#IMPEACHMITTROMNEY: Trump Appears To Call For The Impeachment Of Mitt Romney In Tirade of Personal Attacks

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) recently stated what many have observed in the wake of the Ukraine call disclosures — the push by President Donald Trump for Ukraine (and now China) to investigate his political rivals is unacceptable. The response from President Trump was both personal and perplexing. He denounced Romney as a “pompous ass” and seemed to call for his impeachment — even though there is not only no impeachment provision for a sitting U.S. Senator and Utah does not even have a recall provision. Sen. Susan Collins (R, Maine) has also made measured but critical comments recently.

Trump tweeted that not only was Sen. Jeff Flake “better” than Romney but “I’m hearing that the Great People of Utah are considering their vote for their Pompous Senator, Mitt Romney, to be a big mistake. I agree! He is a fool who is playing right into the hands of the Do Nothing Democrats! #IMPEACHMITTROMNEY.”

It is certainly true that, according to a poll taken in July, Romney’s approval rate with Utahans is only 38% (the lowest on the delegation) with a 40% disapproval rate. However, President Trump’s disapproval rate remains over fifty percent.

None of that matters of course. A president should act with a modicum of decorum and dignity even in addressing political rivals. While one could give the President the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the impeachment talk as a joke, the personal attacks were not. Romney’s comments were reasonable and deliberative even if you disagreed with him. The name calling and unfounded talk of senatorial impeachments only make it harder for Republican senators to openly support the President. They also play into a narrative of the Democrats that Trump is wounded and unhinged. With the Senate now at risk in 2020, these Senators will be increasingly concerned about their future as a Senate impeachment trial looms. This is the not the way to assure them that the White House has a coherent and controlled strategy for navigating these increasingly dangerous waters.

The President has defenses to these charges but much will depend on intent and credibility. Neither is helped by these attacks on political rivals or fellow Republicans.

372 thoughts on “#IMPEACHMITTROMNEY: Trump Appears To Call For The Impeachment Of Mitt Romney In Tirade of Personal Attacks”

  1. CIA whistleblower lead attorney:

    Andrew Bakaj is a Democrat & made a donation to the Biden campaign in April 2019….Connect the dots. Bakaj also interned for Senator Chuck Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for then-Senator Hillary Clinton the fall of the same year.

    According to his LinkedIn profile, Bakaj started working with CIA in 2012, and helped ensure the agency was complying with President Barack Obama’s new directive to protect whistleblowers with access to classified information who expose fraud, waste, and abuse. In April 2014, Bakaj’s co-workers shared with him their concerns with multiple senior employees at the CIA inspector general’s office who were involved in facilitating or covering up evidence mishandling one of its investigations.

    Bakaj then spoke with the intelligence community inspector general’s office (ICIG) about those concerns. According to source, superiors at the CIA interfered in interview with the ICIG to find out the whistleblowers’ names. Afterward, Bakaj’s security clearance was suspended and was put on administrative leave. A year later, in 2015, Bakaj retired from the CIA, and became a managing partner of Compass Rose Legal Group.

    Bakaj’s law firm has started a GoFundMe for the unnamed intelligence officer who is the whistleblower against Trump.

    1. Did this lawyer make Guliani and Trump threaten the Ukrainian president for dirt on a political opponent by withholding tax payer funded aid?

      He must be really good.

      1. On the one hand, Democrats complain about the stream of consciousness Tweets from Donald Trump. Whatever he thinks, he broadcasts, with a loudspeaker, to the planet, thumbing his nose at detractors.

        On the other hand, they keep accusing him of being a sly, secretive, Machiavelian working behind the scenes, such as when they thought his Jewish ties were a front to him being a secret Nazi. Activists are always struggling to connect dots, being proven wrong, immediately forgetting about it, and moving on to the next accusation to get wrong.

