Foxx Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 38 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Desperation. https://mobile.twitter.com/GrabienMedia/status/1210598233799569408 he's an idiot. there's no exoneration if he isn't removed?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 3 hours ago, Doc said: Anyone have an answer to this? Meaning can McConnell call the Bidens but not have to call Bolton, Pompeo, etc.? The only answer seems to be yes. We've seen, so far, that "impeachment world" is not like any other world. It is a politically-motivated world where the usual rules don't apply at all. It took me awhile to realize this after banging my head against the wall and wondering why the House didn't offer any sort of balance in their inquiry. The answer always was there: they can do what they want, but if they overplay their hand, they will suffer at the hands of voters. So sit back and watch the show. If you don't like the way people handle themselves, then you can vote. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 2 hours ago, row_33 said: the Senate you mean the founding fathers were so wise to appoint 2 from every state to this vital chamber this allowed great men (so far) from small states to steer the country, unlike the House which is dominated by Cali and NY loonybirds The founding fathers including Ben Franklin were said to be dismayed by the societies that existed in London and Paris of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 27, 2019 Author Share Posted December 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: The founding fathers including Ben Franklin were said to be dismayed by the societies that existed in London and Paris of the day. I do like the debates they have in Parliament though. Also, the ruling party (coalition) gets to choose the PM. Have a vote of “No Confidence”, have a general election and throw the bums out and let enter a new batch of hounds along with the party leaders. It could mean the Libertarians, Conservatives, Greenies et al could actually have real representation in the House. Bad idea, I know. Trump would have been given a no confidence vote as soon as the House reverted to the slimeball Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, RochesterRob said: The founding fathers including Ben Franklin were said to be dismayed by the societies that existed in London and Paris of the day. All 3 had revolutions, the UK far less messy and then set up Parliamentary rule, the French far more messy leading to every political system under the sun The American setting up Congress with no thought how big the US would get, but thank goodness for your Senate and it’s glacial rate of change, you can’t run the US under the threat of disbandonment half the time 1 hour ago, Nanker said: I do like the debates they have in Parliament though. Also, the ruling party (coalition) gets to choose the PM. Have a vote of “No Confidence”, have a general election and throw the bums out and let enter a new batch of hounds along with the party leaders. It could mean the Libertarians, Conservatives, Greenies et al could actually have real representation in the House. Bad idea, I know. Trump would have been given a no confidence vote as soon as the House reverted to the slimeball Dems. It’s good for soft power, we don’t vote for our Prime Minister, his party could win and he doesn’t take his riding, it’s plausible.... I thought the greens and kooks WERE running the US House Edited December 27, 2019 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/1210686028069122048 2 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/BOOMER4K/status/1210937211333402624 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 Why does baloney reject the grinder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 Uh Oh here come the democrats with impeachment articles..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Albwan said: Uh Oh here come the democrats with impeachment articles..... Well that's unpleasant - there's someone in that crushed Ford pickup. They lived, with minor injuries. Amazingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 No wonder the GOP is afraid to have witnesses called. Way too much evidence of Trump’s guilt Among the story’s key points: As early as June, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney worked to execute the freeze for Trump, and a top aide to Mulvaney — Robert Blair — worried it would fuel the narrative that Trump was tacitly aiding Russia. Internal opposition was more forceful than previously known. The Pentagon pushed for the money for months. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton privately urged Trump to understand that freezing the aid was not in our national interest. Trump was unmoved, citing Ukraine’s “corruption.” We now know Trump actually wanted Ukraine to announce sham investigations absolving Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage and smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden. The Times report reveals that top Trump officials did not think that ostensibly combating Ukrainian “corruption” (which wasn’t even Trump’s real aim) was in our interests. Lawyers at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked to develop a far-fetched legal argument that Trump could exercise commander-in-chief authority to override Congress’ appropriation of the aid, to get around the law precluding Trump from freezing it. Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB, tried to get the Pentagon to assume responsibility for getting the aid released, to deflect blame away from the White House for its own role in blocking it. This led a Pentagon official to pronounce herself “speechless.” Duffey froze the aid with highly unusual bureaucratic tactics, refused to tell Pentagon officials why Trump wanted it withheld and instructed them to keep this “closely held.” (Some of this had already been reported, but in narrative context it becomes far more damning.) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 50 minutes ago, Tiberius said: No wonder the GOP is afraid to have witnesses called. Way too much evidence of Trump’s guilt Among the story’s key points: As early as June, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney worked to execute the freeze for Trump, and a top aide to Mulvaney — Robert Blair — worried it would fuel the narrative that Trump was tacitly aiding Russia. Internal opposition was more forceful than previously known. The Pentagon pushed for the money for months. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton privately urged Trump to understand that freezing the aid was not in our national interest. Trump was unmoved, citing Ukraine’s “corruption.” We now know Trump actually wanted Ukraine to announce sham investigations absolving Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage and smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden. The Times report reveals that top Trump officials did not think that ostensibly combating Ukrainian “corruption” (which wasn’t even Trump’s real aim) was in our interests. Lawyers at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked to develop a far-fetched legal argument that Trump could exercise commander-in-chief authority to override Congress’ appropriation of the aid, to get around the law precluding Trump from freezing it. Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB, tried to get the Pentagon to assume responsibility for getting the aid released, to deflect blame away from the White House for its own role in blocking it. This led a Pentagon official to pronounce herself “speechless.” Duffey froze the aid with highly unusual bureaucratic tactics, refused to tell Pentagon officials why Trump wanted it withheld and instructed them to keep this “closely held.” (Some of this had already been reported, but in narrative context it becomes far more damning.) That entire Article is based on antiquated law that was changed with the Foreign Aid Transparency Act of 2016 with regards obviously to FOREIGN AID! According to that act the OMB in 2018 established new guidelines.https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-04-Final.pdf Now, let me change my font too for emphasis... idiot... 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: No wonder the GOP is afraid to have witnesses called. Way too much evidence of Trump’s guilt Among the story’s key points: As early as June, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney worked to execute the freeze for Trump, and a top aide to Mulvaney — Robert Blair — worried it would fuel the narrative that Trump was tacitly aiding Russia. Internal opposition was more forceful than previously known. The Pentagon pushed for the money for months. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton privately urged Trump to understand that freezing the aid was not in our national interest. Trump was unmoved, citing Ukraine’s “corruption.” We now know Trump actually wanted Ukraine to announce sham investigations absolving Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage and smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden. The Times report reveals that top Trump officials did not think that ostensibly combating Ukrainian “corruption” (which wasn’t even Trump’s real aim) was in our interests. Lawyers at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked to develop a far-fetched legal argument that Trump could exercise commander-in-chief authority to override Congress’ appropriation of the aid, to get around the law precluding Trump from freezing it. Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB, tried to get the Pentagon to assume responsibility for getting the aid released, to deflect blame away from the White House for its own role in blocking it. This led a Pentagon official to pronounce herself “speechless.” Duffey froze the aid with highly unusual bureaucratic tactics, refused to tell Pentagon officials why Trump wanted it withheld and instructed them to keep this “closely held.” (Some of this had already been reported, but in narrative context it becomes far more damning.) Did you get those Christmas ham scraps I left in the dumpster beside your bum hut? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1211812977608986624 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/sethjlevy/status/1211406531054440448 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 Follow the money! Doesn’t it seem odd that all of these elected officials and staff hacks were so desperate to get financial aid to the Ukraine of all places? Could it be that our beloved Defense Contractor Lobbyists had promised ‘aid’ to all of these folks in return for $$$$ millions being laundered through in the name of ‘our national security interests’? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Follow the money! Doesn’t it seem odd that all of these elected officials and staff hacks were so desperate to get financial aid to the Ukraine of all places? Could it be that our beloved Defense Contractor Lobbyists had promised ‘aid’ to all of these folks in return for $$$$ millions being laundered through in the name of ‘our national security interests’? .....never been able to figure out why "lobbying" isn't renamed for what it actually is....BRIBERY.................. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: .....never been able to figure out why "lobbying" isn't renamed for what it actually is....BRIBERY.................. We differ there, slightly. I’m involved at the State level. I’ve always said don’t put all the blame on the lobbyists. These government hacks need to learn to say ‘no’! Nobody has a gun to their head. It’s not like someone has their child locked in a basement somewhere. Bribery? No. Public Servant greed....yes! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts