remaining in power that are using you?

Everyone at the top is culpable. They keep the republicans funded to enact ways to remove social services and taxes.

[Parkbandit]

Not nearly as dumb as you defending a $30+ trillion deficit. That should be in the Hall of Fame.

Can you tell me which President had a $30+ trillion deficit?

Again, this just shows you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[Parkbandit]

Everyone at the top is culpable. They keep the republicans funded to enact ways to remove social services and taxes.

So, you can't come up with a single example.. with 1.26 million people to choose from. I'm not surprised.

So.. if you had "social services" and less "taxes" you would be more successful?

Dude.. you have every opportunity to make something of yourself in this country.

YOU'VE chosen not to.. but that's on you.. not some magical mean guy standing on your back.

Stop being the victim.

[gemstonefella]

Not nearly as dumb as you defending a $30+ trillion deficit. That should be in the Hall of Fame.

Why not use the riches of our nation and people to take care of our nation and people instead of continuing to allow a system that rewards the lucky and connected few an undue and imbalanced portion of everyone's well being?

People have recognized this for a long time, longer than our country has been around, and the cycle has not been broken because its feeds itself. The wealthy buy the power to keep the wealth and the power.

30 trillion? Where do you get that number from?

[Back]

Can you tell me which President had a $30+ trillion deficit?

Again, this just shows you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Sorry, $30+ trillion national debt.

[Methais]

Because it has become an issue, and is part of a cycle where democrats fix the economy and while increasing social services, then republicans get back into power, tear it all down, raid the coffers for their rich buddies, then stick the bill to the next generation to pay off.

Lol @ democrats fixing anything

Go eat another Tide Pod.

[gemstonefella]

Everyone at the top is culpable. They keep the republicans funded to enact ways to remove social services and taxes.


It's more everyone at the top, both parties, than it is just republicans. The democrats just tell you what you want to hear a little more sweetly. Actions speak louder than words.

[Methais]

Why not use the riches of our nation and people to take care of our nation and people instead of continuing to allow a system that rewards the lucky and connected few an undue and imbalanced portion of everyone's well being?

I agree with you that we should stop spending any money at all on illegals and instead spend it on our own people.

Build the wall Back! Build the fuck out of it!!!!!!!111

[Back]

It's more everyone at the top, both parties, than it is just republicans. The democrats just tell you what you want to hear a little more sweetly. Actions speak louder than words.

Which is why I said everyone is culpable. Yes, people in both parties have a hand in it, but there is a significant difference between democrats and republicans. Just look at the 2020 candidates.

[gemstonefella]

Which is why I said everyone is culpable. Yes, people in both parties have a hand in it, but there is a significant difference between democrats and republicans. Just look at the 2020 candidates.


I'll take a look when they get their shit together. I'll watch a debate when there's less people on stage than most Montana towns.

[~Rocktar~]

Not nearly as dumb as you defending a $30+ trillion deficit. That should be in the Hall of Fame.

Since entitlements, those so called "social services" account for 3/5ths of the budget as of 2015 and since it was estimated that in 3007 or so, we had between 40 and 70 trillion dollars in unfunded social mandates, those so called "social services" that you are so eager to give away, that means that at the present levels of spending on "social services" will keep us in an ever growing deficit until our economy collapses. So, just to put that in perspective, there is about 35 trillion dollars worth of money in the world. The richest few percent of people in the US have a combined 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars of wealth. That isn't enough to feed the entitlement monster for more than about 5 months. Curiously enough, a good stint of high inflation would wipe out the debt but in the mean time, the poor would be ravaged, our economy would tank and all the other bad things that happened in the 70's.


Why not use the riches of our nation and people to take care of our nation and people instead of continuing to allow a system that rewards the lucky and connected few an undue and imbalanced portion of everyone's well being?

Because we are bankrupt just like every other western country out there with substantial "social services". We are in debt to our eyeballs, our income has been long out spent and no matter if you cut back 100% of the military budget, we would STILL be deficit spending. Morons like you who are obviously bad at math and who have put feelings ahead of facts because "muh feels" are on the verge of killing western civilization. Economic enslavement to the body politic is still slavery and it's evil in no uncertain terms. You and others keep advocating for it, so what does that make you?


People have recognized this for a long time, longer than our country has been around, and the cycle has not been broken because its feeds itself. The wealthy buy the power to keep the wealth and the power.

Yes, the rich and powerful work to keep themselves rich and powerful. This is true everywhere and is even more glaringly true in those lovely Socialist and Communist countries you want to emulate.

Your number is retarded, your principles are morally and ethically bankrupt and I sure hope I never get to live in the fantasy "utopia" you and other useful idiots on the left advocate for. Democrats were the party of slavery, were the party of separate but equal, were the party of Jim Crow, were the party of segregation, are the party of slaughtering Blacks, are the party of keeping minorities economically enslaved and when they see their hold on the minorities here slipping, want to import more low IQ people to make into voters in order to cement control of the country as we spiral into economic oblivion, totalitarianism necessitated by Socialism and civil war.

Here is a breakdown of the 2015 budget because you have no clue.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/




I'll take a look when they get their shit together. I'll watch a debate when there's less people on stage than most Montana towns.

It's hard to see with that many clowns in the car.

[Back]

Since entitlements, those so called "social services" account for 3/5ths of the budget as of 2015 and since it was estimated that in 3007 or so, we had between 40 and 70 trillion dollars in unfunded social mandates, those so called "social services" that you are so eager to give away, that means that at the present levels of spending on "social services" will keep us in an ever growing deficit until our economy collapses. So, just to put that in perspective, there is about 35 trillion dollars worth of money in the world. The richest few percent of people in the US have a combined 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars of wealth. That isn't enough to feed the entitlement monster for more than about 5 months. Curiously enough, a good stint of high inflation would wipe out the debt but in the mean time, the poor would be ravaged, our economy would tank and all the other bad things that happened in the 70's.



Because we are bankrupt just like every other western country out there with substantial "social services". We are in debt to our eyeballs, our income has been long out spent and no matter if you cut back 100% of the military budget, we would STILL be deficit spending. Morons like you who are obviously bad at math and who have put feelings ahead of facts because "muh feels" are on the verge of killing western civilization. Economic enslavement to the body politic is still slavery and it's evil in no uncertain terms. You and others keep advocating for it, so what does that make you?



Yes, the rich and powerful work to keep themselves rich and powerful. This is true everywhere and is even more glaringly true in those lovely Socialist and Communist countries you want to emulate.

Your number is retarded, your principles are morally and ethically bankrupt and I sure hope I never get to live in the fantasy "utopia" you and other useful idiots on the left advocate for. Democrats were the party of slavery, were the party of separate but equal, were the party of Jim Crow, were the party of segregation, are the party of slaughtering Blacks, are the party of keeping minorities economically enslaved and when they see their hold on the minorities here slipping, want to import more low IQ people to make into voters in order to cement control of the country as we spiral into economic oblivion, totalitarianism necessitated by Socialism and civil war.

Here is a breakdown of the 2015 budget because you have no clue.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

It's hard to see with that many clowns in the car.

Aside from the obvious pot shots and insults this has been one of your more cogent posts. Thanks for the link. Its pretty informative and presents the information in an easy to understand way.

[Methais]

Aside from the obvious pot shots and insults this has been one of your more cogent posts. Thanks for the link. Its pretty informative and presents the information in an easy to understand way.

The most important thing that you need to take away from it though is that you’re really stupid and gullible.

[Back]

I'll take a look when they get their shit together. I'll watch a debate when there's less people on stage than most Montana towns.

So you want fewer options? Most people like having lots of options. You must confuse the shit out of the cashier at Burger King when you order you food their way.

[Back]

In support of my theory that this is a republican shadow coup against Crooked Trump, that the whistle blower might be Bolton, or even Holier Than Thou Pence, this news came out today.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pence-aide-tells-lawmakers-trump-ukraine-call-unusual-inappropriate_n_5dd16533e4b01f982f03b55d


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart at the center of Congress’ impeachment investigation was “inappropriate,” an aide to Vice President Mike Pence told lawmakers, according to a transcript released on Saturday.

Jennifer Williams, a foreign policy aide to Pence who was listening to the call on July 25, testified that Trump’s insistence that Ukraine carry out politically sensitive investigations “struck me as unusual and inappropriate.”


She said the discussion was “more political in nature” than phone calls with other foreign leaders, and included what she viewed as specific references to the president’s “personal political agenda.”

In order to testify she would have had to disobey the White House order not to testify. She works directly for Pence. Did he not order her to not testify? Was he complicit? Is Pence really a mastermind running a checkmate game against Dumbo Trump to take the presidency?

