Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) became the first Republican to call for the impeachment of President Donald Trump this weekend. There are ample grounds to questioning the existence of impeachable offenses. Yet, Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) called Amash’s stand courageous. I agree that breaking from one’s party on an issue of conscience is worthy of respect even if one does not see the merits in the same fashion. However, President Trump stuck with his signature personal insults in calling Amash a “loser” who was motivated by a desire for attention. Once again, I fail to see why Trump engages in such unpresidential, low-grade attacks. It is not only demeaning to his office but ultimately self-defeating to his claims of innocence.
Amash tweeted that he had read the Special Counsel report carefully and concluded that Trump should be impeachment. He also attacked Attorney General William Barr as “deliberately misrepresenting” special counsel Robert Mueller’s report: “Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.”
I have previously written that I disagree with the claims that Barr’s summary was false or misleading and recently testified in Congress that the contempt sanction against Barr was unfounded and unfair.
Despite that view, I accept that people of good-faith can disagree on these issues. Indeed, the impeachment claims have been strengthened by Trump’s refusal to heed continued warnings from both commentators and key aides not to threaten prosecutors, publicly comment on the investigation, or reach out to key figures like former FBI Director James Comey on the status or direction of the investigation.
He is continuing to do so. After the statement from Amash, Trump tweeted “Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy.” He added that, if Amash actually read the report, “He would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION. Anyway, how do you Obstruct when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!”
I have no problem with Trump’s references to the findings, though I wish he would stand aside from the debate. It is the personal insults and incivility that I find so troubling.
What do you think?
337 thoughts on “Trump Attacks GOP Rep As “Loser” For Supporting Impeachment”
GOP Loser – translated – Republican In Name Only The Socialists have their own version – DINO or Democrats In Name Only
OMG, a “loser.” He called him a “loser.” Also a “lightweight.” Oh, the humanity!
This incivility makes me long for the days when the worst we had to listen to was Rashid “Impeach the M****rf****r” Tlaib.
How much longer will the media protect Joe Biden and his family from all the scandals surrounding them?
I’ll give anybody into foreign deals some benefit of the doubt even Biden’s kid
the press is ga ga crazy over accusing business people of “collusion” it’s insane
why go down that road without some clear evidence of impropriety?
anybody who does business at any scale in china is dealing with Communist party members
sucks but what can you do? cant DQ all of them
He Did It, Not Me!
Victor Davis Hanson
“No longer are Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe along with a host of others insisting that they acted nobly. No longer are they in solidarity in their defiant opposition to Donald Trump. Now, for the first time, they are pointing fingers at one another, because they have come to realize that their prior criminality may not be rewarded, praised, or even excused, but rather prosecuted. And so in response, we now hear: “He did it, not me!”
There is something Kafkaesque about the current round of investigating possible FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, and National Security Council wrongdoing during the 2016 election, Trump transition, and early presidency.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller had been permitted to range well beyond his mandate of “Russian collusion.” He outsourced much of the selection of his “dream team” and “all-star” staff of attorneys to his deputy, Andrew Weissman. In turn, Weissman—who commiserated with Hillary Clinton at her ill-fated “victory” party on the evening of her defeat—stocked the team with Trump-haters, liberals and progressives, Clinton donors, a few who had previously served as attorneys for the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton or Obama aides. Most of these were themselves briefed during the early dissemination of the fraudulent Steele dossier.
Yet after all the bias, prosecutorial leveraging, the process crimes, the perjury traps, and after 22 months, $34 million, and a 440-plus page report, Mueller’s “hunter-killer” team did not establish that President Trump colluded with the Russians to warp the 2016 election.
In fact, Mueller could not find prosecutable “obstruction” of justice by Trump to impair the investigation of what Mueller concluded was not a crime.
The Wolves Turn On Each Other
Now we turn to the real unspoken question: how did it happen that the top machinery of the U.S. government meddled in an election, and sought to sabotage a presidential transition and early presidency?
