Trump Warns Of “Civil War” And Calls For Schiff To Be Questioned For Treason

This is not helping. President Donald Trump continued a tweet tirade against the impeachment investigation today, including quoting a highly controversial pastor in his warning that removal of Trump would spark a “Civil War.” Equally disturbing was Trump’s call to have the whistleblower brought to him and for Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff to be questioned for possible treason.

Republicans joined Democrats in denouncing a retweet warning of the danger for a a “Civil War-like fracture” in the country. He also warned that there would be “big consequences” if the impeachment went forward.

The retweeted quote is from Pastor Robert Jeffress on Fox News: “‘If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.'”

I am actually more concerned about Trump’s demand to have the whistleblower brought before him, a tweet that could be viewed as intimidating and is certainly inappropriate given the status of the staff member. Trump tweeted “Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called “Whistleblower.” That is not true. A right for confrontation adheres in a criminal proceeding not an impeachment proceeding. Nevertheless, the whistleblower, who is expected to testify before Congress, can certainly be called by the Trump team in a Senate trial. To call him to a meeting before such proceedings is grossly inappropriate.

The attack on Schiff is reprehensible. I have maintained that the allegation of a quid pro quo remains unproven. However, it is a legitimate matter for congressional investigation and Schiff is acting under his constitutional authority. Indeed, this is one of the core function of the House. To suggest that such actions are treason is deeply offensive to Schiff and to our constitutional process.

These tweets are self-defeating and fuel the narrative for impeachment. Trump seems to believe that counterpunching in this way has proven effective. It hasn’t. He survived the Special Counsel investigation despite (not because of) his tweets and public statements. He survived because there was not a compelling legal basis for either criminal or impeachable charges. He is now facing an abuse of office charge and these tweets more readily fit within that type of alleged conduct.

320 thoughts on “Trump Warns Of “Civil War” And Calls For Schiff To Be Questioned For Treason”

  1. JT might reconsider his speaking seditious treason, espionage & separate himself from the histories of people like the Phil Mudds of DC & the world, further that he recalls his own words & those of Lindsey Graham:

    You don’t get a Lawyer! You’re an Unlawful Enemy Combatant!

    As Trump could say at any moment. 😉

    1. Mr Adams was wrong. There is no “system that could be run by devils.” The quality of leadership is always a decisive factor in any nation.

      1. I’m sure you meant Madison. Sorry, this for those that don’t know we are a constitutional republic. I know you see them.

  2. “That is not true. A right for confrontation adheres in a criminal proceeding not an impeachment proceeding. Nevertheless, the whistleblower, who is expected to testify before Congress, can certainly be called by the Trump team in a Senate trial….”

    confronting the accuser is a right. it is a right inherent in due process, which applies to all persons. now literally speaking this is correct with respect to the proceeding, which is self-defined in its procedures and “Rights” by the Congress itself. however. consider this:

    in law school they say,
    “If due process does not apply to the least of us then it may not apply to the rest of us either”

    OK! but then even more so:

    “If due process does not apply to the POTUS than it darn sure won’t apply to us either.”

    think about it. i say he BETTER have a right to confront his accuser and as soon as possible. or this is not fair. end of story and then back to the heading: this risks a civil war like level of social fracturing.

  3. Who would have thought that there was partisanship within the intelligence community and they would act to subvert the policies of a President.
    Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

    Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

    By Sean Davis

    Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

    The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”


    1. The “intelligence gang” thinks they lead the great Leviathan of state like a Ahab led the Great White whale with harpoons. They don’t; it won’t and the last of them will be seen sinking beneath the waves.

      The need to read more Job:

      JOB 41:1-25 KJV

      “Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.”

      1. thanks ! love it

        textually compare and it’s clear this passage was known to Melville:

        “Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!”

        1. You know Melville and Hawthorne are favorites of mine!

          “She had wandered, without rule or guidance, into a moral wilderness… Her intellect and heart had their home, as it were, in desert places, where she roamed as freely as the wild Indian in his woods… The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. Shame, Despair, Solitude! These had been her teachers—stern and wild ones—and they had made her strong, but taught her much amiss.”
          ― Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

          As fine a verse as ever penned.

      2. TRUMAN HARRY S.

        “I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.”

  4. We are already in a civil war between the marxist leninist adolfist Benito schumerists and pelosians of the Socialist foreign ideology on the one side who are in violation of their oaths of office for the most part and their RINO contingent AND the Constitutional Republic both Party and Constitutional Centrist Coalition. 2016 the latter group provided 40% of the vote and that went against the left.

    Controlling the Coalition supported an outsider with instructions to expose and destroy the left. It’s never considered in polls has no budget and follows the self governing citizen requirement of the founders plus the Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution.

    Laugh all you want you’ve seen what the far left has been reduced to which is a splintered five to seven factions and leaders with no followers openly embracing Marxist Leninist Socialism or Benito Adolfist Socialism or Schumeresque Pelosian regressivism.

    And all because some off duty active duty military reminded the former and retired and active military of their oath of office because one of the Stupid Party called them the greatest danger the Obama Regime faced.

    So we made it come true but with tanks in the streets but ballots over bullets.

    How’s it working for you Hillary? Schmuckley Putz when Piglosi puts whats left of you backs to the wall and looking for a Platonic escape hatch.

    Hint. Plato’s escape was publicly stating his system would never work.

    1. “OK Michael, you can play army with your friends but dinner is at 6:30. Don’t make me have to yell.”

      1. its not like anyone is advocating hunting you down in Alachua, taking a rope to your family and shooting them in Paines Prarie


    1. Mespo, that is hilarious. So, Trump isn’t a braggart!

      Seems like you like your cowboys straight out of the drugstore.

      1. Why would anyone think that doc? He prefaced his comments with “This is the essence of what the president communicates”.

    2. Trump has to brag because the media won’t give him credit. Now the Fed Reserve gives him credit because Trump brags.

      1. Yeah Patriot, that why he uses the “best” words, has “perfect” phone calls, the best economy ever, the most accomplishments, the greatest election results, inauguration, and on and on.

        You’re ignoring the obvious: the guy’s a dick.

              1. YNOT………There is something disturbing and sinister about a person who calls a 73 yr. old grandmother a “skank”.

  5. While I agree with your thoughts about the President’s comments about Rep Schiff, everyone is missing the point that the House as a body has done nothing and no one in the House has the authority to oversee the President until the House votes to start the impeachment process.

  6. Enough hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and nascent insurrection.

    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald J. Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  7. Oh oh! It looks like there is a strong genetic component to this article! Lookit what I just duggeth up!