[Seran]

Since entitlements, those so called "social services" account for 3/5ths of the budget as of 2015 and since it was estimated that in 3007 or so, we had between 40 and 70 trillion dollars in unfunded social mandates, those so called "social services" that you are so eager to give away, that means that at the present levels of spending on "social services" will keep us in an ever growing deficit until our economy collapses. So, just to put that in perspective, there is about 35 trillion dollars worth of money in the world. The richest few percent of people in the US have a combined 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars of wealth. That isn't enough to feed the entitlement monster for more than about 5 months. Curiously enough, a good stint of high inflation would wipe out the debt but in the mean time, the poor would be ravaged, our economy would tank and all the other bad things that happened in the 70's.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/


So interestingly enough, until 2010 the entirety of Social Security entitlements were paid for by a combination of payroll taxes and trust fund interest. Where it went into the red was the first of the "boomers" retiring, with a combination of less able-bodied individuals in the workforce and that workforce by and large making a taxable salary which isn't increasing with inflation, you have the current entitlements crisis. What is the easiest solution? Increasing payroll taxes by something like 2.3-2.4% under the social security line item would make Social Security solvent again. Medicare and Medicaid are a MUCH bigger animal to tackle, by in large because the cost of caring for the poor and disadvantaged exceeds the ability of the working majority to pay for.

Fast forward to 2009 and we have the Affordable Care Act, which as a result the cost of Medicare was $70 billion less and Medicaid $250 billion less than budgeted for 2017. Why? More people insured, receiving annual exams and non-emergent treatment has drastically reduced the governments burden for paying for uncovered emergent treatment. Per the same study, insurer cost for 2017 was $170 billion less than the acturial projected growth for the same reason; people are receiving better, more consistent care that keeps them out of hospitals. This reason alone is why so many Republicans no longer wish to repeal the ACA.

[~Rocktar~]

Aside from the obvious pot shots and insults this has been one of your more cogent posts. Thanks for the link. Its pretty informative and presents the information in an easy to understand way.

I have posted virtually the same argument with the same link something like 5 or 6 times now.


So you want fewer options? Most people like having lots of options. You must confuse the shit out of the cashier at Burger King when you order you food their way.

A bunch of carbon copy idiots trying to out Leftist each other is not real choice. Picking between economic slavery with the Left and less economic slavery with the Right, I chose the less painful option.

Also, disgruntled employees are notoriously biased and unreliable witnesses.

[~Rocktar~]

So interestingly enough, until 2010 the entirety of Social Security entitlements were paid for by a combination of payroll taxes and trust fund interest. Where it went into the red was the first of the "boomers" retiring, with a combination of less able-bodied individuals in the workforce and that workforce by and large making a taxable salary which isn't increasing with inflation, you have the current entitlements crisis. What is the easiest solution? Increasing payroll taxes by something like 2.3-2.4% under the social security line item would make Social Security solvent again. Medicare and Medicaid are a MUCH bigger animal to tackle, by in large because the cost of caring for the poor and disadvantaged exceeds the ability of the working majority to pay for.

The trust fund is a myth that has been dead for decades. The issue with more people retiring than are working is true. Increased payroll taxes as a solution ignores the fact that as taxes increase, demand for benefits increase and the whole thing repeats until there is nothing left to tax. It is and always has been a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Increased lifespan was not met with increased retirement age, benefits have been increased over time and include more and more with less and less being paid in. It cannot continue forever.



Fast forward to 2009 and we have the Affordable Care Act, which as a result the cost of Medicare was $70 billion less and Medicaid $250 billion less than budgeted for 2017. Why? More people insured, receiving annual exams and non-emergent treatment has drastically reduced the governments burden for paying for uncovered emergent treatment. Per the same study, insurer cost for 2017 was $170 billion less than the acturial projected growth for the same reason; people are receiving better, more consistent care that keeps them out of hospitals. This reason alone is why so many Republicans no longer wish to repeal the ACA.

These studies don't take into account that you have 6 years of "benefits" paid for by 10 years of taxes, the CBO showing the revised estimates being 2 to 3 times the initial costs AND the increased burden of cost to the consumer. Since many were forced to buy plans they didn't want, their costs rose, since coverage was standardized to a dismal minimum coverage decreased and many people quit working in order to just have the government and welfare pay for them. None of these studies address these issues. The private cost of coverage went up, deductibles, co-insurance and copays went up (which means coverage went down) and you have a large increase in legal costs to administer and maintain this load of shit.

Good news, being a middle aged male, I have maternity coverage and I am covered for a pap smear all that I am forced to pay for because "mug feels".

A small, less onerous and less expensive expansion of medicaid and perhaps a law to address pre-existing conditions could have addressed the major ills to assuage Leftist guilt that no all people are created equally miserable and wretched. Instead, we got the ACA.

[Seran]

The trust fund is a myth that has been dead for decades. The issue with more people retiring than are working is true. Increased payroll taxes as a solution ignores the fact that as taxes increase, demand for benefits increase and the whole thing repeats until there is nothing left to tax. It is and always has been a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Increased lifespan was not met with increased retirement age, benefits have been increased over time and include more and more with less and less being paid in. It cannot continue forever.


Current benefits are always a percentage of the retiring income, so while you're technically correct that it cannot last forever, I disagree with your reason. The Social Security trust fund is not a trust funds as many think of it, which would be similar to an escrow or investment account. In fact the "trust fund" is interest bearing general bonds which are held as payroll taxes fail to meet a current obligation. The last accounting I saw was $2.93 trillion.

So, while you're technically correct in that it cannot last forever, the easy fix of increasing benefits age, lowering benefit or raising payroll taxes periodically increase the longevity of it's solvency.

Now, Social Security Retirement was meant as a basic income, to supplement savings, so that retiree's weren't living on the streets. The downward trend in homeownership and stagnant wages mean there's no savings or cost reductions such as having paid off your mortgage. This isn't the failure of SSA, but rather the government in leaving the minimum wage unchanged.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

SS is not retirement. It's meant to be 40% or less of your post career income.

[Seran]

SS is not retirement. It's meant to be 40% or less of your post career income.

Which is my point. Social Security Retirement is just the name of the program I'm referring to.

[~Rocktar~]

Current benefits are always a percentage of the retiring income, so while you're technically correct that it cannot last forever, I disagree with your reason. The Social Security trust fund is not a trust funds as many think of it, which would be similar to an escrow or investment account. In fact the "trust fund" is interest bearing general bonds which are held as payroll taxes fail to meet a current obligation. The last accounting I saw was $2.93 trillion.

So, while you're technically correct in that it cannot last forever, the easy fix of increasing benefits age, lowering benefit or raising payroll taxes periodically increase the longevity of it's solvency.

Now, Social Security Retirement was meant as a basic income, to supplement savings, so that retiree's weren't living on the streets. The downward trend in homeownership and stagnant wages mean there's no savings or cost reductions such as having paid off your mortgage. This isn't the failure of SSA, but rather the government in leaving the minimum wage unchanged.

Minimum wage laws preclude any long term increase in wages and earnings as they are quickly consumed due to inflation. The issue is and always has been, government meddling so that instead of taking care of themselves, people expect a free ride from the government. Had the modest proposal of allowing people to invest 1/2 of their SS retirement in an index fund proposed under Bush, people would be about 30% better off and the can would be a lot farther down the road.

The fact is, no tax increase will fix the issue as long as benefits remain the same or increase (traditionally they increase), inflation remains the same and the retirement age remains the same. Tax increases won't do it. One of the big reasons some theorize that the Democrats want a continued flood of illegals is both that they hope they can get them eligible to vote because they vote for Democrats and because a large quantity of people paying in using stolen info who will never collect, due to legal status, helps prop up the deeply insolvent system. So yeah, Democrat slavery at it's finest.

We have too many people sucking blood from the government and like all beasts, when too many ticks feed from it, it dies.

[Seran]

Minimum wage laws preclude any long term increase in wages and earnings as they are quickly consumed due to inflation. The issue is and always has been, government meddling so that instead of taking care of themselves, people expect a free ride from the government. Had the modest proposal of allowing people to invest 1/2 of their SS retirement in an index fund proposed under Bush, people would be about 30% better off and the can would be a lot farther down the road.

The fact is, no tax increase will fix the issue as long as benefits remain the same or increase (traditionally they increase), inflation remains the same and the retirement age remains the same. Tax increases won't do it. One of the big reasons some theorize that the Democrats want a continued flood of illegals is both that they hope they can get them eligible to vote because they vote for Democrats and because a large quantity of people paying in using stolen info who will never collect, due to legal status, helps prop up the deeply insolvent system. So yeah, Democrat slavery at it's finest.

We have too many people sucking blood from the government and like all beasts, when too many ticks feed from it, it dies.

Which is precisely why you tie the minimum wage to the inflation index, adjusted in increments. More wages, drives inflation, both of which drive growth and the economy.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Man I have to admit, I kind of want to see Trump's tax returns. Only because I'm curious why he's fighting so hard to release them.

I don't give two shits if he didn't pay any taxes or paid low taxes... if he didn't take advantage of every loophole I'd be disappointed. I think when/if they ever get released, no one will give a shit anyway.

[Methais]

Man I have to admit, I kind of want to see Trump's tax returns. Only because I'm curious why he's fighting so hard to release them.

I don't give two shits if he didn't pay any taxes or paid low taxes... if he didn't take advantage of every loophole I'd be disappointed. I think when/if they ever get released, no one will give a shit anyway.

I don't remember how old the tax return was that Rachel Maddow popped up with but IIRC didn't it say he paid like $30m in taxes that year or something?

It's always possible he could be hiding something, but at this point I think he's just doing it to keep triggering the left and then if/when he does eventually release it and there's nothing special, the left will have meltdowns over that too and come up with new conspiracies to look stupid over.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Now the impeachment probe is looking at if Trump lied to Mueller... because the whole Mueller Inquiry went so well.

We really need to delete/reinstall congress with not blowhard partisans.

[audioserf]

I'd go 50/50 Trump is hiding something versus is just super stubborn and has decided he's not gonna do it and that's that

[Tgo01]

Man I have to admit, I kind of want to see Trump's tax returns. Only because I'm curious why he's fighting so hard to release them.

I don't give two shits if he didn't pay any taxes or paid low taxes... if he didn't take advantage of every loophole I'd be disappointed. I think when/if they ever get released, no one will give a shit anyway.

I think it’s either that or he’s not as rich as he claims.

[Seran]

Man I have to admit, I kind of want to see Trump's tax returns. Only because I'm curious why he's fighting so hard to release them.

I don't give two shits if he didn't pay any taxes or paid low taxes... if he didn't take advantage of every loophole I'd be disappointed. I think when/if they ever get released, no one will give a shit anyway.

I find it pretty hard to see a justification of obtaining his tax returns, beyond partisan gotcha moments. Sure, if he's broke, then it makes him look bad, but that's it. Talking big about his financial accumen and lying about it isn't a crime.

If the Democrats are trying to prove illegal contributions, I mean I doubt the President doesn't have accountant's fifty times more wiley than House investigators.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, $30+ trillion national debt.

Still wrong.

Care for a 4th try?

[Parkbandit]

Which is why I said everyone is culpable. Yes, people in both parties have a hand in it, but there is a significant difference between democrats and republicans. Just look at the 2020 candidates.

Dude... you aren't even trying to mask your stupidity at this point.

Stop posting. Let people guess how dumb you are.

[Parkbandit]

Aside from the obvious pot shots and insults this has been one of your more cogent posts. Thanks for the link. Its pretty informative and presents the information in an easy to understand way.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/321HrzkqKyUt6cxCOI/giphy.gif

[Parkbandit]

Man I have to admit, I kind of want to see Trump's tax returns. Only because I'm curious why he's fighting so hard to release them.

I don't give two shits if he didn't pay any taxes or paid low taxes... if he didn't take advantage of every loophole I'd be disappointed. I think when/if they ever get released, no one will give a shit anyway.

He's trolling.

Hard.

I imagine it shows he's only a 900 millionaire and he calls himself a billionaire and he's afraid people will make fun of him for it.

[Tgo01]

I find it pretty hard to see a justification of obtaining his tax returns, beyond partisan gotcha moments. Sure, if he's broke, then it makes him look bad, but that's it. Talking big about his financial accumen and lying about it isn't a crime.

If the Democrats are trying to prove illegal contributions, I mean I doubt the President doesn't have accountant's fifty times more wiley than House investigators.

The idea that Democrats are going to find anything illegal in Trump's tax returns is just pure nonsense that they peddle to their supporters. This is all about finding ANYTHING to make Trump look bad, even if it's "He doesn't pay his fair share!" nonsense.

Like the IRS doesn't go through Trump's returns with a fine tooth comb every year, I'm sure they would have found something illegal themselves by now. But if only Democrats in Congress could take a gander at those returns then they for sure could find the illegal actions!

[Seran]

That's all it seems like to me, fodder for 2020. There's enough information from financial statements to derive the same information about Trump's business success of lack thereof.

Now if the Democrats do get the information and release it for purely political purposes, I hope there's prosecution.

[Tgo01]

I've seen some Democrats online actually think Trump's taxes will prove he was bribed by Russia or some shit. Yes, they have convinced themselves that Trump will have a line on his tax forms somewhere stating "Bribe received from Russia: 1,000,000" in 2015 or something. It's absolute lunacy. And also nothing will come of it even if Democrats release his taxes for political purposes. Democrats seem to be immune to prosecution lately.

[Tgo01]

I've also always thought the tradition of releasing tax returns was dumb anyways. Like a bunch of millionaires trying their best to ensure us that they are just like us common folks because they grew up poor or because when they were younger their father was a hard worker or something.

I really don't give a single shit about tax returns from politicians, unless they entered politics poor, have been in politics for decades, and are now filthy rich, those returns I wouldn't mind seeing.

[Some Rogue]

He's trolling.

Hard.

I imagine it shows he's only a 900 millionaire and he calls himself a billionaire and he's afraid people will make fun of him for it.

Well we already know from a prior case he had to testify that he just makes stuff up about his net worth and most of it is based on his "feelings". I am sure he is nowhere near truthful on any of the things he has claimed. I think it might also be that there is a lot of things in there that would contradict what he has told banks when he applied for loans.

[Some Rogue]

I really don't give a single shit about tax returns from politicians, unless they entered politics poor, have been in politics for decades, and are now filthy rich, those returns I wouldn't mind seeing.

Well he does break the emolument clause like every other day....

[Tgo01]

Well he does break the emolument clause like every other day....

No.

[~Rocktar~]

Which is precisely why you tie the minimum wage to the inflation index, adjusted in increments. More wages, drives inflation, both of which drive growth and the economy.

Which guarantees Argentina like inflation in just a few cycles. The "increments" have to put very far apart, which means it's effectively the same as today or they are much closer together which quickly drives run away inflation.

[Seran]

Inflation in countries like Argentina, Venezuela and half of the African continent suffer hyper inflation as they're printing limitless amounts of money without an economy (GDP) to support future returns. America has never defaulted and has an irrepressible economy which backs up our debt.

Higher wages will drive inflation, again, but in America it's not a $1 million to buy a loaf of bread. Americans make money and spend it in the lower and middle incomes

[Tgo01]

Higher wages will drive inflation, again, but in America it's not a $1 million to buy a loaf of bread.

That could happen though. I'm sure every country in the world that has experienced hyper inflation thought "It couldn't happen to us!"

[Parkbandit]

Well we already know from a prior case he had to testify that he just makes stuff up about his net worth and most of it is based on his "feelings". I am sure he is nowhere near truthful on any of the things he has claimed. I think it might also be that there is a lot of things in there that would contradict what he has told banks when he applied for loans.

Well, he's already required to disclose financial statements.. not entirely your "he makes his net worth up" is legit.

[Some Rogue]

Well, he's already required to disclose financial statements.. not entirely your "he makes his net worth up" is legit.

He may tell banks the truth, but he lies to everyone else. His own sworn testimony when he tried to sue an author for defamation because he said he wasn't as rich as he claimed shows that.

[Tgo01]

Trump says he's considering testifying at the impeachment shit. Honestly he would be a giant fool to testify in person, although I think he said he was thinking of doing it in writing.

Democrats would love to get Trump there answering questions in person, it would make this whole thing seem legitimate, it would draw more attention to this shit, and they would just love to get 3 second sound bites taken out of context to be floating all over the news and social media.

[Parkbandit]

He may tell banks the truth, but he lies to everyone else. His own sworn testimony when he tried to sue an author for defamation because he said he wasn't as rich as he claimed shows that.

Candidates running for president (or any federal office) are required to detail their financial holdings, debt and sources of income so that the public can identify any conflicts of interest they may have. This will have far more information that a single year of tax return.

Trump was required to file this document when he was running for President. Anything else like "He just makes up his wealth" or "He lies to everyone else" is nothing more than a TDS flareup that makes you lose all sense of logic and common sense.

[Some Rogue]

Candidates running for president (or any federal office) are required to detail their financial holdings, debt and sources of income so that the public can identify any conflicts of interest they may have. This will have far more information that a single year of tax return.

Trump was required to file this document when he was running for President. Anything else like "He just makes up his wealth" or "He lies to everyone else" is nothing more than a TDS flareup that makes you lose all sense of logic and common sense.

Or someone is just burying their head in the sand...

"You said that the net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?" he was asked in the deposition.

"Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day," Trump responded.


In the deposition, the attorney presented estimates of his net worth by two banks where Trump had applied for lines of credit. Both concluded Trump was worth about a third of the $3.5 billion he claimed in 2005.

Trump said the numbers were wrong and the banks did not do an exhaustive search of his assets.

On the campaign trail Trump boasts that he is not a politician, but under oath, he said he spins his business like any politician.


"Have you ever lied in public... about your properties?" he was asked.


"I try and be truthful," he said. "You always - when you are making a public statement - you want to say it the most positive way possible. I'm no different from a politician running for office."


Trump's 2006 lawsuit was dismissed. He appealed and lost the appeal. The appeals judges found (http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2011/a6141-08-opn.html) there were no "obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of [his] informants or the accuracy of [their] reports."
This piece has been updated with a statement from O'Brien: "Donald Trump lost his lawsuit and it didn't cost me any money to litigate it. The central tenets of his complaint -- that the book inaccurately or maliciously described his troubled business history and his exaggerations or misrepresentations around his wealth and success as a dealmaker -- didn't hold up in court. These continue to be important issues in this presidential campaign, even if Mr. Trump wants to dismiss or diminish them."

[Parkbandit]

Or someone is just burying their head in the sand...

