Posts for: nwtk2007
Dec 2, 2019 12:54:26 #
(Main)
permafrost wrote:
Only in your dreams....LOL
More reminders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obama_administration_controversies
Dec 2, 2019 12:31:17 #
(Main)
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann
WASHINGTON — More than two months after the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump began, you can break down the entire fight into four simple questions.
One, did the president of the United States ask another country to interfere in the upcoming 2020 e******n — against possible Democratic rival Joe Biden?
(The answer sure appears to be a yes, whether it was in the partial transcript of that July 25 call with Ukraine’s president or Trump’s own words on Oct. 3: “Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”)
Trump rejects invitation to appear at this week’s impeachment hearing
Dec. 2, 201902:10
Two, did Trump and his administration withhold military aid and a White House visit to compel Ukraine to start this investigation into Joe Biden and his son?
Three, were those actions — first the ask of interference, then the temporary withholding of military aid — an abuse of the president’s powers?
(Here’s the president’s oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”)
And four — and most importantly — do those actions amount to impeachable offenses?
(The Constitution says the following offenses are impeachable: “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”)
So forget the poll numbers and where each party’s base is (though that will ultimately determine whether Trump remains in office). And forget all of the questions about procedure and fairness.
The entire impeachment saga comes down to this question: Did the president violate his oath of office and his stewardship of the executive branch by asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival – and by trying to compel the foreign leader to do so?
That’s the question almost everyone was asking two months ago, when the impeachment inquiry began.
And it’s the question that everyone still needs to ask today.
The challenge for Democrats, however, is that there are two different impeachment conversations going on — 1) the substance and 2) everything else.
And right now, Republicans have succeeded in turning the conversation to the latter.
#1. I guess it just goes right over their head that there is obvious corruption in the Burisma/Biden connection so if Trump says, hey, there's corruption here, the left can only see that Joe Biden is a p**********l candidate; never mind that he's also a potential crook of great proportion AND that he brought all this attention upon himself as he bragged about the power he wielded as VP under Obama. And lest we forget, Biden cited Obama in his "brag" as being fully knowledgeable and supportive of the extortion he was "wielding" against the president of Ukraine. Obama has yet to endorse Biden and. in fact, I'm thinking Obama would, instead, want to b***h slap the i***t big mouth!
#2. It's clear the Trump wanted to hold off on the "visit" until he got the "deliverable" which was specifically noted to be a statement by Ukraine related to their efforts to clean up the corruption in their country. It just so happens that Biden was a part of that AND it was going on long before Biden decided to try to be president and Trump was also looking into it long before then as well. As for the military aid, that isn't so clear and members of the budget division involved in holding up the funds have made it clear that the president was concerned about corruption AND the contributions from other countries. Add to that, Ukraine didn't even know about the hold up and you just don't have much to go on other than the anti-Trump h**e which, of course, is going to paint this as a Trump attempt to get at Biden. Why wouldn't they. They are certainly NOT HONEST about it.
#3. I don't know why they cite the president's oath of office here but in my mind, the president's oath includes going after corruption where ever it crops up and with whom ever it turns out to involve. Oh, I'm sure Trump is smart enough to see how it would effect the democrats. Duh. Would that be an excuse to ignore the obvious corruption?? I don't see that in the oath of office, so thanks for citing that, NBC!
#4. Impeachable "offenses?" Well, it seems that virtually anything can be an impeachable "offense" but was anything illegal done? To me, ignoring the Burisma/Biden corruption would be illegal. I'm sure the Trump hating crowd will claim there are impeachable "offenses" but it would seem that only "they" are offended, not the rest of us which brings me to my final point:
How can a president be impeached by a partisan crowd? In fact, the most "bipartisan" part of this, involving two democratic congressmen who don't want to move forward on it, is to not impeach. Even Pelosi said it must be bi-partisan; her own words. Is she not the democratic leader? Is she not the speaker of the house? Does she not have the power to enforce her own beliefs on the subject??
We will see.
WASHINGTON — More than two months after the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump began, you can break down the entire fight into four simple questions.
One, did the president of the United States ask another country to interfere in the upcoming 2020 e******n — against possible Democratic rival Joe Biden?