        I am suffering from crisis fatigue, and the boy who cried wolf. At this point, I require a busload of nuns, video evidence, evidence the video was not tampered with and, I don’t know, a burning bush. It’s just been one wrong accusation after another. I recall Whoopie Goldberg asked on the View, why Democrats keep getting it wrong, in the context of the Covington Catholic school boys. Joy Behar answered it’s because they hate Trump and just want him out of office, so they keep jumping the gun. This isn’t justice. It’s just repeated coup attempts, justified because they don’t like him.

      2. Before you claim there was a threat, you should have evidence to support it.

        Obama was afraid to provide lethal support to Ukraine against Russia’s invasion in the East. He was concerned that it would anger Russia and get them to escalate beyond an actual invasion. Ukraine is not a NATO ally of ours. He did provide radar which helped reduce Ukrainian casualties. During the time that Trump was being falsely accused of working for Russia, he departed from Obama’s policy, and provided lethal aid, including infrared (heat seeking) Javelins. In return, our military has had the (tragic) opportunity to observe Russian modern hybrid warfare, which includes traditional military action, as well as assassinations (remember Skripal in UK), cyber attacks, and the more subtle propaganda they call “weaponized information” now. Recall my earlier comments about Russian organizations such as Dialogue of Nations that seeks to destabilize and weaken Russia’s enemies. In our case, Russia sends out propaganda that the US is a racist nation, capitalism is bad, socialism (known to destroy economies) is good, and our successes were built on colonialism. All this is designed to weaken and decay us from within, via willing Leftist participants, otherwise known as useful idiots. They employ similar tactics against Ukraine.

        Trump suspended this aid a few months ago, at the time stating concerns about corruption. Ukraine has, indeed, faced a series of corruption scandals, which was touched upon in the allegations against Biden.

        During his conversation with the Ukrainian PM, Trump’s favor was for them to cooperate with an internal investigation into the origin of the Russian investigation, in which Ukraine is implicated. Later in the conversation, he brought up concerns about the criminal allegations against Biden.

        Of course government power should not be abused. That is at the root of Republican complaints about the Russian investigation – it was based upon a series of abuses of power, including illegal unmasking, withholding from the FISA court that the dossier was opposition research and not proven, or that it was provided by Russian spies, and Obama spying upon a political opponent to his party, as well as efforts to destabilize his presidency. If there are allegations that Trump abused power, then by all means investigate it. But these types of allegations should be investigated fairly and equally, and not become an excuse for unjust, political warfare, which in and of itself is an abuse of power. The House threatening impeachment without evidence is another example of the misuse of its power, in order to help Democrat candidates in the next election. Throw it on the growing pile.

        1. The Democrats have plenty of evidence for the coming impeachment already, including the WB complaint which has largely been substantiated by the WH memo of the phone call and by Trump’s own admissions, the State Dept texts which reveal even more damming evidence. Ron Johnson’s reporting of the EU Ambassador confirming the use of military assistance as a chip for dirt on Biden, and now a 2nd WB.

          Anyone claiming no evidence is ignorant, lying, or both, and that evidence – confirmed 4 times over is what makes the targeting of the messengers completely irrelevant.

          1. Anon1:

            Sure the Dims do! Like Schiff had damning evidence in the Russia-gate probe. The Ukrainians said they weren’t coerced nor even aware of the hold on arms when their President talked to President Trump. A classic “no victim-no crime” scenario. You really need to listen to more Richard Marx:

            1. The Ukrainians know where the l their bread is buttered for the short term basis. I suggest you read the State Dept texts, Ron Johnson’s reporting of his discussion with our EU Ambassador, and the WB complaint and try to pretend military assistance was not used as a chip.

              By the way. Adam Schiff could be an axe murderer and would habe no affect inn the facts of the impeachment.

              1. Anon – if the hypothetical ax murderer claims he has the missing smoking gun evidence to impeach Trump, and then does not produce it, then he does have an affect on the facts of impeachment.

                1. There is evidence already before us sufficient for reasonable, honest, and intelligent people to determine that the President used the power of his office to benefit himself personally.

                  1. call the impeachment then and send it to the Senate, where the CIA schemers and their Democrat collaborators will be unmasked, and the weak article voted down, the bureaucratic rebellion crushed.

                    1. Mr K – Yep. If this is the time that they really, really mean it, and actually do have evidence, then proceed with an impeachment. Trump can call any witness he wants. It’s going to be quite a show. I’m not sure if Trump would come out unscathed, but the Democrats will be scorched, and their fields salted.

                  2. Anon – you sound like Schiff. He claimed that he had indisputable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. When pressed, he never did produce it.

                    You claim that you know of evidence that any “reasonable, honest, and intelligent” person would deduce proved Trump abused his office for personal gain, but you did not list such evidence.

                    No matter. If it exists, it will be part of an impeachment proceeding…during which prospective voters will hear all about Biden’s dealings in Ukraine, Russia’s anti-capitalist propaganda using American professors, Democrat activists abusing their authority in the intelligence community…

                    1. Karen, I’ve listed the evidence numerous times including today, and anyone presuming to discuss the case without already knowing about it is on a fool’s errand.

                      Among the evidence is the WB complaint judged credible and urgent by the Trump appointed IC IG, the WH memo which confirms much of the complaint, the statements of Trump who has admitted to the actions, the State Dept texts, and Sen Johnson’s reporting of his conversations with our EU Ambassador. There is now also another WB.

              2. Anon1:

                Read all of it including this which you missed I guess:

                Inn one exchange dated Sept. 9, in a text Taylor sent to Sondland, the career diplomat says: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

                Sondland responds: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

                1. Mespo, read the entire exchange – and the entire collection of texts released. Sondland is aware of the damage being done in the record and throws in this statement which of course is in conflict with the what they’ve been working on arranging in clear English. He follows with a suggestion that they don’t keep going back and forth on it in texts. At another point, when asked a leading question he says “call me.”

                  You’re an attorney. You’re smarter than this.

                  1. oh, you’d have to come up with a lot more than that to prove a quid pro quo in court. if it were a criminal proceeding, you wouldn’t be anywhere near “beyond a reasonable doubt” and in a civil matter nor would you be close to the line of a preponderance of an evidence either

                    but, since the Congress sets its own rules for impeachment, they will follow their own standards of proof. who knows what that will be if anything. so it’s by design of the Constitutional ultimately a political proceeding and not a juridical one

                    so bring the article, we vote it down, and on to the election. quit playing games and bring it! or is Pelosi playing mental games with her detractors in the squad and their lackeys? hmmm

                    1. Court of law maybe, though there is more to come, but as you note an impeachment does not have the same rules as court proceedings and it’s conclusions are political. Political requires the support of the American people and that will be based on what the evidence clearly – if not by legal certainty – points to.

                      So, kurtz have you read the State Dept texts? Who gave these guys the idea that a WH meeting and military assistance was depended on Ukrainian compliance on an investigation? Who else would even think of that?

                      3 guesses.

                    2. you go ahead and parse over the trivia and keep looking for justifications for your beliefs. i promise you will easily find them

                      talking things over and over will draw to a close perhaps sooner than you think
                      talking is not the only activity that is political. the political can continue by other means.

                      we shall see

                    3. for years I have recommended on this blog the works of Carl Schmitt. Here is one that provides a firm intellectual foundation for how this all will unfold. Republicans should read and understand this if they can so they are not suprised and deluded by their own liberal ideals into thinking this is all just about laws and regulations and good intentions and other fantasies. This is at root a biological process of competition, one group against another in the perpetual social and animal conflict over resources. That conflict can become quite sharp. Republicans must understand words are just playthings in the mouths of facile political operators, mostly devoid of their literal meaning, and just idea-pawns issuing out of their mouths like so many moves in a game.

                      In short the essence of this conflict is not constitutional legalisms whatsoever, it is the perpetual human dynamic of power.

                      ——————————————————————————–

                      The Concept of the Political (German: Der Begriff des Politischen) is a 1932 book by the German philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt, in which the author examines the fundamental nature of the “political” and its place in the modern world.

                      For Schmitt, the political is reducible to the existential distinction between friend and enemy.[1]

                      For Schmitt, the political arises from the fact of human diversity: identities and practices, beliefs and way of life can, in principle, be in conflict with one another whether there are actions being committed to against the other. Any differences that Schmitt calls substance can give rise to enmity, enmity gives rise to politics and this is a source of conflict because it can lead to war. One main aim of politics is to manage enmity. The domestic political is no longer so when a conflict becomes a revolution or civil war, this is polarized since it traverses politics, the issue and concept of the sovereignty as state borderlines is disputed and violence is used. This is the basis of the friend-enemy distinction.[2][3]

                      Schmitt attacks the “liberal-neutralist” and “utopian” notions that politics can be removed of all warlike, agonistic energy, arguing conflict existed as embedded in existence itself, likewise constituting an ineradicable trait of anthropological human nature. Schmitt attempts to substantiate his ideas by referencing the declared anthropological pessimism of “realistic” Catholic (and Christian) theology. The anti-perfectibilist pessimism of Traditional Catholic theology Schmitt considers esoterically relevant to the inner ontological being of politics and political activity in the contemporary world, modern people subconsciously secularizing theological intellectual ideas and concerns. Schmitt criticizes political “radicals” as basically ignorant, deluded, pseudo-messianic in mentality, and oblivious to the stark, hard knowledge of unveiled human nature, its esse, encoded in ancient theology, wherein Original Sin held central, axial place, intertwining his own ideas of meta-politics with a reformulated “metaphysics of evil”.[4]

                      “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”.[5] Schmitt says the borderline concept is of “one pertaining to the outermost sphere”. Schmitt says that although the sovereign “stands outside the normally valid legal system, he nevertheless belongs to it”. Sovereignty is more than the technical, it is the personal privilege of the ruler.[violencenote 1] Schmitt states; “significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts”.[6]

                      Gulli suggests Schmitt’s point of the concept as; “Sovereignty is decision and domination”. The decision would make X arise to the level and status of sovereign, thus the decision is treated to be of the sovereign. The decision of the matter of the exception is always decided by the sovereign, and it always carries the understated or explicitly stated (institutionally, politically motivated, or mandated) use of violence. The decision has with it the special powers and inherent power. The state of the 17th was able to codify all social customs, rituals and economics without it ever used politically.[7]

                      Publication history
                      The Concept of the Political was first published in 1932 by Duncker & Humblot (Munich). It was an elaboration of a journal article of the same title, published in 1927.[8] The 1932 version has significant, and controversial, revisions. However, it is likely that these revisions were made in response to the reaction of Leo Strauss.

                    4. Kurtz, as an attorney I’m sure you know that evidence is not trivia, while constructing supposed exculpatory conspiracies often are. That’s all you’re willing to discuss and I understand why.

                    1. Well mespo, they were “screwing up the facts” through multiple texts over a month which also involved a Ukrainian counterpart and with Sondland involved, up until he gets nervous about the record they are creating – “we need to stop texting back and forth about this”, and “Call me” (both accurate paraphrases)..

                    2. Mespo, if you missed it, the ambassador was who told Sen Johnson – according to Republican Sen Johnson – that Trump was using military assistance in an effort to get the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into Biden.

                      Sondland wasn’t “correcting” anything but the digital record he realized was damning.

                2. Reporting is now saying Sondland talked with the WH before trying to clean up the record: “Mr. Sondland called Mr. Trump before texting back less than five hours later, according to the person familiar with his activities.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-lawyers-to-ask-sondland-about-efforts-to-sway-ukrainians-11570493154

                  “no quid pro guo” was an obvious fix the record attempt after texting back and forth over an extended period of time on trading WH meetings and military assistance for an announcement by the Ukrainians on investigating Biden.

                  1. NYTs reports Sondland will not appear before House Committee per WH, today.

                    “Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, told The Wall Street Journal last week that Mr. Sondland had told him in August that the release of the aid was contingent upon Ukraine opening the investigations. “

          2. Anon said, “The Democrats have plenty of evidence for the coming impeachment already…”

            Examples of previous calls for impeachment or the removal of Trump, all of which times they claimed they had evidence:

            1. John Podesta, of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, urged Obama to brief electoral college that Trump got elected due to Russia. Democrats took up the cause, and there was a massive movement urging the Electoral College not to vote as their state directed. After this movement failed, it has turned into a movement to do away with or circumvent the Electoral College, in violation of the Constitution. Mind you, it was later proven that Trump’s campaign did not collude with Russia.
            2. 25th the 45th. There was an accusation that Trump was mentally unfit for office. Psychiatrists who had never seen Trump in person violated treatment standards, and diagnosed him with innumerable mental illnesses. There was conjecture that he had dementia and heart disease. His physician had to hold a press conference and confirm he was mentally and physically fit.
            3. Trump was going to be impeached because he paid off mistresses before his election.
            4. “Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Chris Coons, Ben Cardin, and Jeff Merkley introduced a bill that would require the president of the United States to divest any assets that could raise a conflict of interest, including a statement that failure to divest such assets would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors “under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution”. Vanity Fair characterized this as a preemptive effort to lay the groundwork for a future impeachment argument”
            5. Dems tried to get support to impeach Trump because they claimed his foreign policy benefitted his businesses, of which he had removed himself from control. Since he ran on being pro business and pro jobs, obviously anything he did that resulted in helping businesses, would be good for Trump businesses, as well. That went nowhere.
            6. ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org filed a resolution of inquiry, H Con Res 5 to try to prove Trump businesses had conflicts of interest with Russia to impeach him.
            7. Dems tried to get impeachment support over the pre-election plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
            8. AOC and many other Dems claimed that Trump should be impeached based on the Emoluments Clause, because foreigners stay in his hotels. It had to be explained to AOC, who cannot figure out a garbage disposal, literally, that paying fair market value for a hotel room does not violate the Emoluments Clause, and never has.
            9. Congressman Al Green called for impeachment because of Trump’s racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. (Are those all the “isms” and “phobias” possible?) That evaporated.
            10. Democrats proclaimed that they definitely had evidence to impeach Trump based on what Mueller was investigating. Schiff claimed he personally had seen incriminating evidence…that he never produced. Over 2 years later, even the media is tired of Rachel Maddow claiming Trump is a Russian asset. Bill Maher told Schiff he’s stalking Trump, at this point.

            Did I miss some? I feel like I missed some. Were there efforts to impeach over North Korea, the Jerusalem Embassy? I think there was talk of impeachment because he allowed his close family to become advisers, which made sense because everyone around Trump leaks for political purposes. I don’t know. Chip in if you guys can think of any more impeachment efforts. There were so many in the past couple of years.

            “Anyone claiming no evidence is ignorant, lying, or both, and that evidence – confirmed 4 times over is what makes the targeting of the messengers completely irrelevant.” Well, that’s pretty much what they said for all of the above, which turned out not to be true. The boy who cried wolf discovered the townsfolk ignored him when he really detected danger. At this point it looks so desperate.

            1. Ohhh, I forgot, there was that movement to try to get the military to turn on Trump and engage in a coup, or assassinate him, because Dems found him unfit for office.

    1. Ignoring is easier than admitting that you can’t back up an erroneous claim about The Communist Manifesto.

  2. “The ‘Whistleblower’ Probably Isn’t”

    “It’s an insult to real whistleblowers to use the term with the Ukrainegate protagonist”

    by Matt Taibbi

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/

    “In 2016 we saw a pair of electoral revolts, one on the right and one on the left, against the cratering popularity of our political elite. The rightist populist revolt succeeded, the Sanders movement did not. Ukrainegate to me looks like a continuation of Russiagate, which was a reaction of that defeated political elite to the rightists. I don’t feel solidarity with either group.

    “The argument that’s supposed to be galvanizing everyone right now is the idea that we need to “stand up and be counted,” because failing to rally to the cause is effectively advocacy for Trump. This line of thinking is based on the presumption that Trump is clearly worse than the people opposing him.