    “From the Salem Daily Courier
    April 13, 1693

    By Brother John Turley

    Hearken to me ye people of Salem! Lo, it has been reported unto me that certain reprobates have taken to jeering and the calling of unfriendly names toward Cotton Mather. Particularly one Robert Calef, a cloth merchant of these parts. While I share your concerns about the fairness of these witch trials, and the prosecution of persons thereof, I find it most unseemly that we shouldst take to making jest of Brother Mather, who is only doing his job! Fie upon you Robert Calef for your incessant mocking of Brother Mather! And, have you no shame at all- for you even penned a missive, More Wonders of the Invisible World, full of calumnies! This is undignified!”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky….Most clever, maiden Squeeky.
      .Lesson? Just because someone yells “witches!”, it doesn’t mean you have to be “swept up” in the hunt.

      1. I forgot the smiley face emoji at the end…..thereby running of the risk of having leftists misunderstand that I kid.

  8. “This is not helping.”

    Actually it is.

    Trump is articulating exactly what most Americans feel: the US House Dims are lying, sacks of manure who push identity politics while dividing our country further. They have made Trump and all Americans targets of ridicule, scorn and of potential targets of violence. It works both ways, Jonathan. There is nothing “controversial” about the pastor. Its just “parody”, so grow some

    Pelosi declares “impeachment”
    Trump declares “Civil war”

    Bring it

    1. Pure absurdist delusion. Good luck with reality. It might not be easy with such a tenuous grip.

      1. our kids know how to shoot straight with an AR but in your case, we will steady their delicate hands


      2. How did Hillary take your counsel?
        Not well, one presumes

        Not until we see the white of her cyclops eye

    2. No, Antoine. “MOST” Americans: 1. did NOT vote for Trump; 2. Have, by historic numbers and for an historic length of time, disapproved of him; 3. Want him gone; and 4. Support the House impeachment inquiry. These are facts.

      This talk of violence is un-American, as are: 1. ignoring the power of Congress by refusing to cooperate with producing documents; 2. procuring the lack of cooperation of witnesses to testify before Congress; 3. threatening and insulting members of Congress; 4. cheating to win an election with the assistance of a foreign government; 5. withholding military aid appropriated by Congress to leverage a desperate foreign country into ginning up fake evidence to be used against a political opponent (ironically, Biden might not end up being the opponent; Trump might be gone by 2020 anyway); 6. misusing the most-secure government server to hide evidence of Trump’s abuse of power, which may end up with White House staff also being prosecuted eventually for obstruction of justice; 7. appointing an AG who tried to help cover up this scandal and abuse of power instead of doing his Constitutional duty; 8. obstructing justice, both with this scandal and the matters outlined in the Mueller Report.

      The whistleblower is not a member of Congress. He or she is an American patriot who put his or her career on line to call out Trump’s corruption and cover ups of his unethical and dangerous behavior. The whistleblower didn’t have the transcript of the call at the time he/she filed the whistleblower complaint, but every fact asserted in the complaint has proven true. He or she is not one of the “Dims”, either. Members of Congress took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. White House staff take a similar oath: their oath is not to protect and defend Trump–it is to protect and defend the Constitution. This conduct cannot be ignored, and those who try to hide evidence or interfere, like Barr and WH staff, are breaking the law. If Trump and Republicans were patriots, they would cooperate, but Trump is a narcissist, which is incompatible with patriotism.

      1. MOST traitors, foreign invaders, illegal aliens (slaves could not become citizens and required immediate deportation) and anti-Constitution, anti-American communists…blather, blather, blather!

        The American Founders established a country whose citizens must have been “…free white person(s)…” and whose voters (1789) were Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. America was never intended to be a one man, one vote communist dictatorship.

        Everything “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his illegitimate conspiracy of successors did was and is unconstitutional with emphasis on the “Reconstruction Amendments.”

        Everything the corrupt Supreme Court and the judicial branch have not done to implement and support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been treasonous and actionable.

        “Crazy Abe” on the resolution of slavery and slaves:

        Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).

        “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,”

        Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong.

      2. talk of violence is supremely american. Massa Tom said, in a letter (Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris Nov. 13. 1787):

        “…. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? [here it comes…..]

        the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.”

        and in case you missed the last 100 years of history, americans are good at violence, not just talk

      3. “He or she is an American patriot who put his or her career on line to call out Trump’s corruption and cover ups of his unethical and dangerous behavior.”

        Patriot? Yeah more like a CIA tool being used to overthrow our own governement. Leak, lie and profit. That’s the American way according to the Left. Have you donated to this great hero’s GoFundMe campaign yet? I hear they’re aiming for a cool million like your girl Chrissy ‘baby talk’ Blasey Ford.

        1. Real patriots can see that those trying to overthrow our government and the rule of law is Trump the Traitor and his America hating stooges. He is always for himself, not the country, and his stooges will jettison every institution and believe any lie if it will prop him up. It’s doubly strange that such an ugly lowlife bragging creep turns previously sober Americans into cult followers who’ve sacrificed all reason and principle in his service.

        2. How can disclosing the truth about Trump’s corruption “overthrow” the government? Did the whistleblower lie? About what? Did the whistleblower profit? How, exactly? In fact, he or she will likely lose their job and get death threats. Did Dr. Ford profit by coming forward? How? Last I heard, she and her family have had to move several times and are still getting death threats. All because she came forward. Everything stated in the whistleblower complaint has proven true, and the whistleblower didn’t have the transcript. What other dirty little secrets are hidden on our country’s most-secure server?

          The latest is that Trump tried to get Australia’s President to investigate the Russiagate scandal. He’s a crook, through and through, and no amount of pivoting to try to drum up dirt on other people will prevent the American people from seeing through this “whataboutism” and bringing him to justice.

          1. Natch, blah blah, sorry Ms., with respect you are are full of garbage. You’ve discredited yourself long before today so today brings nothing new.

            This is the general view of a large number of Americans, towards Natch and her kind.

            I don’t pretend to speak for “most Americans” unlike her, but i know the opinions of many.

            You keep on hoping you are right,. We shall see. In my opinion, Trump’s the hero in this drama. Flat out.

            1. Gee Kurtz, why is it you can never take up her points and show us your superior arguments?

              1. easy. because she strings together a bunch of incoherent BS. she can’t frame a simple proposition. i”m not in charge of teaching her to write english.

                by contrast, you can state a simple question. hence the pleasure of conversing with you!

                1. I find Natasha’s posts well written and reasoned. They are no longer than Karen’s and often yours.

                    1. Honey, the Democrats use the Main Stream Media, Hollywood loudmouths, late night comedy shows, The View, ABC, NBC, PBS, CBS, NPR, NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, TIME, ETC, ETC!!! to “steal elections by spreading lies about their Republican opponents”! Some obscure Russian troll ads on FB had zero impact compared to the regular “in kind” campaign donations the Left Stream Media gives Democrats. Daily. Hourly.

                      Open your dam eyes.

                    2. Noted 🙂 haha!

                      And to be clear, this reply was to “Honey” Nattybooboo’s comment way below, posted October 1, 2019 at 1:49 PM

                  1. You like them because you agree with the sentiments. The reason and logic is weak and the factual content thin.

                    I’ll say this for myself. I link useful supplemental material. You sometimes do that too. good for you. it’s essential to a quality comments section, that people contribute different viewpoints and occasionally bring in outside sources for debate.

                    by contrast, I have yet to see one single useful outside viewpoint or fact brought to the table by Natch. reminds me of these girls in law school — not all, and certainly not the best– not even the second best, usually just the third raters –who thought they were smart just because they were loud. that being convinced of your own opinion is all it takes to convince others. No, actually, that’s not how it works. strident does not equal convincing.

                    1. OK, I agree on providing support, but many here don’t do that, and what she writes is of value in my opinion, both well reasoned and accurate.

                    2. I occasionally have posted links, but most of what I post comes from mainstream news–like the Mueller Report, the results of polls, the whistleblower report, citations to statutes, which I have cited, and the like, as opposed to far right-wing punditry you Trumpsters like to cite as if they are facts. I never click on those links of people like you or Kurtz because I don’t trust you. Anyone whose head is shoved so far up their rectum that they can’t see the truth about Trump (the charitable explanation), or who are paid to troll (possibly closer to the truth) might well put a Trojan horse into such links that Norton can’t detect yet because they are so new. Because I HAVE read the Mueller Report, I know that Russian computer experts helped The Donald to steal the election by spreading lies about Hillary Clinton, so I wouldn’t put it past them to be using various names on this blog to do the same.

                    3. Natch says ” I never click on those links of people like you or Kurtz because I don’t trust you”


                      take for example the climate change reports I posted 5 times last week from Brookings institution. Does Natch deem that an untrustworthy domain name? wow.

                      but you think we’re all just russian bots in your fevered imagination so I guess that’s how you roll

                    4. Mr Kurtz – I just added Newguard to Chrome which validates news sites. It gives them a green check mark if they are on the up and up.

                    5. Paul, have you checked Newguard out to see what non-leftist sites they are blocking if any? I already know my Google searches are tainted by the left. Prager U which is very decent has a lot of its videos blocked by Google and some sites refuse adds from many non-leftist organizations.

                    6. Allan – Newsguard does not work with YouTube. I have to trouble with Prager, and I run an adblocker.

                    7. Paul, Prager is a good site but adds can be annoying. That is how the people providing you content make much of their money.

                      I have heard there will be a big shift in the future at least for things normally seen on TV and that the shift is going to dramatically increase costs for the consumer. Right now people like me listen from a recording device and skip through the commercials.

                    1. Yes Paul, I understand the non-partisan approach of you and most posters here means a dedication to objective judgement and an open mind, and in the future I’ll strive to attain your high level of intellectual curiosity.

                    2. Anon1 – I am well aware of my confirmation bias, however I do try to engage with others. However, I am hold enough to recognize BS when I see it.

          2. Chrissy Baby Talk got close to a million in a GoFundMe drive. Said it was to pay for her family’s security costs. Right. I believe she got other “awards” and such crap as well. Her best friend — who was supposedly at the party during this ‘life altering traumatic event’ bs story where Kavanugh allegedly made out with her, but she “believed” he was “going to rape her”– was harrassed and threatened because she admitted “no recollection at all” of any such event. She even said Chrissy’s story “didn’t even make sense” to her. Guess what? It doesn’t. This Chrissy Ford saga was another partisan hit job of the first order. The tactics and smear jobs coming from Democrats and leftists absolutely disgusts me. You better believe I am voting for Trump again.

            1. Forgot to add that Chrissy Baby Talk’s own family — her own father — went on record saying he didn’t believe her garbage story and that he supported Kavanaugh! So both her best friend who she said was with her at this party AND her own parents didn’t even buy her crap. But the Dems put on quite a shitshow didn’t they? And Chrissy got a million in a payoff. As I said, they all disgust me.

          3. Everything stated in the wb’s complaint was not true. Susan Rice admitted that Obama also used the secret secure server for some of his transcripts, etc. Trump has been using it since the earlier leaks of his calls with Mexico and another country.

            1. NO, that’s false. Rice did not say that. Read the Wire story. They claim she said what she didn’t.

              1. “So from Rice we now know the decision to store the conversation on the top-secret server was not unprecedented, but a decision that Obama’s administration made multiple times as well, using its own discretion, just as the Trump administration has. And from ABC News’ reporting we know that this has been a long-standing practice in the Trump White House to protect against a high level of leaks.”

                from —–>


                1. She did not say what everyone on the right – but no one else – is reporting. From your link:

                  “We never moved them over unless they were legitimately, in the contents classified.” Rice did not explain what standard the Obama administration used to determine what was legitimately classified. She said it is rare, although not impossible, that a presidential conversation could be classified to that highest level.

                  What is difficult about that? There is nothing classified in the Trump Zelensky conversation.

                  1. How dare President Trump preserve a documented conservation with a foreign leader on a secure server. And then have the audacity to release the full document without a subpoena from congress.

                    Doesn’t Trump know he’s supposed to wait for the subpoena, delay, delay, delay until Judicial Watch’s FOIA request finally forces them to release the transcript sometime in 2021?

                    Damn that Trump! He’s setting a precedent for transparency that will completely undermine any future administration’s efforts to bambooz… er, I mean, foo…um, uphold the rule of law. Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say.

                    1. Well it isn’t like he’s, Trump is, the DOJ/FBI/CIA or a bunch of other Traitorous 3 lettered intel ops that have long ago many have went rogue against the USA.

                      There are still some good people in there, but there is a group of morons convinced they can pull another JFK/Nixon or a 9/11 type bullshiit false flag.

                      Those idiots need to just DO IT, this time we see You!

          4. Nuttycha — “latest is that Trump tried to get Australia’s President to investigate the Russiagate scandal”

            —-> look for MORE so-called whistleblower claims/leaks. “They” are trying to establish a pattern. This is a planned hit job. Pelosi Schiff, etc are in on it.

  9. If Trump is impeached, then we’ll have President Pence. And he’ll appoint an extremely conservative evangelical to the Supreme Court, someone far more conservative than either Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. That would be a just reward for Shiff, Nader and Pelosi. When their voters see what their antics have wrought, they’ll be sent packing. 😹😹😹

  10. “The attack on Schiff is reprehensible. ”

    No it isn’t. Schiff is a lying, horrible piece of crap, and it is right for Trump to call him out!

    And then you said, “However, it is a legitimate matter for congressional investigation and Schiff is acting under his constitutional authority. ”

    Un-effing-believable! What has Trump been doing except his job, and yet you ask for no respect for him from Congress.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Trying to get dirt on a future political opponent using his powers as president from a foreign government is not doing his job.

      Surely you know that.

      1. Trying to get dirt on a future political opponent using his powers as president from a foreign government is not doing his job.

        Uncovering corruption involving U.S. citizens and foreign governments, especially involving the abuse of power by elected officials, is precisely the president’s sworn duty under the take care clause.

        Surely you know that.

        1. Your problem Olly is that there was no evidence of that corruption – his own National Security Advisor told him that – he has no record of caring a hoot about corruption, the target of his supposed concern was also kicking his ass in polls, and we have professionals who do these kind of things legally.

          It doesn’t pass the straight face test.

          1. Your problem Olly is that there was no evidence of that corruption

            I don’t have a problem with a full investigation, do you? If as you say there is no evidence of corruption, then the resulting investigation will clear Biden and not Trump.

            Your arguments don’t pass the straight face test.

    2. “horrible piece of crap” still not as sh!tty as you; time for you to crawl back under a rock.

      1. we see you still have that dirty tampon up your arse to give you that Hillary crook Clinton look.

        1. Can’t figure out if you are a dyke, skanky, or a fat guy who wishes he was. Either way there is someone out there for you, don’t give up.

      2. Dear diary, “horrible piece of crap” still not as sh!tty as you; time for you to crawl back under a rock.

        There, fixed it for you…again.

  11. Trump is playing his best hand as he sees it. This bears repeating. He and his handlers, Miller, etc., are and have been consciously cultivating, and are seeking to legitimate, an incipient violent, neo-fascist, white supremacist movement outside the constitutional process which will not accept any decisive expunging of Trump from the American political scene. It is not just inappropriate, it is an intentionally tyrannical political strategy and should move to the top of the pile of Trump filth in any impeachment case (way above this Biden stuff) even if it does not constitute a crime (not yet). This does not mean that the Democrats don’t also suck, but at least they’re not threatening violence or civil war (not yet). This cannot be permitted to go on, if it is not too late already.

  12. Oh you poor baby!! That you should have to hear someone mocking the President is an outrage!!

    Wait! Did you think he was quoting the Dips..t in Chief when he said:

    “This is the essence of what the president communicates,” Schiff said: “We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here.”

    “I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though and I’m gonna say this only seven times, so you better listen good,” Schiff continued, parodying Trump. “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it… on this and on that.”

  13. Under whose authority did the intel community decide that the “whistle blower’ did not have to have first hand knowlege.of the phone conversation? Let’s start there.
    “Civil War'”, in some form, will not be a threat. It will be an obvious consequence of the Left’s unrelenting mob rule.

    1. Given that the memo the WH released confirmed the complaint, WGAF except for as it iompacts the next President we may have to impeach?

        1. Sure Cindy.

          I don’t know.

          I don’t care.

          Now why do you care, since the information in the complaint has been confirmed by the released WH memo on the phone conversation?

          1. Anon1……..LOL….You can’t answer it because the mental giants over at MSNBC haven’t covered it yet (and likely won’t).
            Bless your heart…’re such a good little toady.

              1. Paul C…..that is so sad. Honestly, I am not a fan of a skywalk over the Grand Canyon, even though I understand the local Indians promoted it. To me, it detracts from the “natural wonder”, much like the Pei Pyramid at the Louvre detracts from the majesty of the original iconic structure.What an atrosity, IMO!
                I’m so glad I was able to visit both the Louvre and the Canyon, pre-pyramid and pre-skywalk.
                And I do fear that Skywalk suicides might become a thing!

                1. Cindy Bragg – I have seen video of people walking (or trying to walk) on the Skywalk. I watched a documentary on how it was built. It is on the North Rim, I agree about the pyramid

            1. I wonder why you Trumpsters keep trying to fake up attacks against those who call out Trump’s unethical antics instead of dealing with the substance. For example, claiming that the “Steele Dossier” was the genesis of the Mueller Report, which it wasn’t, and now, that the whistleblower didn’t have first-hand knowledge. Yet, everything the whistleblower reported has proven true, confirmed by the transcript of the call AND the whistleblower didn’t have the transcript when he submitted the complaint. Nothing in the Steele Dossier has proven untrue, even though it was not how the Mueller investigation stated. Now, Trump’s trying to go after Crowdstrike, which helped prove it was Russians who hacked the computers of the DNC. He’s actually trying to create some stupid argument that the Democrats hacked themselves. He continues to obsess over the fact that he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

              Why not deal with the facts: Trump did withhold military aid, and the reason he gave was a lie–he said it was because the US gave more aid than any other country, which isn’t true. How could distressing Ukraine by withholding desperately-needed aid force other countries to give more? The Ukrainian President was trying to save his country from being completely overrun by Russia. By a bipartisan vote, Congress appropriated money and other military aid, and Trump illegally withheld that aid to his political advantage. Trump asked for a favor in response to the Ukrainian President’s statement that they wanted to purchase more Javelins. These are facts. They create a prima facie case for impeachment. Quid pro quo is not needed: a mere solicitation of assistance for a political campaign is enough. We have that already. But we have more: WH staff hid evidence of this and other telephone discussions with MBS and Putin in the most-secure government server: one reserved for the highest-level of security. That is called “consciousness of guilt”, and is evidence that the actor knew he or she was committing a crime.

              I’ll say it again: people who work for the government take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not Donald Trump. They broke the law, and should be prosecuted.

              1. The Dems hacked themselves is not a stupid argument. That’s your interpretation of the forensic analysis conducted by a former NSA whistleblower William Binney who said it was technologically impossible that the “Russians hacked” via the thin wires of internet communication, since downloading the relevant massive data files over the internet would have been like sucking a golf ball through a garden hose. ergo, it was leaked by someone with terminal user access to DNC network.


                of course as the experience of William Binney and many others shows, not all whisteblowers are liked by the media

                and not all leaks are created equal

                1. Do you think Bill Barr was running cover for the DNC when he redacted all the Mueller Report sections relevant to the hack discovery? I know Barr’s a life-long deep stater, but you’d think Trump would declassify those parts himself, if he believed there was evidence supporting a cover up.

                2. A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The GuccifKurtz, this the 3rd time I’ve demonstrated to you that that is BS. The time stamp “controversy” isn’t one as any time the original hack was copied to a thumb drive, that would be the time stamps. Here’s the entire storu on your sucker – I mean boy – Binney from Computer World:

                  “One document – a tip-off file obtained in June 2017 by Leonard’s site from an “anonymous source” – took new disinformation all the way to the White House and the CIA.

                  The untitled file included complex details explaining how to unlock information inside a tranche of files released by Guccifer 2.0 in London. Metadata in the files had been manipulated to “prove” that the documents could have been stolen by a Democratic National Committee (DNC) employee. Until the file arrived, the information hidden in the files, created by the GRU hackers and known only to them, had not been detected by security experts.

                  The document, rewritten for propaganda effect, was published three weeks later and claimed to be the work of a new fake personality called Forensicator, which claimed that stolen DNC documents were copied to a computer located in the eastern US. If correct, it was devastating news for US intelligence – because it cleared the Russians.