Note well: none of the leveraged targets of Robert Mueller turned state’s evidence to accuse Donald Trump of “collusion,” the object of the special counsel’s investigation, although to have done so would have mightily helped their cause and given them John Dean iconic status among leftists. In contrast, we have scarcely begun to investigate wrongdoing at the intelligence and justice departments and already the suspects are fingering each other.
James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?
Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced?
Why would not they still be vying to take credit for warning President Obama that Donald J. Trump was a likely sexual pervert, with a pathological hatred of Obama, as manifested in Trump’s alleged Moscow debauchery—a reprobate who used his subordinates to steal the election from Hillary Clinton and who still must somehow be stopped at all costs?
That entire bought fantasy was the subtext of why Mueller was appointed in the first place. It was the basis for the persistent support to this day among the media and progressives for the now discredited notion of “collusion.”
If our noble public servants really believed all that to be true, would not Comey and Brennan instead now be arguing that each, not the other, was bold and smart enough to have included the seminal dossier into a presidential briefing? Comey in public still insists that the dossier is not discredited, though in all his sanctimonious televised sermons, he never has provided any details that support the supposed veracity of Steele’s charges. Why then is Comey not demanding that the FBI take credit for bringing this key piece of intelligence to Obama’s attention rather than fobbing off such an important feat to the rival CIA?
Why, for that matter, are Andrew McCabe and James Comey at odds?
The commonality of their respective sworn testimonies has been that Trump was and remains a danger to the republic—to the extent that McCabe admittedly staged a comical coup attempt and Comey committed a likely felony in leaking to the media classified documents that had memorialized his versions of his own confidential conversations with the president.
Why, given their protestation of innocence and their cry-of-the-heart leaking to save us, would not McCabe and Comey be heaping praise on each other, as each tried to outdo the other in pursuing extraordinary measures to end the clear and present danger of Donald Trump?
McCabe has testified that the dossier was the anchoring evidence that the FBI presented to the FISA court. Comey denies that fact. But once more why would they disagree? And why would they be at odds over supposedly noble leaking to the press?
McCabe claims Comey allowed him to leak gossip and rumors about Trump’s culpability; Comey says he did no such thing. But should not both still be bragging that they had the guts to seed the dossier and related confidential information to the media to the stop the national threat of Donald Trump?
We know that Comey has no intrinsic objection to scattering classified information, because he has bragged that he did just that after his firing to help appoint a special counsel. We know in addition that McCabe has no problem with divulging confidential information because to the media he has accused Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in a confidential conversation, of volunteering to wear a wire in hopes of entrapping the President of the United States at some incriminating moment.
For the Good of the People?
Why again are McCabe and Comey pointing fingers at each other as leakers and purveyors or ruinous gossip, when both have admittedly leaked and are apparently proud of it, reasoning that they did it for us, the people, in our moment of peril from our president whom the people elected?
Why are McCabe and Rosenstein at odds? The former says the latter was willing to record stealthily his conversations with Trump in an effort to remove him, the latter says it was a joke and that McCabe engineered such a discussion. But why the disconnect? Both in varying ways have tried to obstruct declassification of government documents that might suggest government overreach under the Justice Department and FBI. Both seem at odds with Trump, both the man and his presidency. Why then are not each vying with the other for the greater credit of nearly engineering a coup to remove an existential threat like Donald Trump, a supposedly legal act under their allegedly mutually referenced application of the 25th Amendment?
These are rhetorical questions because we know the answers: our top officials at the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and NSC, as well as James Clapper as director of national intelligence, likely broke federal law, betrayed their agencies, and in general acted in an abjectly unethical manner on the premises that 1) Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their behavior would be rewarded; and 2) in the aftermath of her defeat and after Trump became president, that Trump could either be removed or so discredited that their own prior illegality would either never come to light or would be contextualized as noble resistance.
Until election night, they seemed to have been correct in their assumptions.