    “That might prove to be true, but if we’re talking about the treatment of whistleblowers, Trump has a long way to go before he approaches the brutal record of the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, as well as the cheerleading Washington political establishment. Forgetting this is likely just the first in what will prove to be many deceptions about a hardcore insider political battle whose subtext is a lot more shadowy and ambiguous than news audiences are being led to believe.”

    1. Another quote from Taibbi’s article:

      ‘When Kiriakou first saw the “whistleblower complaint,” his immediate reaction was to wonder what kind of “CIA officer” the person in question was. “If you spend a career in the CIA, you see all kinds of subterfuge and lies and crime,” he says. “This person went through a whole career and this is the thing he objects to?”

  3. A Presidential candidate bragged about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, when he was investigating his son. Very serious allegations were made about criminal wrongdoing against Hunter and Joe Biden, and there is the question of how much Obama was aware of.

    However, calling for an investigation is considered an impeachable offense, because they are political rivals of Trump. Is Mitt Romney providing cover to the Bidens because he wants Trump to lose? Is he suggesting that one must not investigate a candidate who is running against Trump, if there were viable accusations of a crime? If that is the case, then why was Trump investigated as a candidate? It shouldn’t matter how serious the allegations were. Obama investigated a political rival…and he consulted with other countries to do so. After the NSA lied about collecting information on Americans without a warrant, they not only did so but improperly unmasked people associated with Trump. Republicans have claimed that Obama misused his office to spy upon the Republican candidate, and later undermine his presidency, based upon Democrat opposition research provided by foreign spies. Multiple lies shielded Democrat involvement until it could no longer be denied. Trump is openly calling for an investigation. He’s not hiding it. There is a credible accusation. But the world is going bananas. One way for thee, another for me.

    It defies all common sense that any campaign would ignore allegations of criminal misconduct against a rival, or that calling for an international investigation into international crimes is unfair. I do not consider calling for an investigation to be an abuse of office.

    If there is a credible allegation, it should be investigated. I understand the concerns that the process can be politicized, or that power can be abused. There are multiple allegations of misconduct concerning the Russian investigation. However, criminal complaints should be investigated.

    Running as a Democratic candidate for President is not a shield against all criminal investigations. We have all seen how running as a Republican president, and winning the White House, resulted in unending investigations, desperate for any evidence of any crimes. On the other hand, a Democrat gets accused of serious crimes, but he must not be investigated because…it would benefit Trump.

    This is not justice. Serious accusations were made, and at least some of the facts are not disputed. Hunter Biden did make millions of dollars from Ukraine and China. The investigation needs to take place as soon as possible, so that the results are available before the election.

    If the person accused had been a Republican, or Trump himself, I have no doubt that the media would be broadcasting wall to wall coverage about the need for an investigation.

    As for Trump’s remarks, he has not had a personality transplant. As long as you expect decorum, or discretion, you will be constantly disappointed. Trump speaks extemporaneously. He thrives on conflict. The entire world knows what he thinks of a subject. He doesn’t hide anything. If he changes his mind, you can mark it on Twitter. In light of the past few years of investigating whether Trump was an asset of Russia, or blackmailed by Russia, or any of the other theories, it is inconceivable that he would remain silent about allegations that the Bidens engaged in criminal activity in Ukraine, or that Ukraine was paid to dig up dirt on him. There is no way on Earth that man would let that lie without remark. And what did he call for? An investigation. The horror.

    1. I am curious if Trump was joking about impeaching Mitt Romney, or if he was referring to a recall. Coincidentally, Californians are so incensed with Gavin Newsom’s road diets, gas taxes, and the siphoning off of gas tax revenue from the promised highway projects, and the Walking Dead drug addled homeless siege defecating in the streets, that they have initiated a recall effort.

      I think it’s a waste of time. CA is deep blue. Gavin Newsome ran on a far Left agenda. Of course it harms Californians. Either Democrat voters will refuse to remove Newsom, or they will just vote for someone just like him to replace him.