                  Some former intelligence officials, from a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), backed up the claim. A group, including William Binney, a former technical director at the US National Security Agency (NSA), and former CIA officer Ray McGovern, were persuaded, without checking the file data, to say that the hacking was the work of insiders.

                  According to former NSA technical manager Tom Drake, “Ray’s determination to publish claims he wanted to believe without checking facts and discarding evidence he didn’t want to hear exactly reproduced the Iraq war intelligence failures which the VIPS group was formed to oppose”. He and other VIPS members refused to sign McGovern’s report.

                  But the VIPS endorsement was repeated by American media, from respected left-wing publication The Nation to controversial right-wing site Breitbart News. The ploy succeeded – and made it to the White House. Binney was invited on to Fox News and said allegations that Russia had hacked the DNC were unproven. Trump then told CIA director Mike Pompeo to see Binney to find evidence to support the claims. Pompeo met with Binney on 24 October 2017.

                  Binney said he told the CIA chief that he had no fresh information. But he said he knew where to look – in the surveillance databases of his former intelligence agency, NSA.

                  As a former top NSA insider, Binney was correct, but not in the way he expected. NSA’s top secret records, disclosed in the DoJ indictment earlier this month, lifted the lid on what the Russians did and how they did 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”…”


                  1. forensicator who?

                    ray mcgovern & binney, contra drake, don’t see eye to eye on this, I understand hat.

                    you’re pretending you debunked it. for me, you havent. just to your own satisfaction, perhaps.

                    1. Kurtz, read the GD article.

                      Maybe you want to be fooled on this. Nothing else explains your being corrected on this conspiratorial folly now 3 times by me.

                      IT’S DEBUNKED.

                    2. “IT’S DEBUNKED.”

                      The article you quoted said it was “completely debunked”. Since that apparently is your proof I want an answer to the question asked before:

                      Does this mean that what Hunter told his dad was COMPLETELY debunked or does it mean what Joe Biden told the press was COMPLETELY debunked?

                      Anon I want to get things straght for when the NYTImes and an ABC analyst say something is COMPLETELY debunked that means something. It means there are no loose ends.

                    3. i read a lot of it. you’ve linked a massive article filled with technical jargon

                      I see the part that related to william binney. he said something which related to technical details. the conclusion of his prior analysis was not wholly contingent on that detail.

                      binney has not withdrawn his analysis or stated that the conclusion was in error. if you are saying that he has, you can prove it because that was not in the relevant parts of of the article, which for the second time I have looked at, somewhat.

                      i’ll say this again. if I missed binney withdrawing his entire report or the conclusion, show me. i see only a modification of a viewpoint about a certain detail.

                      meanwhile, the underlying content of the leaked emails, which demonstrate how hillary commandeered the DNC, and queered the primary process in her own benefit, remains essentially verified by Brazile, and mostly ignored by all you people who schlep coal for the current DNC honchos today. even as they ignore you and design another flawed process that allows them to essentially pick the winner.

                      Now back to a point you missed last week. Because you are obtuse about simple things at times, even as you claim facility on complicated ones.

                      The DNC AND CROWDSTRIKE VETTED THEIR OWN “EVIDENCE” SHARED WITH THE FBI. Investigations don’t normally work that way~ ! Major methodological flaw. Every time I explain this, it’s ignored. The FBI normally takes physical possession of the hardware. Like all of it they can lay their hands on. Why, they didnt? Political angles, that’s why.

                      So yeah Crowdstrike stinks and TRUMP rightly trying to get after them.


              2. Natacha: your analysis is filled with false presumptions. It’s a tangled mess, too confused with errors to parse. Good luck figuring life out with such pretensions.

                1. Anon1……I have to respond to your answer first, before I can comment. Since you have not answered my initial question, I cannot comment. That’s how it works in civil discourse.

                  1. Cindy, you ignorant twit, I answered your question twice.

                    Thanks for confirming you’re not worth a reading or a response.

                1. Hey Nattybooboo — Here’s a feel-good-story about President Trump for you: Did you know that the Trump Administration is phasing out testing on animals, by 2035?
                  Nice, right?


                  “There’s a good reason why you’ve probably never heard of President Trump’s success in promoting animal welfare — the media are desperate to move on from any story that humanizes this president.

                  Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its decision to reduce animal testing, with the goal of phasing out mammal studies completely by 2035. In addition, the agency will award $4.25 million in grants to various academic institutions “to advance the research and development of alternative test methods” and to ultimately “eliminate” the need for animal testing altogether.”

              1. I have done way too much cocaine and I was “fired” from that whatever construction yob I claimed to have so….can anyone spare a dirty needle and some cheap crack? Im swimming in Soros money so no price is too expensive for me

                1. Anon1 – depending on where you are living, building starts and rebuilds are up. You should have drug money soon.

                2. Well now!

                  Intervention time for Anon or just let her have a heart attack and die a slow miserable death?

                  I think I see what Adam Schiff meant about parody


                  1. LOL, nice thread. but…. I’ve got to stop having fun for moment & tend to my knitting.

  14. It is not Schiff’s constitutional authority that we are concerned with, but his authority under the House rules, which is despicable. His misreading of the phone transcript should have him jailed.

    1. Yeah Paul, you should cover your delicate ears if you are too dense to understand parody, even when noted as such when it begins:

      “This is the essence of what the president communicates,” Schiff said: “We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here.”

      “I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though and I’m gonna say this only seven times, so you better listen good,” Schiff continued, parodying Trump. “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it… on this and on that.”

      You guys will repeat the lamest BS your handlers throw out. The weaker the better, and you believe it all.

      1. The intention was to libel and slander. Schiff did it under the protection of the Constitution or he would have left himsef open to many actions.

        Maybe what you say is proof is parody as well, Anon. Yes, looking at all the mistruths your statements generally must be parody.

          1. Anon, look at your sentence structure above and tell us about your literary skills. Then you can comment on what was said. Don’t bother. It will be parody and totally untrue.

        1. Paul, you don’t have to explain Schiff’s parody. For you to state otherwise indicates dishonesty, idiocy, or mindless parroting of your handlers.

            1. Paul, no, he didn’t.

              JerkO.f Trump stooges pretended it wasn’t, but anyone honest who speaks English understands that what follows

              “This is the essence of what the president communicates,”…

              is not a quote.

              You’re not going to tell me that you thought what followed that would be a quote, are you?

              1. While you’re at it Paul – just to get the difficulties Trump stooges hope we all have with English out of the way – can we agree that when someone says

                I would like you to do us a favor though.’”

                they want a favor, right?

                1. Anon1 – we have a mutual criminal compact with the Ukraine. This “favor” would fall under that.

                1. Then you disagree with Schiff’s parody which is fine, but not the same thing as him violating rules of the constitution or civility. We agree those are different things, right? The “essence” of debate – civil and otherwise – is disagreement on facts and interpretations of them, but that disagreement is not unconstitutional or Treason as the JO in Chief claimed.- right?