Given the subsequent serial efforts of #TheResistance to remove or destroy president-elect and President Trump—the suits to overturn the voting in three states, the attempted subversion of the Electoral College voting, the efforts to invoke the Emoluments Clause, the Logan Act, and the 25th Amendment, the early impeachment vote, the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Mueller investigation, and the brouhaha over Stormy Daniels, the Trump tax returns, Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti—these officials still believed that their prior behavior would either eventually be praised or at least excused. But they bet foolishly against the viability of Trump.
The appointment of William Barr as attorney general has sobered the lawbreakers, and perhaps soon the media, which may not wish to go down the drain with their erstwhile FBI and CIA speaking-truth-to-power heroes.
No longer are Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe along with a host of others insisting that they acted nobly. No longer are they in solidarity in their defiant opposition to Donald Trump.
Now, for the first time, they are pointing fingers at one another, because they have come to realize that their prior criminality may not be rewarded, praised, or even excused, but rather prosecuted.
And so in response, we now hear: “He did it, not me!”
Comey has made some cryptic statements about Lynch, hinting that she was in some way compromised.
( This was about something other than the meeting with Bill Clinton at the airport).
The investigation into the investigation may sort out who’s lying and who isn’t.
If there are sworn statements given or testimony under oath, some of these people telling different stories may get to find out what a “perjury trap” is.
I had no idea Ganasah claimed to be in the Emmanuel Baptist Church the night Roof opened fire. Maybe that’s why she got that story. The Klan doesn’t give awards. There aren’t enough of them to fill the phone booth.
It was an AME congregation. Ghansah is evidently of African immigrant background, about 35 years old, and a graduate of the New School for Social Research. The New School is unusual in American academe inasmuch as it admits upfront it has an institutional ideology. (There’s an off-hand possibility that there’s a country in Tropical or Southern Africa where communal violence is unknown. Maybe Ghansah can write a travelogue on the place for GQ).
“I had no idea Ganasah claimed to be in the Emmanuel Baptist Church the night Roof opened fire.”
As I understand it, she covered the trial. Your source?
Absent a source, I’ll forward your comment to the author.
Justin Amash tweets (refer to link, below):
People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation—and therefore cannot be impeached—are resting their argument on several falsehoods:
1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.
2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.
In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.
If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.
3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.
In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.
4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.
In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.
11:00 AM – 20 May 2019
Hey, Justin, what’s the punishment for dead horse beating? How about whining in public? Or terminal wishful thinking?
“Justin Amash Fires Back At GOP Critics Of Trump Impeachment”
‘The Republican congressman once again made his case after previously tweeting that the president had “engaged in impeachable conduct.”’
What’s a good screw driver go for after tariffs, Justin?
The President was, if anything, overly kind in characterizing Rep. Justin Amash the way he did. The people who voted for Donald Trump did so because they were seeking to elect a President who was straightforward with them and would actually deliver on his promises. This was in direct contrast to the typical “Presidential” characteristics that Professor Turley, apparently, alludes to; i.e., a politician who will lie to the public repeatedly and betray their interests, while attempting to sound “dignified” and “honest.”
Individuals like Rep Amash and Sen. Mitt Romney are simply protectors of the Deep State to ensure that violations of civil rights continue unabated. They are as worried about what AG Barr and his team may uncover as the Democrats and the liars in the intelligence community are. The public needs to be reminded about the story of award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson:
Being overly kind and tactful has been one of Trump’s major flaws.😉
With any luck the liberal press will be competing with Latinos for valet parking jobs
Unfreedom of the Press Hardcover – May 21, 2019
by Mark R. Levin (Author)
#1 Best Seller in Books
From five-time #1 New York Times bestselling author, FOX News star, and radio host Mark R. Levin comes a groundbreaking and enlightening book that shows how the great tradition of the American free press has degenerated into a standardless profession that has squandered the faith and trust of the American public, not through actions of government officials, but through its own abandonment of reportorial integrity and objective journalism.
Unfreedom of the Press is not just another book about the press. Levin shows how those entrusted with news reporting today are destroying freedom of the press from within: “not government oppression or suppression,” he writes, but self-censorship, group-think, bias by omission, and passing off opinion, propaganda, pseudo-events, and outright lies as news.
With the depth of historical background for which his books are renowned, Levin takes the reader on a journey through the early American patriot press, which proudly promoted the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, followed by the early decades of the Republic during which newspapers around the young country were open and transparent about their fierce allegiance to one political party or the other.
It was only at the start of the Progressive Era and the twentieth century that the supposed “objectivity of the press” first surfaced, leaving us where we are today: with a partisan party-press overwhelmingly aligned with a political ideology but hypocritically engaged in a massive untruth as to its real nature.Age range:Adult
Prof Turley seems to have did pretty good last week at the House hearing & on some other issues related to this ongoing Deep State Coup.
But Mark Levin & some other high profile lawyers seem to be making many more better calls.
Even non lawyer, former NYPD & SS agent Dan Bongino has made some damn good legal calls that the Deep State has been committing.
Is Justin Amash the “heroic,” principled lawmaker calling for Trump’s impeachment based on his careful review of the Mueller or merely the brother and son of importers from China who are directly affected by Trump’s tariffs? Any odds?
Little bio on Daddy Attallah: “Attallah Amash is the founder of Amash Imports Inc., now known as Michigan Industrial Tools Inc. The Wyoming firm is best known for importing hand tools sold through hardware stores, lumberyards, automotive centers and farm supply stores.”
Where do you think most cheap industrial tools originate? Hint: Not Somalia and rhymes with “Mynah.”
Here’s the answer: https://www.chinabrands.com/dropshipping/article-wholesale-cheap-tools-for-resale-15973.html
Mespo, so glad you’re on the case of politicians making policy decisions which benefit their own businesses.
Now what other American family with prominent political power might be working that line? If I think of them I’ll let you know so you can unleash your researchers on it.
Clintons, of course.
What happened to the wonderful gentleman named Mark Esposito, the balanced erudite lawyer from Richmond, VA?
Still here but radical attacks merit a radical response. Call it symmetrical warfare.
Something is wrong you have changed beyond recognition.
Take heed. An anonymous “diagnosis” from the veteran Anonymous who, anonymously stands behind every word, has made a powerfull ( anonymous) negative observation about you.
Will you now repent and reform?
Or at least consider it🤔 given that crushing ( anonymous) warning that you’ve gone over to the bad😈 side?
All anonymity gets you is the distinction of being a coward among brave men and women who put their name on a position. Hardly a desirable trait. We’re a nation of John Hancocks not Anonymous chickens. As for his/her paltry attempt at shaming, Omniscient Anonymous forgets my favorite American philosopher who famously said: “Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.” Time and experiences change everything.
Something is definitely wrong.
Mespo, the Clintons? They don’t make any money on their A rated charity The Clinton Foundation. Do they sell water and college degrees too?
It’s not original research on mespo’s part, but he’d like you to think it is:
“Sundance notes that Amash is receiving major income from this business:
“In his 2017 financial disclosure forms (pdf here), Representative Amash reports income of between $100,000 to $1,000,000/yr. for his ownership stake in Michigan Industrial Tools. Michigan Industrial Tools is the parent company, manufacturing in China, that produces Tekton Tools, Justin Amash’s Michigan family business.”
But don’t stop there, read the full article:
Nope, my own research. Glad they caught up!
Posted yesterday, before your comments (and likely tweeted all over the place), but we’ll have to take you at your word, mespo.
Justin Amash’s Business Interests in China Underscore His Push to Impeach Trump
It may be more than constitutionalism driving Amash’s dogged opposition to President Trump.