      As long as politicians with agendas that harm their constituents keep getting voted into office, they will stay the course. If voting for higher taxes, adding gas taxes, rendering heavy trucks older than 2010 not registrable, thus raising the cost of goods and services, the road diets, and taking lanes away from congested areas to turn them into unused bike lanes all had a negative impact on politicians’ careers, then they would stop promoting them.

      1. Karen, do you really think Trump knows the difference, or cares between impeachment and a recall?

        On 2nd thought, never mind.

      1. There are several actually not that facts ever come across your life

        CNN, NYT, WahPooh, etc all enemies of America.

        Hang em all

        insert parody

        🖕🏾

          1. Forget criminal complaints. How about ethics complaints? Conflicts of interest? Bribery? Pay for play schemes?

            Oh and let’s see if anyone actually looks into all the Chinese deals Nancy Pelosi’s son is involved in…

            1. Yeah, right!

              And Schiff picked his feet in Poughkeepsie!

              Thank God we have Deputy Dog Guiliani and Straight Shooter Eliot Ness Trump on the case to keep our streets safe!

              1. President Trump:
                • Released the Ukraine Call Transcript.
                • Released Whistleblower Complaint.

                Adam Schiff:
                • Made up lines from the Transcript.
                • Lied about contact with the Whistleblower.
                • Will not release the Volker Transcript

                But Orange Man Bad? How stupid are you?

              2. Anon, which is more transparent and honest?

                Trump releasing the transcript or Adam Schiff rewriting the transcript and reading it in the hope that the false statement will be able to be remembered?

                It’s a simple question that you can’t answer.

                1. Schiff: Nancy, we’ve got him now. A CIA whistleblower is currently working with my staff to draft a complaint of a quid pro quo phone call with Zelensky. Stand by to move on finally impeaching him.
                  Pelosi: That’s great news Adam! I’ll move this for a floor vote as soon as you receive the complaint.

                  [President Trump releases the call transcript with Zelensky]

                  Pelosi: [very angry] Hey Schiff, WTF!? There’s nothing in that MFing transcript that shows a quid pro quo. We’ve gone public with this allegation and now you are committed to a hearing with McGuire. Now what!?
                  Schiff: Sorry Nancy, I didn’t expect him to do that. Hey, I’ve a great idea! I’ll write up a narrative for my opening statement that says everything I feel actually took place on that call. It’ll play well with our media allies and our base. That’s all that matters at this point.
                  Pelosi: I can’t take a floor vote with your feelings; I need actual evidence you effing idiot.
                  Schiff: How about announcing a formal impeachment inquiry instead of taking a floor vote? It will protect our vulnerable members, it will have all the appearance of being a legitimate inquiry, the media will give us cover and our base won’t have a clue what the hell is going on. One more thing; it may be enough to confuse our base once Barr, the IG and Durham drop their bombshell.
                  Pelosi: It better effing work or we’re all screwed!

                  I think that’s about right.

                  1. 😀

                    If I were Anon and Trump were on my side I would now be quoting portions of the dialogue above while dismissing the actual transcript.

                2. Schiff preceded his paraphrase with a warning that it was. There is nothing dishonest or not transparent about that.

                  Trump lies on average 12 times a day with no warning beyond his now well know reputation.

                  1. What was Schiff’s intent? He had the transcript and if the transcript indicated guilt why not read it. The transcript showed the depravity of some Democrats and their supporters. That is why he made up an alternate transcript in front of the Intelligence Committee. There is something very wrong with that and shakes the people’s beliefs in our government agencies.

                    If a Democrat committed murder in front of your eyes you would deny it ever happened. That is depraved.

                    1. We all paraphrase other humans all the time for emphasis. Schiff was not in a court of law where he was restricted from speaking freely and announced what he was doing before paraphrasing the Don, so he was not being dishonest.

                      I understand that with the evidence such as it is, demonizing those presenting it and prosecuting it is the only way out, but anyone arguing that kind of criticism (“Schiff played dirty!”) is being played by paid GOP strategists.or is one.