"You said that the net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?" he was asked in the deposition.

"Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day," Trump responded.


In the deposition, the attorney presented estimates of his net worth by two banks where Trump had applied for lines of credit. Both concluded Trump was worth about a third of the $3.5 billion he claimed in 2005.

Trump said the numbers were wrong and the banks did not do an exhaustive search of his assets.

On the campaign trail Trump boasts that he is not a politician, but under oath, he said he spins his business like any politician.


"Have you ever lied in public... about your properties?" he was asked.


"I try and be truthful," he said. "You always - when you are making a public statement - you want to say it the most positive way possible. I'm no different from a politician running for office."


Trump's 2006 lawsuit was dismissed. He appealed and lost the appeal. The appeals judges found (http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2011/a6141-08-opn.html) there were no "obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of [his] informants or the accuracy of [their] reports."
This piece has been updated with a statement from O'Brien: "Donald Trump lost his lawsuit and it didn't cost me any money to litigate it. The central tenets of his complaint -- that the book inaccurately or maliciously described his troubled business history and his exaggerations or misrepresentations around his wealth and success as a dealmaker -- didn't hold up in court. These continue to be important issues in this presidential campaign, even if Mr. Trump wants to dismiss or diminish them."

Tell me specifically how one years tax return will tell you what Trump's net worth is.

Here is my take on it: The left (and many on the right) are so fucking triggered by Trump that they will just forget all about logic and common sense just to have their "AHA!" moment. Trump has complied with the law regarding what specifically must be disclosed about his fiscal dealings. If you want to make tax returns a part of that law, then make it a law.

Spoiler: A "tradition" doesn't mean it's required.

[Methais]

Well we already know from a prior case he had to testify that he just makes stuff up about his net worth and most of it is based on his "feelings". I am sure he is nowhere near truthful on any of the things he has claimed. I think it might also be that there is a lot of things in there that would contradict what he has told banks when he applied for loans.

Feelings are facts in 2019, you heartless racist.

[Methais]

America has never defaulted and has an irrepressible economy which backs up our debt.

We did get our credit rating downgraded though.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1GDIoTHz4s

[Some Rogue]

Feelings are facts in 2019, you heartless racist.

I'm a feelist. Not like Epstein though, who didn't actually kill himself.

[Methais]

I'm a feelist. Not like Epstein though, who didn't actually kill himself.

https://i.imgur.com/RAHrZ06.jpg

[Tgo01]

Obama busy firing and prosecuting as many whistleblowers as he can.
Democrats:

People even think about naming Trump's "whistleblower".
Democrats: OMG! This is an attack on our Democracy! We must protect the whistleblower with our lives!!!!!

[Seran]

Obama busy firing and prosecuting as many whistleblowers as he can.
Democrats:

People even think about naming Trump's "whistleblower".
Democrats: OMG! This is an attack on our Democracy! We must protect the whistleblower with our lives!!!!!

are you referring to anyone other than Chelsea Manning?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Dems jumped the shark with Morrison and Volker, especially in prime time. Everyone in America gets to see them get pants'd, live. And we learned earlier that the Lt. Col is the one who leaked to the whistleblower, AND the one who went to the lawyers, AND was already identified internally as a leak risk.

This has been a JUGE day for Trump. Congrats butthurt lib fools, you are getting him re-elected.

[Tgo01]

are you referring to anyone other than Chelsea Manning?

Are you seriously unaware of the multiple whistleblowers Obama fired or had prosecuted during his time in office? Even CNN admitted he prosecuted twice the number of whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined.

[Tgo01]

So the one witness today who is Vindman's supervisor had serious concerns with him that he was a leaker and insubordinate, this witness also said he didn't see anything wrong or illegal with the phone call.

And yet another witness said he didn't see any quid pro quo or any bribery or extortion happening.

Are we still pretending this is a legitimate impeachment inquiry or are we finally starting to see the truth?

[Alfster]

Dems jumped the shark with Morrison and Volker, especially in prime time. Everyone in America gets to see them get pants'd, live. And we learned earlier that the Lt. Col is the one who leaked to the whistleblower, AND the one who went to the lawyers, AND was already identified internally as a leak risk.

This has been a JUGE day for Trump. Congrats butthurt lib fools, you are getting him re-elected.

How does that matter? The whistleblower is looking more credible. The Republicans haven't managed to give an actual defense to any of the accusations. Simply attacking witnesses and complaining about the house rules that are being followed and were set by them.

I mean. Unless the defense is they didn't hold the money forever, which is absurd.

[Alfster]

So the one witness today who is Vindman's supervisor had serious concerns with him that he was a leaker and insubordinate, this witness also said he didn't see anything wrong or illegal with the phone call.

And yet another witness said he didn't see any quid pro quo or any bribery or extortion happening.

Are we still pretending this is a legitimate impeachment inquiry or are we finally starting to see the truth?

It's legitimate. I stand by what I see as the major problem and it's not the alleged quid quo pro. It's Giuliani and other private citizens acting on behalf of the government without security clearances.

Admit it. If Hillary did this you'd be screaming

[Tgo01]

How does that matter? The whistleblower is looking more credible. The Republicans haven't managed to give an actual defense to any of the accusations. Simply attacking witnesses and complaining about the house rules that are being followed and were set by them.

I mean. Unless the defense is they didn't hold the money forever, which is absurd.

Are you even watching this sham? Multiple witnesses have said nothing wrong or illegal even happened. So far it's looking like it's just Vindman whose own supervisor said he had serious concerns with him and his conduct.

[Tgo01]

It's legitimate. I stand by what I see as the major problem and it's not the alleged quid quo pro. It's Giuliani and other private citizens acting on behalf of the government without security clearances.

Admit it. If Hillary did this you'd be screaming

Oh my bad, your major concern is something even the Democrats haven't yet shifted to. But you're right, I'm sure in their last desperate breath to make this whole thing seem legitimate that will be what they shift their narrative to.

[Alfster]

Oh my bad, your major concern is something even the Democrats haven't yet shifted to. But you're right, I'm sure in their last desperate breath to make this whole thing seem legitimate that will be what they shift their narrative to.

Which I think is a mistake that they're not going that route. Unlike you, I'm willing to watch the testimony and make my own decision. I'm not sure I care about withholding aid, but I sure as shit care about national security. This is the problem that I see with this.

[Alfster]

Are you even watching this sham? Multiple witnesses have said nothing wrong or illegal even happened. So far it's looking like it's just Vindman whose own supervisor said he had serious concerns with him and his conduct.

I am watching it. I'm hearing plenty of them say they were concerned with what was said and reported it to their lawyers. Some have refused to answer whether it's illegal because they're not lawyers.

[Tgo01]

Which I think is a mistake that they're not going that route. Unlike you, I'm willing to watch the testimony and make my own decision. I'm not sure I care about withholding aid, but I sure as shit care about national security. This is the problem that I see with this.

Like I said I'm sure with the Democrats' ever changing narrative they will eventually come to that one. Until then it's kind of pointless to even discuss because it's not even what this impeachment sham is about.

[Alfster]

So you're okay with it. Just say that. National security doesn't matter to you

[Tgo01]

So you're okay with it. Just say that. National security doesn't matter to you

We have even less information on what you're talking about than we do on Trump's supposedly illegal activities. Why would I comment on that?

[Alfster]

You're kidding, right?

[Tgo01]

You're kidding, right?

I honestly don't know what you want from me. We are talking about what the Democrats are alleging Trump did in order to remove him from office. You're talking about something totally different that neither the Democrats nor even the witnesses are commenting on. Shit you're literally the only person I have seen period say this is what you think the big deal is. I don't even think the hacks over at CNN are commenting on this in regards to removing Trump from office.

[Seran]

Are you seriously unaware of the multiple whistleblowers Obama fired or had prosecuted during his time in office? Even CNN admitted he prosecuted twice the number of whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined.

Yes, I am seriously unaware of anyone being granted whistleblower status being retaliated against and prosecuted

[Tgo01]

Yes, I am seriously unaware of anyone being granted whistleblower status being retaliated against and prosecuted

What a bunch of weasel words. "Granted whistleblower status." How do you even look at yourself in the mirror with two faces staring back at you?

[Seran]

Dems jumped the shark with Morrison and Volker, especially in prime time. Everyone in America gets to see them get pants'd, live. And we learned earlier that the Lt. Col is the one who leaked to the whistleblower, AND the one who went to the lawyers, AND was already identified internally as a leak risk.

This has been a JUGE day for Trump. Congrats butthurt lib fools, you are getting him re-elected.

You're referring to testimony refuting Trump and Giuliani's conspiracy theory about vice president Biden? Or Volker recanting his earlier testimony about the President's request for investigations into Burisma and the Bidens? For those being Republican requested witnesses, they sure helped the impeachment.

[Seran]

What a bunch of weasel words. "Granted whistleblower status." How do you even look at yourself in the mirror with two faces staring back at you?

I'm waiting for names. I'm interested in looking into your claims. Feel free to cite whatever Fox News or Breitbart article with the information you're parroting.