                  1. Anon1 – I think the treason charges have to do with Schiff having and/or helping with the Whistleblower Report in August.

                    1. Well, now that we agree on Schiff’s comments before Congress not being an attempt at misleading poor innocent Trumpsters, why don’t you flesh those charges out for us Paul. We don’t want 2 traitors in important positions in our government.

                    2. ANON1 – I gave you my reason which were based on impeccable sources, which I cannot reveal.

      2. Anon1

        Schiff was counting on uninformed/unwilling to understand Pinkos accepting his statements at face value; it was only when the truthful press called him out that he resorted to the “parody” excuse.

        In your heart of hearts, you know that you are being disingenuous.

        Most of us don’t care enough about your opinions to really debate with you; we just call you out and move on.

        1. Yeah monument, that;s why he prefaced it with:

          “This is the essence of what the president communicates,”…

          Here, let me do that slowly for you:

          “This is the essence of what the president communicates,”

          Did that help?

                1. Anon1

                  Serious question.

                  Watching your postings, I wonder if you have a life other than Turley’s columns.

                  But in any case thank you; I certainly appreciate the insights into a Pinko’s thought processes (and more importantly, their intellectual honesty).

                  Confirms my biases, though as an optimist, I keep hoping that you will show more integrity.

          1. Anon1 – however that was NOT the essence of what the President communicated. Does that help? 😉

            1. Then you disagree with Schiff’s parody which is fine, but not the same thing as him violating rules of the constitution or civility. Can we agree on that?

              1. Schiff did not violate the Constitution since it gives him the power to lie, defame, slander and libel without consequence. That is pretty much par for the course among some people including you. However, Anon, you don’t do it as well.

              2. No because of this reason. Just because you have nothing to say worth reading does not mean you get to dictate what others say without expressing the reasoning.REJECTED

              3. It is disturbing and outrageous that Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff opens up a hearing of this importance with improvised fake dialogue between President Trump and President Zelenskyy. We should focus on the facts.

                -Rep Elise Stefanik

      3. corruption prosecutions and investigations are often launched from sides which are both corrupt.

        if it cancels out, so what. i still want my side to win. see how easy that was?

        Xi Jinpeng put 1.3 million communist party officials in jail acc to the SCMP. Does that mean he’s not corrupt? Does that mean they were all innocent?

        I think it just means he uses the tools at his command.

        The thing that really troubles you guys is when Republicans rally around a strong leader. Because, that may mean that the iron is launched toward the target, instead of sideways.

        Lets see how this turns out

    2. Would you then jail Kevin McCarthy for denying Trump’s statement, “I need you to do us a favor, though?” He kept denying that Trump said, what the White House released. Who else might you jail? How about the man encouraging Russians to continue election meddling?

      1. enigma – I would not be opposed to selecting people at random from their states to run the country. And I would not be opposed to getting rid of everyone who is currently elected or running.

      2. Question? How do you justify pimping for the Party of Slavery, Anti Civil Rights and so forth. Just wondering.

        1. Michael, I admire that you are able to repeat something you heard about the Democrat Party history and I’ll be the first to agree with you. The Republican Party was formed with the goal of eliminating slavery (though Lincoln was careful to distance himself from the term “abolitionist” during those famouse Lincold/Douglas debates where he concede how black people woud never be the social equals of whites. Republicans did pretty well for a while until The Compromise of 1877 when they agreed to pull Federal troops from the South in trade for a Presidential election and the next year when they implemented the Posse Comitatus Act which ensured Federal Troops would never again return to the South. They (Republicans) effectively killed reconstruction then guaranteed it would never return. Over the next decades they looked away during Jim Crow while helping legislate redistricting and voter suppression until the 1960s when Democrats went too far in passing Civil Rights and Voter Rights Acts (with some Republican support) but when the large percentage of hateful Democrats fled t the Republican Party (Dixiecrats) they were welcomed with open arms. Since then Republicans adopted various editions of the Southern Strategy and the widow of one of the lead strategists (Lee Atwater) was honored at the most recent Republican National Convention. Part of that strategy is to widen voter suppression and the current Republican Party is where skinheads, white nationalists and the Klan call home (though certainly all Republicans aren’t members, they just willingly co-exist).

          A history of the Democrat Party during the same period would reveal a higher body count than Republicans and a legacy of hate, yet still, at this moment in time they are a better alternative than the Republicans who do their best to make my vote, my political strength, and my existence shaky.
          When you try to throw history at someone, I would suggest you be fully aware of the history and pick on someone who knows less than you. You failed in each instance.

          1. I generally think what enigma said about the two parties is a fair rendition of history.

            right up to the part about skinheads and kkk being in the Republican party

            the unfamiliar context of a lot of that is not race but class levels.

            kkk today is a miniscule and insignficant number of hucksters, who may have a PO Box and a trifling number of mail order “followers” they barely can manage to round up ten guys for a beer party let alone a cross lighting. they are bogeyman of the imagination, not reality.

            in earlier decades when the brand had more followers, many kkk leaders even in the post jim crow era, actually ran as Democrats, if they ran for political parties at all, such as protest candidates sometimes do. This happened right up to the TV-klan of the 80s and 90s. i am aware of an instance in the ’00 years too. The affinity was CLASS based, as they generally had working class followers and interests. i could elaborate more but probably nobody cares.

            skinheads almost never have been a part of electoral politics. they are drunken hooligans useless for any serious work beyond mowing lawns perhaps. every attempt on the racist fringe to organize them ended in disaster.

            in england where the skinhead phenom originated, they were working class however. they wore doc martens because doc martens are steel toed work boots for chavs moving furniture or assembling widgets at some factory.

            today, the Republican party has moved closer to the interests of working voters away from the Country Club investment banker crowd like Romney, who conspicuously hates Trump. For my humble part, I welcome the movement of Republican party towards the interests of the people.

              1. On the contrary. the first attempt by american racists organizers to harness the skinhead phenomenon was by Thomas Metzger. One of those guys who had run as a democrat more than once, by the way…. which for him ended in disaster. See the book “one hundred little hitlers” by Elinor Langer, about the Muleta Seraw murder, by skinheads, that was blamed on him.

                The efforts by others did not fare better. And there have always been few skinheads in America compared to Europe, where they have an overlap with soccer hooligans.

                In America skinheads are barely existent outside of California, at best a sort of lame auxiliary to more powerful prison gangs. Don’t let a couple movies like “American history x” or “Romper stomper” make you think they were more than they ever were, Flash in the pan.

                The notion that there is skinhead entryism into the Republican party is totally non-factual. Untrue, in a word. If there is a rising sense of white racial identity and animus, among some Republicans, generally, it did and does not come from racist organizers nor kluckers nor skinheads.

                it’s come from general conditions of actual racial conflict on the streets, and it’s come from social resource competition, including social conflict in education, in many ways, none the least of which is the nonstop political correctness demonizing white people for their race. Look it’s quite simply. If you attack whites for their race, then they’re going to form into racial self interest groups, just like all the other ethnics have in American history. This is human social instinct in play, simple as that.