(The answer sure appears to be a yes, whether it was in the partial transcript of that July 25 call with Ukraine’s president or Trump’s own words on Oct. 3: “Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”)
Trump rejects invitation to appear at this week’s impeachment hearing
Dec. 2, 201902:10
Two, did Trump and his administration withhold military aid and a White House visit to compel Ukraine to start this investigation into Joe Biden and his son?
Three, were those actions — first the ask of interference, then the temporary withholding of military aid — an abuse of the president’s powers?
(Here’s the president’s oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”)
And four — and most importantly — do those actions amount to impeachable offenses?
(The Constitution says the following offenses are impeachable: “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”)
So forget the poll numbers and where each party’s base is (though that will ultimately determine whether Trump remains in office). And forget all of the questions about procedure and fairness.
The entire impeachment saga comes down to this question: Did the president violate his oath of office and his stewardship of the executive branch by asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival – and by trying to compel the foreign leader to do so?
That’s the question almost everyone was asking two months ago, when the impeachment inquiry began.
And it’s the question that everyone still needs to ask today.
The challenge for Democrats, however, is that there are two different impeachment conversations going on — 1) the substance and 2) everything else.
And right now, Republicans have succeeded in turning the conversation to the latter.
#1. I guess it just goes right over their head that there is obvious corruption in the Burisma/Biden connection so if Trump says, hey, there's corruption here, the left can only see that Joe Biden is a p**********l candidate; never mind that he's also a potential crook of great proportion AND that he brought all this attention upon himself as he bragged about the power he wielded as VP under Obama. And lest we forget, Biden cited Obama in his "brag" as being fully knowledgeable and supportive of the extortion he was "wielding" against the president of Ukraine. Obama has yet to endorse Biden and. in fact, I'm thinking Obama would, instead, want to b***h slap the i***t big mouth!
#2. It's clear the Trump wanted to hold off on the "visit" until he got the "deliverable" which was specifically noted to be a statement by Ukraine related to their efforts to clean up the corruption in their country. It just so happens that Biden was a part of that AND it was going on long before Biden decided to try to be president and Trump was also looking into it long before then as well. As for the military aid, that isn't so clear and members of the budget division involved in holding up the funds have made it clear that the president was concerned about corruption AND the contributions from other countries. Add to that, Ukraine didn't even know about the hold up and you just don't have much to go on other than the anti-Trump h**e which, of course, is going to paint this as a Trump attempt to get at Biden. Why wouldn't they. They are certainly NOT HONEST about it.
#3. I don't know why they cite the president's oath of office here but in my mind, the president's oath includes going after corruption where ever it crops up and with whom ever it turns out to involve. Oh, I'm sure Trump is smart enough to see how it would effect the democrats. Duh. Would that be an excuse to ignore the obvious corruption?? I don't see that in the oath of office, so thanks for citing that, NBC!
#4. Impeachable "offenses?" Well, it seems that virtually anything can be an impeachable "offense" but was anything illegal done? To me, ignoring the Burisma/Biden corruption would be illegal. I'm sure the Trump hating crowd will claim there are impeachable "offenses" but it would seem that only "they" are offended, not the rest of us which brings me to my final point:
How can a president be impeached by a partisan crowd? In fact, the most "bipartisan" part of this, involving two democratic congressmen who don't want to move forward on it, is to not impeach. Even Pelosi said it must be bi-partisan; her own words. Is she not the democratic leader? Is she not the speaker of the house? Does she not have the power to enforce her own beliefs on the subject??
We will see.
Dec 2, 2019 12:07:38 #
(Main)
Trumpnotthestormiestpres wrote:
nadler looks like a pouting baby with indigestion. He talks like he wants to be a rock star but he ends up sounding like Archie Bunker with constipation.
Looks it, too!!
Dec 2, 2019 11:57:34 #
(Main)
bahmer wrote:
How dare you post a video with facts which contradict the myths of i***ts like Kamala Harris and their constant claim of failure due to race! Now what will they use as an excuse!!??
Dec 2, 2019 11:37:05 #
(Main)
4430 wrote:
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)
You nailed it 4430! The left has zero clue about how this country was established and why. Add to that they could care less, they just want to alter it to their version despite history being against its very survival as they would change it!
Dec 2, 2019 11:34:21 #
(Main)
CarryOn wrote:
It's not just that she was "casting her booty... (show quote)
Nor do I! I call it bad karma, for her that is!