I'm beginning to think Manning and Assange are your so called victims

[Tgo01]

I'm waiting for names. I'm interested in looking into your claims. Feel free to cite whatever Fox News or Breitbart article with the information you're parroting.

I'm beginning to think Manning and Assange are your so called victims

You're apparently not interested at all because they weren't "granted whistleblower status." What an absolute joke.

And just for the record Manning is a piece of shit who would have rotted in prison.

[Alfster]

I honestly don't know what you want from me. We are talking about what the Democrats are alleging Trump did in order to remove him from office. You're talking about something totally different that neither the Democrats nor even the witnesses are commenting on. Shit you're literally the only person I have seen period say this is what you think the big deal is. I don't even think the hacks over at CNN are commenting on this in regards to removing Trump from office.

It's by no means different. Your safe space probably hasn't figured out how to spin it yet - but sondland will certainly be talking about it tomorrow.

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Thursday that President Donald Trump directed him and other envoys to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine policy and that he disagreed with the directive.

Gordon Sondland’s closed-door testimony to House impeachment investigators was aimed at distancing himself from Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Sondland said he was disappointed Trump instructed him to work with Giuliani, a directive that sidestepped the role of the State Department and the National Security Council. He also said he believed it was wrong to invite a foreign government to conduct investigations to influence American elections.

[Tgo01]

It's by no means different. Your safe space probably hasn't figured out how to spin it yet - but sondland will certainly be talking about it tomorrow.

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Thursday that President Donald Trump directed him and other envoys to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine policy and that he disagreed with the directive.

Gordon Sondland’s closed-door testimony to House impeachment investigators was aimed at distancing himself from Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Sondland said he was disappointed Trump instructed him to work with Giuliani, a directive that sidestepped the role of the State Department and the National Security Council. He also said he believed it was wrong to invite a foreign government to conduct investigations to influence American elections.

I'll wait to see Sondland's testimony then. This is why we needed public hearings to begin with because as we're seeing so far the leaks from Adam Schitthead from the secret meetings things aren't turning out so well for him in the public hearings.

[Alfster]

Sondlands going to be interesting to watch. So will Lev parnas as he intends to comply with the subpoenas.

[Seran]

You're apparently not interested at all because they weren't "granted whistleblower status." What an absolute joke.

And just for the record Manning is a piece of shit who would have rotted in prison.

Point Set Match

[Tgo01]

Fewer and fewer people are tuning in to watch these bullshit hearings with each passing day. Also a week ago only 37% of independents opposed the impeachment inquiry, now after 3 days of this shit 47% oppose it.

At this rate the Democrats are going to either have to abandon this circus within the next couple of weeks or really start reaching and accusing Trump of murder or something to get Americans to care about this.

[Tgo01]

Point Set Match

You're annoying.

Obama’s legacy will be one of secrecy and hostility toward the press (https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311026-obamas-legacy-will-be-one-of-secrecy-and-hostility)


CNN’s Jake Tapper was more emphatic: “The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists . . . more than all previous administrations combined”—seven times.


No less chilling was the 2013 Associated Press announcement that over a two-month period the Justice Department had seized phone records, without notice, of 20 telephone lines to AP offices and journalists (including cell phones and home phones) affecting more than 100 reporters—a transgression AP president Gary Pruitt deemed “a massive and unprecedented intrusion” for which there was no justification.

Incredibly, a week following the AP probe, the DOJ ratcheted things up even further when it named Fox News journalist James Rosen a criminal co-conspirator in a leak case involving North Korea’s intention to conduct a nuclear test in response to impending U.N. sanctions. Federal investigators seized Rosen’s email logs, tracked his State Department visits and movements through his security badge, and even targeted the phone records of his parents on Staten Island.

The chorus was deafening:

Leonard Downie, a forty-year veteran at The Washington Post wrote, “The administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.”

The Hilll, CNN, AND Washington Post all in there, not exactly the "right leaning" news sites of Fox News and Blaze like you claimed I would quote. To be fair The Hill is the most impartial of the three, but CNN and Washington Post are practically the DNC's propaganda arm at this point.

But this is why I didn't want to bother with you anymore because you have already made it clear what you're going to say: "But those aren't 'official' whistleblowers, I only care about 'official' whistleblowers, all non-official whistleblowers can go ahead and rot in jail as long as Obama is the one throwing them in jail."

Like I said you're a joke.

[Seran]

Yeah, it's pretty amazing that you'd ignore the legal definition of whistleblower in order to make your partisan point. Oh wait, no it isn't.

Snowden, Manning, Patreus and others all released top secret or classified information n to the public and in doing so, broke the law. This contrasts distinctively to the Trump whistleblower, who reported non-classified information to the inspector general, who took it privately to Congress.

Again, I don't give two shits how unethical your partisan spin is, nor do I particularly mind just how glaringly uninformed you are about federal law. What's embarrassing is you and your alts spreading misinformation without ever bothering to substantiate your claims, then deriding everyone who calls out your lies.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, it's pretty amazing that you'd ignore the legal definition of whistleblower in order to make your partisan point. Oh wait, no it isn't.

Snowden, Manning, Patreus and others all released top secret or classified information n to the public and in doing so, broke the law. This contrasts distinctively to the Trump whistleblower, who reported non-classified information to the inspector general, who took it privately to Congress.

Again, I don't give two shits how unethical your partisan spin is, nor do I particularly mind just how glaringly uninformed you are about federal law. What's embarrassing is you and your alts spreading misinformation without ever bothering to substantiate your claims, then deriding everyone who calls out your lies.

So like I said:


Obama busy firing and prosecuting as many whistleblowers as he can.
Democrats:

People even think about naming Trump's "whistleblower".
Democrats: OMG! This is an attack on our Democracy! We must protect the whistleblower with our lives!!!!!

Why can't you just admit you don't give a single shit about any of those whistleblowers because it happened under Obama, but you pretend to care about this whistleblower because they are "taking down Trump"? It's the same for how you pretended to give a shit about Vindman's service, which is probably the first time you've ever cared about someone serving in the military.

You must be a ghost because I can see right through you.

[Seran]

So those lawbreakers are patriots because it suits your political narrative. I imagine using the same logic that Stone, Manafort and the others are heroes for going to jail without ever implicating the president? Just how far do the ends justify the means when our national security is being destroyed by the illicit and openly illegal acts of the President and his personal lawyer?

[Tgo01]

So those lawbreakers are patriots because it suits your political narrative.

You really do just read what you want to read don't you?

Me: Fuck those whistleblowers under Obama, and fuck this one under Trump thinking he can take down a president all while remaining anonymous.
Seran: Fuck those whistleblowers under Obama! But protect the Trump one at all costs, our Democracy depends on it! Also, why you so partisan, Tgo01?

I couldn't even dream up something this two faced, idiotic, and containing so much projection even if I tried, yet it seems to come naturally to you. Why is that?

[Alfster]

But Hillary's emails! Bengazi!! Lock her up!!!

You're as partisan as they come. Haha

[Seran]

You really do just read what you want to read don't you?

Me: Fuck those whistleblowers under Obama, and fuck this one under Trump thinking he can take down a president all while remaining anonymous.
Seran: Fuck those whistleblowers under Obama! But protect the Trump one at all costs, our Democracy depends on it! Also, why you so partisan, Tgo01?

I couldn't even dream up something this two faced, idiotic, and containing so much projection even if I tried, yet it seems to come naturally to you. Why is that?

So yes, in other words. Thanks for clarifying.

[Tgo01]

But Hillary's emails! Bengazi!! Lock her up!!!

You're as partisan as they come. Haha

I have never once claimed I wasn't partisan. It's just funny seeing someone so far beyond being a partisan that they practically live in Adam Schitthead's colon telling me I'm partisan while implying they aren't.

[Tgo01]

So yes, in other words. Thanks for clarifying.

"So in other words everything you have just said is spot on but Imma pretend it isn't because it's easier that way."

Keep on shilling, shill.

[Tgo01]

Lieutenant General Kellogg, a 34 year combat veteran who was also on the call in question, says he didn't hear anything improper on the call and has no concerns at all.

Will Seran call him a patriot and say his service means we should take his words more seriously? Or will he be a partisan hack yet again and ignore this and continue to say Vindman is the real patriot because reasons? It's the last one isn't it, Seran?

[Neveragain]

So basically this is falling apart like the Russia hoax, Jucy Smell'e and the Kavanaugh hearings?

[Tgo01]

So basically this is falling apart like the Russia hoax, Jucy Smell'e and the Kavanaugh hearings?

Kellogg wasn't called to testify, probably because he goes against Schitt's narrative, he just put out a statement. So since he didn't testify the Democrats will probably insist his words mean nothing.

I do think this proves Trump was right from the very beginning. There was apparently like 40 people all listening in on this phone call, do the Democrats really think Trump was stupid enough to be like "Hey I'm gonna say something totally illegal to you right now that could get me impeached but I'm so desperate to get dirt on Biden." Give me a break.

[Seran]

Lieutenant General Kellogg, a 34 year combat veteran who was also on the call in question, says he didn't hear anything improper on the call and has no concerns at all.

Will Seran call him a patriot and say his service means we should take his words more seriously? Or will he be a partisan hack yet again and ignore this and continue to say Vindman is the real patriot because reasons? It's the last one isn't it, Seran?