                I recommend , a book from 203, prophetic in many ways, by Carol Swain, a black lady, former professor at Vanderbilt University.


                1. I’ll check out the book. At least until then, I’ll maintain that the existence or various white racists groups has always been underrepresented officially. Even now it takes pulling teeth to get the Government (especially Republicans) to acknowledge the of existence domestic right wing extremists (mainy white racists) who have killed far more people since 2001 in terrorist acts than anyone. BTW, have you ever considered that all the attacks on white people you’re adding up are responses from the people they’ve attacked?

                  1. I guess that depends on who’s counting!

                    For some self promoting famous “counters of hate groups like the SPLC,” the existence of white racist groups is at this time, very over counted. Their hate map lists numerous groups which are nothing more than one loser with a po box selling whatever, kkk stickers, garbage like that; or one loudmouth with a website. Well, there’s thousands of clowns out there, yeah. Ditto same for their other hate categories, which can be overzealous patriots, anti-immigrants, “radical” Catholics, people obsessed with homosexuality, etc. They may list Muslim-haters and then in the next line they list Muslims such as the NOI; but always, the main thing they do is overcount, so they can scare people.

                    For example, just too keep it lively, they even have such perplexing listings for a nearly unknown and microscopic socalled hate group called “black israelites” and i dont mean falashas. who knows what that is or why they call themselves that or if they hate anybody or not. But i doubt they are many. The main thing, they are a donation fetching scheme, working on direct mail, and to scare the donors they overcount, a perpetual wave of hate is at the doorstep, send us your gift to help them keep on exposing hate etc etc, and pay the salaries of rich men like Morris Dees and his cohorts, and their large cadre of fundraisers. it’s a scam, in a word, and they fool people into believing a lot of mountains made out of molehills.

                    Now if you want to believe that the number of white people who harbor racial sentiments is under-estimated by pollsters and so forth, perhaps!. White people are often in denial about their feelings of racial affinity, They are socially atomized, under the spell of extreme individualism, and generally reluctant to join ANY team. And often, just for example to show the lack of rootedness, white people descended from European ethnics, two generations out from the migrants, they often are completely “whitewashed” of all traces of origin.

                    Generally, if they are not tuned into what jail is like, via whatever means, then they fail to grasp the expedient circumstances which can be thrust upon people that cause them to form up into racial or tribal or other sorts of gangs, purely out of necessity. The average white suburbanite despises that sort of white person; he fears them; they embarrass him; until he needs them, too! He denies the instincts, and if he were polled, he would give politically correct answers, whatever his habits might truly be.

                    Some people would call any small degree of that hate. I think that’s unfair, perjorative, and political. Overall, I just call it culture; it is many faceted; it is delivered and inculcated in many ways. It includes formal education but also informal education; the ineffable moral inheritance, it is the material inheritance of money, and the social inheritance of connections, networks, or what the Chinese call “guanxi” — and it too is an inheritance of blood, of dna, of family and extended family types and traits, these are all things that make us up, things we don’t chose, but give us connection to others like it or not

                    “Riders on the storm
                    Riders on the storm
                    Into this house we’re born
                    Into this world we’re thrown”
                    — Jim, Morrisson

                    all peoples have it. including white peoples, and other groups, ethnics. too. you can call these things by neutral terms or you can call them hate, but they certainly exist, in whatever form and degree, and white people are not exempt from the natural instincts of humans to band together.

                    “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”
                    — Marcus Garvey

                  2. Enigma, I didn’t quite follow your last statement. I don’t agree to calling people terrorists all the time. There are a lot of scoundrels out there who are just crooks and not terrorists. And there are those who are called terrorists, who are actually just partisans on the wrong side. The term is often a matter of perspective.

                    So, I find the word overused and I mean that for foreigners just as much as Americans. I certainly believe all nations and combatants should follow the Geneva convention, but my opinion means very little.

                    1. I was trying to separate people who killed people in order to terrorize other groups of people as opposed to robberies, random murders and acts of passion. When I made the assertion that white terror groups were killing more people than foreign terrorists, I wasn’t accusing them of committing most of the murders in the land, they’re just the leading terror groups.

                    2. OK, can we all agree that in a free democracy like ours, any domestic killers for political reasons are all properly called terrorists and none “partisans”?

                    3. “When I made the assertion that white terror groups were killing more people than foreign terrorists, I wasn’t accusing them of committing most of the murders in the land, they’re just the leading terror groups.”
                      Well they’re not:

                      “Since then — from Sept. 12, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016 — there have been 85 attacks in the country by violent extremists resulting in 225 deaths. GAO reported citing data from the U.S. Extremist Crime Database.

                      Of those 225 deaths:

                      • 106 individuals were killed by far-right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents;

                      • 119 individuals were killed by radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents;

                      • The number of people killed in a given year ranged from one to 49.”

                      It’s about even but the Muslims are more lethal. If you want outlaw both groups of murderers, I’d have no issue.

  15. Trump believes HE IS KING, He also believes that criticism if him is treason because he believes that he is the US. He isn’t. Failing to oppose him bringing his possible infractions to the appropriate authorities or the public is wrong. If anyone is breaking their oaths of office, they are the President and the Republicans. As to treason, I think Trump May have already admitted to it but he doesn’t care. He figures he can get away with it.

    1. Justice Holmes,
      Is it opposite day there in Stepford? All of your statements seem to be contrary to facts.

      But, it you’re going to binge watch MSNBC, here’s an important reminder:
      Objects on your screen may be far less reliable than they appear.

    2. Holmes, Trump is a traitor. Not only does he side publicly with Putin over our intelligence agencies and the FBI, but he continues to do nothing about their interferences in our elections while carrying Putin’s water in his attempts to weaken our democratic allies in Europe and around the world.

        1. Jerusalem Post American Politics

          Trump on Russian interference in US elections – US also does it
          U.S. President Donald Trump . (photo credit: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS)

          US President Donald Trump said in 2017 to top officials in the Russian government that he is not worried about possible Russian interference in US elections as the US itself, he allegedly claimed, did so in other countries.

          The statement led to the summary of the meeting being restricted, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.

          Helsinki, Finland (CNN)US President Donald Trump, in a stunning rebuke of the US intelligence community, declined on Monday to endorse the US government’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, saying he doesn’t “see any reason why” Russia would be responsible.

          Instead, Trump — standing alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin — touted Putin’s vigorous denial and pivoted to complaining about the Democratic National Committee’s server and missing emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal account.
          “I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said during a joint news conference after he spent about two hours in a room alone with Putin, save for a pair of interpreters.
          Trump’s statements amounted to an unprecedented refusal by a US president to believe his own intelligence agencies over the word of a foreign adversary and drew swift condemnation from across the partisan divide.