Published 1 day ago on May 19, 2019 By Shane Trejo
Most people do and they are rarely disappointed. For every minute of comment here there are 10 minutes of research.
You are so full of yourself.
Which proves what? Buying and selling crap tools from overseas is legal. Even if it were illegal, the Constituion bans bills of attainder, so nobody, not even a Democratic Party-controlled House of Representatives, can legally find the relatives of a law-breaker guilty of his misdeeds.
How about the obvious conflict of interest in opposing the tariffs that directly affect the family biz there, Sherlock.
Let me help you out mespo with your concern trolling, you need it:
“A government watchdog group estimates that President Trump had more than 1,400 conflicts of interests during his first two years in office.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a report Thursday claiming that the president tried to promote his businesses as extensions of his presidency and administration.
During Trump’s second year in office, CREW reported more than 900 interactions between the Trump administration and the Trump Organization…..”
Links to the report details at the article
Is Richard Painter still carrying on David Brock’s work at CREW?
Mespo, et al,
If I recall correctly the Commie Rep Amash story has an interesting side story to it.
In 1776 the USA was founded & we told King George & the Brits to piss off.
One reason was England wouldn’t allow us to make certain goods, like tools, & making us buy them from England.
Ames Tools was one of the US companies that first started making tools in the USA. Like the common shovel.
Also the US govt was funded very much from Tariffs.
( Ph anyone that brings up that Smoot/Harley story fantasy of the 1930’s…. Sheer ignorance of the Federal Reserve System/Centralized Banking Fraud.)
Michigan became very big in tool mfg & employed lots of workers in that biz right up to when our US Reps/Biz sold Americans/workers out & moved those MFG plant’s/jobs overseas.
US Reps/Biz are still today out sourcing $100,000 per yr jobs overseas. These I know of are IT jobs.
So what we Americans & Taxpayers are left with is paying the cost for govt, military, roads, police, bureaucracies, Wallst financial frauds & the commie indoctrinating Public Schools.
Mean people like Rep Amash & his foreign govt buddies profit from all the stolen USA Tech & our other resources like the Roads & Markets. Plus England, OZ & other govts team up with Traitors… Obama/Hillary/Commey, etc. to overthrow our govt.
And not even the courtesy to give us a reach around. LOL What a screwin.
No wonder people are still demanding Trump Lock Them Up!
My suspicion would be that there are a mess of tick-boxes influencing him. His stance is…over-determined.
You would think as a soi-disant ‘libertarian’ he would be resistant to dubious and highly inventive definitions of criminal liability. You would think.
Mespo’s trying hard to “prove” that he isn’t, I see.
John Hinderaker’s remarks on Amash’s argument.
“Trump Attacks GOP Rep As “Loser” For Supporting Impeachment
Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) became the first Republican to call for the impeachment of President Donald Trump this weekend. There are ample grounds to questioning the existence of impeachable offenses. Yet, Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) called Amash’s stand courageous. I agree that breaking from one’s party on an issue of conscience is worthy of respect even if one does not see the merits in the same fashion. However, President Trump stuck with his signature personal insults in calling Amash a “loser” who was motivated by a desire for attention. Once again, I fail to see why Trump engages in such unpresidential, low-grade attacks. It is not only demeaning to his office but ultimately self-defeating to his claims of innocence. ”
Has Prof Turley or anyone else hesitated long enough & suggested to check & see that Rep Amash receives most of his money representing his family business in Ph’in China!
And then this on going Coup against American/Trump & Supporters.
But P Turley’s & many others keep playing Toyko Rose
If one doesn’t believe P Turley has repeatedly been this stupid when it comes to things related to Trump it seems to me the only other explanation is P Turley has malice as his motive against Trump for Turley’s repeated defamation of Trump & his team/supports/America.
Above, in which Pa Joad tries his hand at deductive reckoning.