If Lt General Kellogg had come out and said, "The President never once mentioned Burisma, VP Pence or Hunter Biden" and other's have given mistaken testimony." this would be news. Instead you have a staff member who is loyal to the President casting an opinion on the nature of the call.

Going on to say this gal never once brought up concerns to him directly as her supervisor is also laughable. Is she required to? No. But this is a well organized attempt at misdirection. I'm not shocked you're participating in the spin.

[Tgo01]

Instead you have a staff member who is loyal to the President casting an opinion on the nature of the call.

The irony is so fucking palpable at this point.

Here let me help you out here.

Instead you have a staff member (Vindman) who is so disloyal to the President casting an opinion on the nature of the call.

And how did I know you weren't going to call Kellogg a patriot and imply we should take his word more seriously because of his service? Worse you insist we should take his word LESS seriously because of his supposed loyalty to Trump.

Again just admit it. Just admit you don't care about facts at all and just want to see Trump burn, because you sure as shit don't seem to mind using someone's service as a cudgel to beat those who disagree with you over the head, but as soon as someone who has served longer comes along and takes Trump's side suddenly military service doesn't seem to matter to you one bit. Almost as if I called this right after you made your original post a few weeks ago, oh wait I did.


I very much doubt that. More like anyone who served in combat and just so happens to testify against a president you don't like you call a war hero in order to bolster said testimony and use his service as a cudgel against anyone who dared speak badly about his testimony.

Oh my bad, you called him a war hero.

[Parkbandit]

But Hillary's emails! Bengazi!! Lock her up!!!

You're as partisan as they come. Haha

I don't think he ever claimed not to be.

Do you believe you are "as pastisan as they come"?

[Parkbandit]

Lieutenant General Kellogg, a 34 year combat veteran who was also on the call in question, says he didn't hear anything improper on the call and has no concerns at all.

I enjoyed his Raisin Bran this morning.

[Parkbandit]

So basically this is falling apart like the Russia hoax, Jucy Smell'e and the Kavanaugh hearings?

This is what happens when you are so desperate to reverse an election that hurt your feelings, that you lose your ability to use common sense, logic or intelligence.

We call that Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[Methais]

Remember when democrats accidentally showed their cards months ago though, because they're very stupid and not smart at all?

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Idy-an2mpAQ/XZQaOCKlOkI/AAAAAAAAIvQ/eMjdaonFq5YgIkcYK6SLZRvcOB5qG-o9gCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/al%2Bgreen%2Bmust%2Bimpeach.jpg

[Seran]

“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, a close Trump ally and GOP donor, plans to say in his opening remarks Wednesday to impeachment investigators. “The answer is yes.”

[Seran]

Pack up your bags Trumpers, the end is nigh

[Methais]

Pack up your bags Trumpers, the end is nigh

Quoted for posterity for your future meltdown.

[Seran]

U.S. diplomat Sondland says he followed president's orders on Ukraine

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, said in prepared remarks to the investigation that Giuliani's efforts to push Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for investigations into Trump's political rivals "were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit" for the Ukrainian leader.

http://news.trust.org/item/20191120133647-5xbu0

[audioserf]

Pack up your bags Trumpers, the end is nigh

Says increasingly nervous man for the 37th time since 2015

[Parkbandit]

Pack up your bags Trumpers, the end is nigh

This reminds me of so many butthurt liberals when the Mueller Report was about to be released.

How'd that work out for you?

[Methais]

https://i.imgflip.com/3h001r.jpg

[Neveragain]

Pack up your bags Trumpers, the end is nigh

Well, Sonland completely bombed today.

Looks like the Democrats are going to have really shed blood for the communist takeover they are after. This coup has failed miserably.

[Methais]

Well, Sonland completely bombed today.

Looks like the Democrats are going to have really shed blood for the communist takeover they are after. This coup has failed miserably.

Invest in dildo companies today, their stocks are about to skyrocket.

[Neveragain]

Invest in dildo companies today, their stocks are about to skyrocket.

Yea, this is going to go down as the dumbest political move in US history.

Fucking retards would have been far better off passing legislation for the voters but instead pissed away 4 years making up fairy tales.

[Seran]

Bombed? The man confirmed the quid pro quo as directly ordered by President Trump to him. He confirmed multiple conversations with Zelynsky with the investigations Trump tried to link to aid. He corroborated the testimony of Williams, Tayler and several others.

I believe you meant it was a bombshell day for Democrats who have everything they need now from multiple first hand witnesses.

[Parkbandit]

Bombed? The man confirmed the quid pro quo as directly ordered by President Trump to him. He confirmed multiple conversations with Zelynsky with the investigations Trump tried to link to aid. He corroborated the testimony of Williams, Tayler and several others.

I believe you meant it was a bombshell day for Democrats who have everything they need now from multiple first hand witnesses.

So, all the other witnesses, including the 2 people who were actually speaking to each other said there was never quid pro quo on the call... this is also confirmed by the transcript of the call... but THIS guy, who wasn't on the call, "confirmed" the quid pro quo?

Dude... stop.

[Seran]

So, all the other witnesses, including the 2 people who were actually speaking to each other said there was never quid pro quo on the call... this is also confirmed by the transcript of the call... but THIS guy, who wasn't on the call, "confirmed" the quid pro quo?

Dude... stop.

Wow, I've never met anyone as delusional or outright deceptive as you. What exactly do you think you'll gain from lying on these boards, is there some Junior Conservative Operative award for the best spin?

[Tgo01]

So the "bombshell" testimony of Sondland turned out to be yet another giant bust.

His testimony was:
Trump told him there was no quid pro quo.
Sondland thought the quid pro quo was in relation to the aid being given only after a meeting was held with Trump, nothing to do with aid being withheld until Ukraine announced an investigation. Not only that but Sondland said he just assumed the aid was being withheld until this meeting took place, he had no actual evidence this was the case.
Sondland didn't think there was anything wrong with the call.

Honestly this is just sad on the Democrats' part now. Are you Democrats ready to throw in the towel yet? Or are you too happy being lemmings for the Democratic party?

[Alfster]

Fox news soon machine working overtime today. Haha.

"I think what developed today -- even though it's not all that apparent yet -- is that there's a flaw in Adam Schiff's theory of this idea that if you can make out an offense under the federal bribery statute as opposed what the Framers had in mind when they put bribery in the Constitution [where therein] you have an impeachable offense," he said.

"The flaw is what came out today is that there's bribery and then there's 'bribery'. What Sondland said was he knew that one of the official acts that was at stake and that the president [Trump] ... was stalling on was giving [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky the visit to the White House. The other one that he said he had to deduce over time was whether the defense aid ... was going to be given to the Ukrainians or not if they didn't promise to have these investigations."

[Tgo01]

Bombed? The man confirmed the quid pro quo as directly ordered by President Trump to him.

Do you just get your news directly shoved into your brain by Shareblue or what?

He said he PRESUMED there was a quid pro quo, but confirmed told him there was no quid pro quo.

Remember last night you laughed at the idea of General Kelogg's words having any meaning because it was just his opinion? Here you have Sondland admitting he was just assuming shit but also testified that Trump told him directly there was no quid pro quo.

How can you be so dishonest? Or is it just ignorance on your part? I want to believe it's the latter but I have a sneaking suspicion it's the former.

[Alfster]

Anyone who believes anything Trump says deserves to get burned. Lol. You catch the back and forth pinnoccio stuff? That was hilarious.

[Tgo01]

Anyone who believes anything Trump says deserves to get burned. Lol. You catch the back and forth pinnoccio stuff? That was hilarious.

We can't believe Trump when he says "No quid pro quo", but we're gonna believe Sondland because he just assumed there was a quid pro quo?

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

[Alfster]

Do I care of there's a quid quo pro? Nope. I don't.

[Tgo01]

Do I care of there's a quid quo pro? Nope. I don't.

Oh right, the whole thing with Giuliani. Speaking of which, wasn't Sondland supposed to drop a bombshell about that too today? Did that happen? I'm not being a smart ass, I been busy all day and just now catching up on some highlights of the testimony and haven't seen much yet.

[Gelston]

Do I care of there's a quid quo pro? Nope. I don't.

You keep complaining about "lack of security clearances". Do you know who has ultimate authority on granting of security clearances?

[Tgo01]

You keep complaining about "lack of security clearances". Do you know who has ultimate authority on granting of security clearances?

Much like setting US policy Vindman probably thinks it's him.

[Alfster]

Oh right, the whole thing with Giuliani. Speaking of which, wasn't Sondland supposed to drop a bombshell about that too today? Did that happen? I'm not being a smart ass, I been busy all day and just now catching up on some highlights of the testimony and haven't seen much yet.

"Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky," Sondland said of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sondland then stated that in order to obtain a White House visit, Zelensky had to publicly announce investigations into the business activities of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, and a conspiracy theory that Ukraine was involved in influencing the 2016 election.

Sondland testified as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry hearings before the House Intelligence Committee.

He publicly confirmed that he worked closely with outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Ukrainian policy "at the express direction of the president of the United States."

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.


"We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said. "We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Guiliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine."

"So we followed the president's orders."

[Alfster]

You keep complaining about "lack of security clearances". Do you know who has ultimate authority on granting of security clearances?

The president does, which is clear when he pushed through his son in law and daughters requests. Just because he can, doesn't make it right.

Knowing that he has the authority for it, why not get him the clearance first? Why go through a back channel if it's appropriate?

[Seran]

Do you just get your news directly shoved into your brain by Shareblue or what?

He said he PRESUMED there was a quid pro quo, but confirmed told him there was no quid pro quo.

Remember last night you laughed at the idea of General Kelogg's words having any meaning because it was just his opinion? Here you have Sondland admitting he was just assuming shit but also testified that Trump told him directly there was no quid pro quo.

How can you be so dishonest? Or is it just ignorance on your part? I want to believe it's the latter but I have a sneaking suspicion it's the former.

From Ambassador Sondland's testimony, copied verbatim;

"I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

There no equivocation, nothing but a plain answer from the person helping orchestrate on behalf of the President. Was there quid pro quo? Yes.

[Tgo01]

"Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky," Sondland said of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sondland then stated that in order to obtain a White House visit, Zelensky had to publicly announce investigations into the business activities of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, and a conspiracy theory that Ukraine was involved in influencing the 2016 election.

Sondland testified as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry hearings before the House Intelligence Committee.

He publicly confirmed that he worked closely with outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Ukrainian policy "at the express direction of the president of the United States."

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.


"We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said. "We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Guiliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine."

"So we followed the president's orders."

I thought you didn't care about a quid pro quo yet all you talk about here is a supposed quid pro quo?

Okay...

[Tgo01]

The president does, which is clear when he pushed through his son in law and daughters requests. Just because he can, doesn't make it right.

But does it make it an impeachable offense because it hurt your feelings?

[Alfster]

Pointing out that they had to work with guiliani. Private citizens guiliani.

[Tgo01]

From Ambassador Sondland's testimony, copied verbatim;

"I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

There no equivocation, nothing but a plain answer from the person helping orchestrate on behalf of the President. Was there quid pro quo? Yes.

First of all isn't it funny how for weeks it's been "Quid pro quo! You can't get another country to dig up dirt on a political rival!" then it was days of "Bribery! You can't use tax payer dollars to bribe another country to dig up dirt on a political rival!"

Now like a good little stooge you're repeating "Quid pro quo! You can't...request a White House meeting...!!!!!!"

Honestly how stupid do you feel right now for being reduced to this?

Secondly Sondland also said he presumed that was a quid pro quo and he has no direct knowledge of it being a quid pro quo, even going so far as to state Trump told him there was no quid pro quo. Why don't you like facts?

Here, show us on this doll where the mean facts touched you.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/3f/57/2f3f57efef4a7590c3b2d632490a0be2.png

[Alfster]

But does it make it an impeachable offense because it hurt your feelings?

Hah. Clearly feelings are hurt here. You guys make no sense. National security either matters or it doesn't. You're cool with it because he's allowed to do it. There's serious flaws with overriding protocols in my opinion.

None of this hurts my feelings, that's an odd statement

[Tgo01]

Hah. Clearly feelings are hurt here. You guys make no sense. National security either matters or it doesn't. You're cool with it because he's allowed to do it. There's serious flaws with overriding protocols in my opinion.

None of this hurts my feelings, that's an odd statement

What national security matters are you even referring to? You told me I would see with Sondland's testimony today yet all you could do was point towards his testimony about a supposed quid pro quo when just a few minutes earlier you said you don't care about quid pro quo at all.

[Alfster]

Why don't you like facts?

Irony.

[Alfster]

What national security matters are you even referring to? You told me I would see with Sondland's testimony today yet all you could do was point towards his testimony about a supposed quid pro quo when just a few minutes earlier you said you don't care about quid pro quo at all.

How dense are you? Guiliani is the nightmare.

"We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said. "We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Guiliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine."

There's zero reasons Guiliani should be involved with any of this shit. He's the president's personal lawyer, a private citizen, and doesn't have security clearances. It also suggests that he's pushing the president's personal agenda because...he's his personal lawyer.

He's out there today on Beck's show touting the need to continue investigating Biden. Look up the interview.

[Tgo01]

How dense are you? Guiliani is the nightmare.

"We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said. "We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Guiliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine."

There's zero reasons Guiliani should be involved with any of this shit. He's the president's personal lawyer, a private citizen, and doesn't have security clearances. It also suggests that he's pushing the president's personal agenda because...he's his personal lawyer.

He's out there today on Beck's show touting the need to continue investigating Biden. Look up the interview.

That's it? Someone saying they didn't want to work with Giuliani? Why didn't you say so earlier?! Trump should have been impeached yesterday! My goodness! Making someone feel uncomfortable!!! I hope they throw Trump in prison for life after they remove him from office!

I can't tell if your comments are more sad today or Seran's are. It's a toss up for sure.

[Seran]

FBI investigation of Giuliani, announcement of cooperation with said investigation of Ukrain's state fun energy company, on top of the arrest of Giuliani cohorts Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.. But none of that matters since Dreaven refuses to acknowledge reality.

[Alfster]

That's it? Someone saying they didn't want to work with Giuliani? Why didn't you say so earlier?! Trump should have been impeached yesterday! My goodness! Making someone feel uncomfortable!!! I hope they throw Trump in prison for life after they remove him from office!

I can't tell if your comments are more sad today or Seran's are. It's a toss up for sure.

So you're cool with a private citizen running the show on foreign policy?

[Tgo01]

So you're cool with a private citizen running the show on foreign policy?

Giuliani was "running the show" on foreign policy? Might you be exaggerating just a tad? Do you have something more than just an uneasy feeling from someone to back this up with?

[Tgo01]

I really can't believe Democrats are still going along with this charade.

So far we have third and fourth hand information, and someone just ASSUMING something to be true.

I can't even put into words just how absurd this is.

"I want Seran arrested for rape! I heard from someone who overheard a phone call conversation where the person said something about Seran raping someone!"

"I want Seran arrested for rape! No I don't have any evidence at all that Seran raped someone, I just presume he's guilty of rape."

This is what you're arguing for. This is your position. How can you seriously think is a legit impeachment hearing at this point?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yet another great day of testimony for republicans. Thanks Nancy and pencil neck schitt!!

[Alfster]

Giuliani was "running the show" on foreign policy? Might you be exaggerating just a tad? Do you have something more than just an uneasy feeling from someone to back this up with?


"We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said. "We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Guiliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine."

In order to secure the official us policy they had to work with him. You're blinders are on. It's okay. Pernas is complying with the subpoenas and will be testifying.

[Alfster]

I really can't believe Democrats are still going along with this charade.

So far we have third and fourth hand information, and someone just ASSUMING something to be true.

I can't even put into words just how absurd this is.

"I want Seran arrested for rape! I heard from someone who overheard a phone call conversation where the person said something about Seran raping someone!"

"I want Seran arrested for rape! No I don't have any evidence at all that Seran raped someone, I just presume he's guilty of rape."

This is what you're arguing for. This is your position. How can you seriously think is a legit impeachment hearing at this point?

Yeah because those with real information were ordered not to comply with subpoenas. You'd have shit your pants had Hillary just ignored the bengazi subpoenas. Instead now you're complaining that no one involved is testifying, yet they've been ordered not to.

Let me guess...but it's an unfair process right? Maybe Republicans shouldn't have changed house subpoena rules in 2015, at least they're admitting it was unfair.

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah because those with real information were ordered not to comply with subpoenas. You'd have shit your pants had Hillary just ignored the bengazi subpoenas. Instead now you're complaining that no one involved is testifying, yet they've been ordered not to.

Let me guess...but it's an unfair process right? Maybe Republicans shouldn't have changed house subpoena rules in 2015, at least they're admitting it was unfair.

Hillary did ignore subpoenas and destroyed material evidence in a Federal investigation. She did not have Executive privilege as she was not the President.

[Tgo01]

"We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said. "We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Guiliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine."

In order to secure the official us policy they had to work with him. You're blinders are on. It's okay. Pernas is complying with the subpoenas and will be testifying.

That doesn't mean he was "running the show" on foreign policy. Get some perspective for God's sake.


Yeah because those with real information were ordered not to comply with subpoenas.

Literal representation of Alfter when he posted this:

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlIbzTDGWY0ySly/giphy.gif

[Neveragain]

I really can't believe Democrats are still going along with this charade.

So far we have third and fourth hand information, and someone just ASSUMING something to be true.

I can't even put into words just how absurd this is.

"I want Seran arrested for rape! I heard from someone who overheard a phone call conversation where the person said something about Seran raping someone!"

"I want Seran arrested for rape! No I don't have any evidence at all that Seran raped someone, I just presume he's guilty of rape."

This is what you're arguing for. This is your position. How can you seriously think is a legit impeachment hearing at this point?

For a moment I thought you were talking about some Gemstone drama then I realized we are talking about an actual impeachment hearing.

[Tgo01]

For a moment I thought you were talking about some Gemstone drama then I realized we are talking about an actual impeachment hearing.

The two are almost indistinguishable at this point.

[Parkbandit]

Do I care of there's a quid quo pro? Nope. I don't.

For someone who claims he doesn't care.. you sure seem to care...

Or are you saying you don't care if there's a quid quo pro, as long as Trump is impeached by any means necessary?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I agree with Trump's tactic of fighting everything. We've had 3+ years of this bullshit. I'd make them go to court on literally everything they ask about. I wouldn't tell them my birthday at this point.

[ClydeR]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ51dyzUEAESx4Q?format=png&name=small



Yes, it is completely impossible to overhear a phone conversation unless it's on speaker. I rest my case!

[Methais]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ51dyzUEAESx4Q?format=png&name=small



Yes, it is completely impossible to overhear a phone conversation unless it's on speaker. I rest my case!

Unless it's a Karen screaming for a manager or something, this is typically true.

[Neveragain]

So you're cool with a private citizen running the show on foreign policy?

If Giuliani were a Democrat he would be placed on a pedestal. The dude was running NYC when 9/11 happened. I highly doubt any sane, rational person, would have any problems with Rudy playing a role in our national security. He will always be considered a leader in American eyes.

[Back]

After all the testimony these past two weeks it seems like the only people who still don't realize that Trump put personal political preconditions on government approved taxpayer funded aid to an ally of the US are the republicans.

[Tgo01]

After all the testimony these past two weeks it seems like the only people who still don't realize that Trump put personal political preconditions on government approved taxpayer funded aid to an ally of the US are the republicans.

Apparently even the witnesses didn't realize it either. Turn off CNN.

[Back]

Apparently even the witnesses didn't realize it either. Turn off CNN.

Maybe you should turn it on and, you know, actually watch it. These witnesses are standing up before the entire world to tell their stories about how our lying president put personal gain ahead of American interests. These people are brave as fuck.

If Clinton was impeached for lying and witness tampering then Trump is for sure going down for those exact same things.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Goddamn, ANOTHER BLOCKBUSTER day for Trump. This is a fucking trainwreck for libtards like Backrash... I mean, seeing it all fall apart is spectacular.

[Tgo01]

Maybe you should turn it on and, you know, actually watch it. These witnesses are standing up before the entire world to tell their stories about how our lying president put personal gain ahead of American interests. These people are brave as fuck.

If Clinton was impeached for lying and witness tampering then Trump is for sure going down for those exact same things.

These people are using their personal opinions, conjectures, and third and fourth hand information to tell us a bunch of nothing. Seriously turn CNN off, it's rotting what's left of your useless brain.

[Tgo01]

Trump said he has the best hearing, because of course he does, and said he has never been able to overhear another person's cell phone conversation unless it was on speaker phone, directly contradicting testimony from Holmes claiming he could hear Trump on the other end of a cell phone conversation with Sondland when the speaker phone was not on. In a Tweet Trump challenged someone to test it live to prove it can't be done.

Well Fredo over at CNN was apparently up for Trump's challenge! Of COURSE you can hear the person on the other side of a cell phone conversation if it's not on speaker phone! To prove this he called his mom on live TV in front of a panel of about 7 people and said hi and asked his mom to say hi back to prove that everyone, or at least he and the woman next to him who were about 6 inches away from the phone, could easily hear his mom talking without the phone being on speaker phone. No one heard anything, not even Fredo, who then said his mom probably couldn't hear him, implying it's because she's hard of hearing, so he put it on speaker phone and said "Mom can you hear me?" and she started saying loudly and clearly (since it's now on speakerphone) yes I can hear you, I'm saying hi when you speak. So he turned speaker phone off and tried again and once again no one, not even Fredo, could hear what she was saying. After someone on the panel said "I can't hear your mom" the woman next to Cuomo claimed she could heard his mom, which is weird because she didn't seem to hear her before Fredo put her on speakerphone and didn't seem to hear her after he turned speakerphone off, but of course she had to claim she could hear her or else it might make Trump look good!

So in an attempt to prove Trump wrong he ended up proving Trump right and that the testimony from Holmes that he overheard a cell phone conversation is in fact 100% bullshit.

Do you feel embarrassed yet, Back and Seran, for falling for yet another Democratic hoax? Don't you want your elected officials to actually work for you like they're supposed to in order to make US better?

Here's an article about it with video so you can watch and laugh at Fredo yourself.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471527-cnns-cuomo-tries-to-discredit-trump-on-overhearing-conversations-without

[Parkbandit]

After all the testimony these past two weeks it seems like the only people who still don't realize that Trump put personal political preconditions on government approved taxpayer funded aid to an ally of the US are the republicans.

https://media.tenor.com/images/ade037325b6fc6c5ba6ed00648227bd4/tenor.gif


Maybe you should turn it on and, you know, actually watch it. These witnesses are standing up before the entire world to tell their stories about how our lying president put personal gain ahead of American interests. These people are brave as fuck.

If Clinton was impeached for lying and witness tampering then Trump is for sure going down for those exact same things.

https://media.tenor.com/images/ade037325b6fc6c5ba6ed00648227bd4/tenor.gif

I was going to go with a straight facepalm.. but this is just so retarded, that it's funny.

Thank you Backlash.

[Back]

I was going to go with a straight facepalm.. but this is just so retarded, that it's funny.

Thank you Backlash.

Actually I watched it on PBS. Not that it matters. The testimony was the same no matter which channel you watched. You could have watched it on FOX and seen Nunes spout off conspiracy after conspiracy. You could have watched it on OAN and seen republican's pathetic attempts at deceiving the public with their poorly constructed posterboards. Anywhere you watched it you would have seen republicans with absolutely zero self respect grill and disrespect honest Americans doing their jobs to protect us just to appease a lying self absorbed snowflake president.

[Parkbandit]

Actually I watched it on PBS. Not that it matters.

Isn't it the same exact camera that is used on every other channel?

And if it didn't matter, why did you want to make sure we all knew you watched it on PBS? Does that make you believe you are more or less retarded?


The testimony was the same no matter which channel you watched. You could have watched it on FOX and seen Nunes spout off conspiracy after conspiracy. You could have watched it on OAN and seen republican's pathetic attempts at deceiving the public with their poorly constructed posterboards. Anywhere you watched it you would have seen republicans with absolutely zero self respect grill and disrespect honest Americans doing their jobs to protect us just to appease a lying self absorbed snowflake president.

Can you tell me which individuals that was an actual listened to this phone call, that said it was quid quo pro? Not 2nd hand information.. or 3rd.. or 4th... but was actually on the call with Trump and the leader from Ukraine. I mean, we've been told the transcript of the call was accurate and there certainly wasn't any quid quo pro there at all... but maybe something was whispered that wasn't picked up in the transcript.. or maybe a series of beeps like Morse Code was used to secretly send a message to the Ukraine President.

Enlighten us.. given that YOU watched this entire thing on PBS... which means you were privy to some very important information none of the other networks had.

[Back]

Isn't it the same exact camera that is used on every other channel?

And if it didn't matter, why did you want to make sure we all knew you watched it on PBS? Does that make you believe you are more or less retarded?



Can you tell me which individuals that was an actual listened to this phone call, that said it was quid quo pro? Not 2nd hand information.. or 3rd.. or 4th... but was actually on the call with Trump and the leader from Ukraine. I mean, we've been told the transcript of the call was accurate and there certainly wasn't any quid quo pro there at all... but maybe something was whispered that wasn't picked up in the transcript.. or maybe a series of beeps like Morse Code was used to secretly send a message to the Ukraine President.

Enlighten us.. given that YOU watched this entire thing on PBS... which means you were privy to some very important information none of the other networks had.

I mentioned PBS because I was accused of watching CNN. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

You can play semantic games about the call and transcript but the overall picture from all the testimony shows that this president witheld congressionally approved taxpayer funded military aid to a US ally dealing with a hostile Russia in order to pressure the Ukraine government to investigate a US citizen who happens to be the child of his biggest political ooponent in the next US election. Sad you are defending this clear violation of power and the public trust.

[Tgo01]

You can play semantic games about the call and transcript but the overall picture from all the testimony shows that this president witheld congressionally approved taxpayer funded military aid to a US ally dealing with a hostile Russia in order to pressure the Ukraine government to investigate a US citizen who happens to be the child of his biggest political ooponent in the next US election.

This is based on what testimony again? Turn off CNN and find me the exact quotes.

[Seizer]

Back, read the Marshall Plan and let me know how bad the United States (Truman) was for setting conditions for European nations that accepted the financial aid.

[Wrathbringer]

Maybe you should turn it on and, you know, actually watch it. These witnesses are standing up before the entire world to lie about how our storied president put personal gain ahead of American interests. These people are retarded as fuck.

Fixed.

[Tgo01]

It's being reported that Trump now wants a Senate impeachment trial because he thinks Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the whistlehoaxer will be called as witnesses. If that happens that means Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar will have to stop campaigning for several weeks, possibly even months, so they can be there for the impeachment trial, and that Joe Biden will have to stop campaigning for a while to testify before the Senate.

I wonder if Democrats are going to abandon their impeachment plan or if they are so stupid they really think pandering to the very far left of their base like Seran and Back is gonna actually help them in 2020.