Dec 2, 2019 11:03:01 #
(Main)
Carol Kelly wrote:
Keep praying they hang in the there. Trump in front of that investigation mayhem would be too degrading. He may be a street fighter, but the President of the Inited States cannot be subjected to this insanity. He’s doing a superior job against all odds.
He is strong!
He is strong!
I think they will. It is just a no win situation for the republicans and the president if they go in there and try to mix it up on their rules.
Dec 2, 2019 10:59:38 #
(Main)
Carol Kelly wrote:
And I’m betting you’re right! Not just the FBI, but the DOJ, the CIA and all the rest of the alphabet soup, just like the media. A country can’t be o*******wn without cooperation from a lot of people. This has been happening for a long time, enough time for them to get it together. Remember Woodrow Wilson, among our first progressives.
Oh yes, NWO League of Nations fruit cake??
Dec 2, 2019 10:49:48 #
(Main)
Yep, baby Nadler is primed up for another round of impeachment circus 101 and the republicans aren't going to play. LOL! After vetoing 6 of the 9 witnesses the republicans wanted to call and giving the republicans and the president nothing about who they are calling to testify, baby Nadler is just saying for the president to come on in and we will hammer on you some more. Welp, the republicans and the president have said no thanks, busy.
I love it!
I love it!
Dec 2, 2019 10:46:01 #
(Main)
Yep, Lisa page is all butt hurt that Trump continues to rag on her about her affair with Strzok and anti-Trump bias of both her and Strzok as they claimed it had no impact on their investigations at the FBI. LOLOL! And, of course, the loss of thousands of text messages in FBI phones and systems certainly doesn't look suspicious! LOL! Right!
Let that be a lesson to ya hun, you cast your booty around in such a manner, get caught and slammed for it, it ain't no one's fault but your own.
http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-lisa-page-missing-text-messages-fbi-trump-russia-2018-1?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=aol
I'm betting that not one of those text messages isn't retrievable. Text messages land on so many platforms as they travel through the interwaves. The FBI is lying to us once again!
Let that be a lesson to ya hun, you cast your booty around in such a manner, get caught and slammed for it, it ain't no one's fault but your own.
http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-lisa-page-missing-text-messages-fbi-trump-russia-2018-1?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=aol
I'm betting that not one of those text messages isn't retrievable. Text messages land on so many platforms as they travel through the interwaves. The FBI is lying to us once again!
Dec 1, 2019 16:52:30 #
(Main)
woodguru wrote:
First, here is the corroboration of what I've said... (show quote)
Here's a l*****t fact; "Do me a favor" is a demand.
Dec 1, 2019 15:38:42 #
(Main)
fullspinzoo wrote:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/29/millennials-are-fleeing-cities-for-refuge-from-democrats-disasters/
And as they flee, they are growing up to be fine conservatives cause no body likes to work hard for their "stuff" only to have someone else take it away from them to give to those who don't want to work hard.
Dec 1, 2019 15:35:05 #
(Main)
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
What happens when t***h is subjective?
And happy Thanksgiving
And happy Thanksgiving
I remember when the Trump h**ers claimed Trump said all Mexicans are rapists and murderers. Deciding what is t***h, very often, is subject to the one who claims to know the t***h. Trump h**ers take t***h and alter it to be "more" t***hful in their eyes. Trump does a bit of the same thing but it's just not quite the same as what the Trump h**ers do to the t***h.
I'm thinking that is what you mean by subjective t***h.
Dec 1, 2019 15:31:29 #
(Main)
Parky60 wrote:
b Ten Celebrities Obsessed With Donald Trump on T... (show quote)
Remember Cypher in The Matrix was going to be reinserted back into the Matrix wanted to be someone important, like an "actor." LOL! The irony of that might escape these actors.
Dec 1, 2019 15:28:27 #
(Main)
PeterS wrote:
So if Trump is putting America first why is US domination ending???
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/putin-trumpets-end-of-us-world-power-says-trump-listens-well-1351551043658?fbclid=IwAR0sexsmnfM-0Ip6Ci4negY5m225KfGYGDdBywo66omKxoGf2ymge3MNlb8
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/putin-trumpets-end-of-us-world-power-says-trump-listens-well-1351551043658?fbclid=IwAR0sexsmnfM-0Ip6Ci4negY5m225KfGYGDdBywo66omKxoGf2ymge3MNlb8
You did notice this is from Oct 2018, did you not??