More From New York Times Deutsche Bank Revelations
After Mr. Trump became president, transactions involving him and his companies were reviewed by an anti-financial crime team at the bank called the Special Investigations Unit. That team, based in Jacksonville, produced multiple suspicious activity reports involving different entities that Mr. Trump owned or controlled, according to three former Deutsche Bank employees who saw the reports in an internal computer system.
Some of those reports involved Mr. Trump’s limited liability companies. At least one was related to transactions involving the Donald J. Trump Foundation, two employees said.
Deutsche Bank ultimately chose not to file those suspicious activity reports with the Treasury Department, either, according to three former employees. They said it was unusual for the bank to reject a series of reports involving the same high-profile client.
Mr. Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank spans two decades. During a period when most Wall Street banks had stopped doing business with him after his repeated defaults, Deutsche Bank lent Mr. Trump and his companies a total of more than $2.5 billion. Projects financed through the private-banking division include Mr. Trump’s Doral golf resort near Miami and his transformation of Washington’s Old Post Office Building into a luxury hotel.
When he became president, he owed Deutsche Bank well over $300 million. That made the German institution Mr. Trump’s biggest creditor — and put the bank in a bind.
Edited from: “Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity In Trump And Kushner Accounts”
The New York Times, 5/19/19
No Bank Compliance Officer should have to decide if the President’s transactions merit suspicious activity reports. No bank should have a conflict like that. For that very reason we have always sought professionals for the presidency.
But then this stupid idea started: ‘a successful businessman might be just the leader to drain the old swamp’. Never mind that a businessman could have enormous conflicts. Never mind that a businessman could be highly leveraged.
It was one of those dumb ideas promoted by right-wing media. This notion that a Reality Star was qualified to step straight into the Oval Office. Like he didn’t need to spend 4 years as a Governor. Or 2 years in the Senate like Barrack Obama.
No, Trump had to start at the top of government. Where his and Jared’s conflicts would become America’s. Yet Americans aren’t allowed to see this president’s tax returns? Like we don’t need to know ‘where’ the conflicts are?
Is there no end to these dumb ideas?
Your username amply fits your comments.
L4D says–The name was given to him by his detractors. He wears it now as a badge of honor. I salute it. Your comments always bulge out and roll over the hips of your user name, Ron.
From another anon.
Reminds of that classic scene with Steve Martin in “The Jerk” where he names his dog and the dog likes it.
My dogs didn’t like me playing your vid. lol;)
They said they hate it almost as bad as the noon whistle.
“No Bank Compliance Officer should have to decide if the President’s transactions merit suspicious activity reports. ”
Peter, why not? Any time things get complex things can become suspicious. Your high rolling banking activities must be within your ceramic piggy bank.
dude if you cut a fart at the teller while making a modest cash deposit then they will generate an SAR. if you smell like pot when you make a cash deposit the teller may generate an SAR. If you dare ask a teller about SARS that in itself can be the basis for an SAR. the bank AML software generates sheaves of meaningless SARs sent to FINCEN that are total “channel static”
this is a non-story
” multiple suspicious activity reports… according to three former employees”
Shill gets his more complex information from the assistant janitors relayed by an anonymous person to the NYSlimes. Great work Peter. You sure don’t make yourself sound sophisticated or smart. You have proven that the NYTimes will print anything that might be negative about Trump even if the smarter people at the Times don’t have the slightest idea of what actually transpired.
By the way when my accounts are unespectedly touched it is considered suspicious and transferred to a specific group. This is not an uncommon occurrance. I get an immediate call. It generally is a legitimate transaction out of the ordinary. I wonder how those suspicious actions would be reported and interpreted by the assistant janitors and the editors at the Times..
boring stuff man. AML and antifraud software just generates stuff based on patterns not facts
meaningless in itself
Turley is described as an “Opinion Contributor” in his new Hill column, the “Legal” qualification noticeably and accurately jettisoned. In this obvious try out for a regular Fox News slot, he does politics poorly but with his familiar molehill focus on Democrats trying to deal with a scumbag President and his willing tools like Barr ….. and now Turley. In his small mind, Trump’s bad manners are the only thing of concern in his presidency – not the end-run on the congresses control of the purse, the blanket ignoring of congressional subpoenas, the trashing of the DOJ, FBI, Intelligence agencies, the press, the collusion with Russians interfering in our election and continued failure to address it in the future, and oh yeah, those 10 incidents of obstruction which include witness tampering, lying, and firing. Turley sees the judge who is requiring release of tapes of witness tampering as a win for Barr. WTF? Completely blind, but I guess he can smell a mic and a stage a mile away.
That’s why we have experts like Anon, L4B, Natacha, etc. here writing their own columns, and telling us that they are the real experts.
Easier to do that and take those stands anonymously rather than start their own websites and actually put their names to their scholarly comments.
Once again Tom pretends he objects to excessive and off topic posting, when what he really objects to are posters who disagree with him. Perhaps he’d better spend his time engaging on the issues rather than the personalities, his preferred subject matter.
You’re probably “in the know” about JT’s campaign for a regular slot on Fox, Anon, since it’s “obvious” to you.
Just as you know Sen. Sanders, the FBI, someone who interviewed for Mueller’s team, etc.
I don’t really object to tall tales, but they are pretty funny. I’ll have to go back and check to see if the reference to Walter Mitty was for you.
On the issues-oriented comment that ” Anon” made, he doesn’t appear to remember the numerous comments that I have made on issues.
And if he feels free to speculate on JT’s motivations, that does tend to open him up to comments about “personalities”.
Also, a series of anonymous claims about all of Anon’s “connections” shows a major advantage of making “anonymous claims” of how well-connected he is.
I have a friend in town, he’s heard your name
We can go out driving on Slow Hand Row
We could stay inside and play games, I don’t know
And you could have a change of heart
“I’ll have to go back and check to see if the reference to Walter Mitty was for you.”
If it ain’t it oughta be.
~ The Anonymous Poster formerly known as mespo727272
Xenophobia | Definition of Xenophobia by Merriam-Webster
Xenophobia definition is – fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign. Did You Know?
“experts like Anon, L4B, Natacha, etc”
Experts? Bahahahaha, shill on brother!
“In this obvious try out for a regular Fox News slot …”
Do you know whether Turley has control over this? Just spewing conspiracy theories?
“familiar molehill focus on Democrats trying to deal with a scumbag President and his willing tools like Barr”
Bahaha, you partisan shill.
“the blanket ignoring of congressional subpoenas, the trashing of the DOJ, FBI, Intelligence agencies, the press, the collusion with Russians interfering in our election and continued failure to address it in the future …. ”
As compared to who? Obama? Bush? …. LOL
Looks like you are the same thing Trump called Amash. And a sore one at that.
I think the author of this article may be underestimating the “creativity” of the Democratic coloring book/ playbook.
L4D asks–What’s the rush, Tom? Which do you want more: Impeachment now? Or an end to congressional oversight now? The House Democrats want the fullest possible measure of evidence to bring to bear at an impeachment hearing against Trump. House Democrats are not the ones asserting executive privilege against congressional subpoenas. That would be Trump asserting executive privilege against congressional subpoenas. There is no constitutional obligation for House Democrats to “exonerate” Trump. Trump is fully capable of “exonerating” himself for all of the good that might do him. Obviously it’s not doing Trump any more good than the exonerations from AG “Casting Couch” Barr and DAG “I Can Land The Plane” Rosenstein. Why should anyone exonerate Trump while Trump asserts executive privilege against every last congressional subpoena under the Sun? And why would Trump assert executive privilege over everything under the Sun if Trump had truly been “exonerated”?
No rush…..no reason at all why we can’t screw around for another 2 1/2 years on this farce.
If nothing else, it guarantees more seasons of The Adam Schiff Show.
no body was better at trash talking than this athlete and statesman
Comments are closed.