      1. You sound like a Red Baiting McCarthyite sometimes when you talk like that.

        If the Russians say something true, then “siding with them” is not treason.

        The american intelligence community includes in its arsenal of tactics, deliberate deceptions, disinformation, propaganda, etc. This is a necessity. But if we as citizens prefer to understand the truth of a matter instead of drinking their Kool Aid — well, that does not make us traitors. We may just be speaking truth.

        in some narrow circumstances, if we are working for the intel agencies such as spies, then for THEM telling truths might be treason, yes. that’s for their bosses, and the courts to sort out.

        the POTUS does not work for intelligence agencies

        actually, the agencies work for him.

        where did I get this crazy idea the CIA works for the POTUS you ask? Well, the CIA of course!
        “CIA Vision, Mission, Ethos & Challenges
        CIA’s information, insights, and actions consistently provide tactical and strategic advantage for the United States.

        Preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters, producing objective all-source analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe.”

        “President” in that context means POTUS– not President of the Spook Society.

        inherent in our democratic system of civilian command, is the notion that the POTUS is “Free” to disagree with the staff in the CIA who actually work for him and not vice versa!

        1. Call me old fashioned Kurtz, but I’ll take our intelligence agencies and the FBI over Putin.

          That’s not a hard choice for most Americans.

          1. yes you’re old fashioned that way. i am a old, but younger than you, and I was raised with a healthy mistrust of government in general, more so of police agencies, and an even healthier sense of mistrust for intelligence agencies who use as part and parcel of their trade, deception, both of foreign agents and domestic populations.

            The Russians did not invent that, it came long before them, They have no special monopoly on propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and deception. And certainly not in meddling in elections

            If anybody invented modern spycraft one might mention the name of John Dee. Elizabeth’s spymaster who coined the term “British Empire.” The CIA are almost direct lineal descendants of John Dee, figuratively speaking of course.

          2. Ol’ Bay of Pigs to Curveball’s Yellow Cake. I’d say Putin has equal credibility. The biggest threat to citizen rule are the secret intelligence agencies. Internal secrecy kills democracies not outside threats.

            1. Mespo, I believe ultimately our elected leaders are in control and responsible for malfeasance by our intelligence agencies. The Dulles brothers and Dick Cheney were the ones asking for those 2 mistakes. They weren’t rogue agencies.

                1. I like Colin, but he didn’t ask the right questions and bought the Kool Aid.

                  Here’s a later interview with Sen Bob Graham who as the head of the Senate Intel Comm led the fight against the Iraq War Authorization vote.

                  “Welcome to the program, Senator Graham.

                  Mr. BOB GRAHAM (Democrat, Former Senator of Florida): Thank you very much.

                  SIEGEL: What was it that you saw in the National Intelligence Estimate, which, as we understand, it was read by rather few of your colleagues – but what was that informed your decision?

                  Mr. GRAHAM: Robert, there were chain of events. The first was that there was no National Intelligence Estimate as of early September of ’02. So we utilized the rarely utilized authority of the Senate Intelligence Committee to direct that there be an NIE.

                  It was a document that had as its consensus view that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was tempting to reconstitute his nuclear capabilities. But it was also pocked with the descent conditions, minority opinion on a variety of critical issue. One area in which there was consensus, however, was the statement that the only condition under which Saddam Hussein would use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had would be if was first attacked.

                  SIEGEL: Mm-hmmm. But let me just clarify here. You’re saying that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in the fall of 2002 was fundamentally wrong and the main point is to whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But even so, in reading it, you were persuaded against voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

                  Sen. GRAHAM: Yes. There were two other subsequent events that were sparked by the NIE. We ask the question of what was our level of competence to the accuracy of the information? The answer was, the information came primarily from the exile community. Many of whom had not been in Iraq for 10 or 20 years and all of whom had a strong conflict of interest because the only way they were going to e back in power would be walking in behind a United States stank.

                  We also asked, did we, the United States, have anyone on the ground of who was given the responsibility of verifying the accuracy of this information from the exile? And the answer was, no.

                  SIEGEL: Another point, which I gather was disputed at least by the State Department in footnote to this report was whether the now notorious aluminum tubes that Iraq had been shopping for around the world were for making nuclear weapons or whether they were other purposes such as artillery and I gather there was some dispute as to that.

                  Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, and it – the State Department disputed it but I thought even more significantly the Department of Energy, which is the department of the United States government that is responsible for our own nuclear program, they disputed.

                  SIEGEL: And now, given that some of the things that you found most informative about the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, were the dissenting footnotes or indeed the holes in the argument that either came up from reading the estimate or from questioning then CIA director Tenet – Is it fair to say that other senators who did not read this National Intelligence Estimate were getting briefed to the same extent and understood all the same information prior to their votes?

                  Mr. GRAHAM: I don’t know what other sources they were relying upon, but I found the NIE and the circumstances which surrounded it to be the document that provided, to me, the clearest insight that the intelligence was being manipulated in order to make a particular case rather than being used to inform judgment as to what case should be made.

                  SIEGEL: Well, former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, thank you very much for talking with us today.

                  Mr. GRAHAM: Thank you very much.

                  SIEGEL: Senator Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2002.

                  Copyright © 2007 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at for further information.

    3. Justice Holmes, Nice to read something that shows you have been paying attention as usual. The rest on this blog seems to be ad hominem on each other.

    4. I didn’t my own figuring and came up with zero attempts at proof for those statements soooo… REJECTED

    5. he’s a chief executive and like it or not so were kings. there are some similarities in law and adminstrative functions.

  16. “The attack on Schiff is reprehensible. … Schiff is acting under his constitutional authority.”

    Just like Harry Reid, Schiff is using the Constitution as a shield to protect him from slander and libel.

    1. Sure, we all know how delicate, accurate, and polite Trump is in his comments about others, so Allen’s outrage at potty mouth Schiff is sincere and heartfelt.

      1. Potty mouth Schiff used the Constitution to libel and slander. Trump tells the truth but sometimes uses puffery. However, he acts in a transparent manner and for the most part has been more honest than his predecessor. A fine tooth cone was used with Trump and to the present has found nothing illegal. Every ‘tooth’ in a comb would be broken if used on Obama and we still wouldn’t have found all the knots.

    2. By making up the phone conversation instead of reading the transcript? Schiff should be ousted

      1. Uh Bruce, he prefaced his paraphrase/parody with:“This is the essence of what the president communicates,”

        1. Uh Anon1, Schiff is a U.S. Congressman and chair of the House Intel committee, not a comedian. Using that position to air an SNL skit masquerading as a serious investigation is an abuse of power. He should have included in his opening statement, I have absolutely no evidence that supports the need for this hearing, but I am willing to just make sh!t up. Why? Because as Jonathan Gruber said, thanks to the stupidity of the American voter my constituents can’t tell the difference.

Comments are closed.