                    2. “We all paraphrase other humans all the time for emphasis. “

                      This is not paraphrasing especially when the real document was sitting in front of him. Paraphrasing by definition is expressing the meaning of the writer not a complete rewrite of the written word set out in black and white right in front of Schiff. Schiff was trying to promote a lie and did it in such a tortured way he looked like a fool. Schiff was dirty there and elsewhere and has lied about his and his staff’s involvement with the whistleblower.

                    3. Obviously precise and stringently accurate language is important to Allen – no mocking sarcasm and parodies allowed – and this is no doubt one of the more important sources for his admiration for Trump.

                      Please forgive my mocking tone and imprecise paraphrase.

                    4. Schiff was free to mock Trump all he wanted based on the facts. Anon likes to invent facts so to him this invention in front of the Intelligence Committee is perfectly OK as is convicting innocent people. The law only counts when it meets Anon’s ideological needs.

                    5. Kurtz, I agree. They all link back to similar organizations and lawyers back to Hillary and eventually Obama’s administration. It becomes clearer and clearer every day.

                  2. Schiff was not being dishonest?

                    Okay, then what’s your opinion if say, you were to learn that not only Biden’s son was on the board of a corrupt energy company doing business in Ukraine, but also Kerry’s son, Pelosi’s son, and surprise suprise, Romney’s son…? Fine? Nothing to see there? Nothing criminal, right? Just good old corruption, DC politician business as usual, staring you in the face and you think we should look the other way?

                    1. Answer my question. Corruption is staring you in the face. Nothing to probe into? Don, Eric and Ivanka made their money in private business. Biden’s kid, Pelosi’s kid, Kerry’s kid, Hillary’s kid, [Insert Corrupt Pol Name Here], etc etc etc, all made MILLIONS by leveraging their politician parent’s name and being bought off by corrupt oligarchs. But that’s nothing to even look at. Of course not. You ask where’s the crime? How stupid are you?

                    2. ““Schiff was not being dishonest?”

                      Asked by Allan.”

                      Asked by one of the anonymi. You are so confused.

                    3. Nope, just because you hide your identity among manyI don’t hide mine. Rarely it might go out as anonymous but if I see it I correct it and place my name up front. We don’t expect that from you because of who and what you are.

                    4. You want to talk about US foreign policy being for sale? Look at how both of Obama’s secretaries of state ran the state department.

                    5. And…you guessed it!

                      Allan.

                      Allan’s trying to keep his numbers down. He doesn’t want people to think that he lives in the comment section.

                    6. “Allan’s trying to keep his numbers down. ”

                      Everyone knows when Allan is writing. The idea of hiding one’s self is particular to those that use the generic anonymous name or change their prior alias for just a few posts. Why should I worry about tne number of posts I make? You do and that is why you hide under anonymous but why should anyone else? I don’t need employers or have any so I am not stealing time from any company or person like some of the posters do. I use my own computers and pay my ISP so once again I don’t have to worry about being caught on the net, you do.

                      You seem not to have a life and that is why you comment so frequently about the lives others have. That is your problem. That you engage in foolishness seems to be the highlight of your day.

      2. if that’s true, then it confirms my suspicion that the CIA schemers and Pelosi have really thrown him under the bus, because this whole debacle brings the appearance of impropriety to light, even if as you say, it’s actually nothing.

        which I doubt

        but i continue to like Joe even more now that the Democrat leadership has so inauthentically stabbed him in the back with this, a one two punch against him and trump, as many people gleefully say. Despicable!

        here let’s see what some Democrats say about Biden, who suffers from the Dem fatwa against old white guys:

        https://www.theroot.com/post-debate-analysis-joe-biden-is-a-white-man-the-med-1838099542

        HOUSTON—Let’s get straight to the point: Joe Biden showed his ass on the debate stage last night and there is no way in hell he should have the support from black voters that he has. Much of this has to do with a mainstream, white punditry establishment and press corps that treats him like an elder statesman whose racist responses and flip-flops are rationalized as gaffes and misinterpretations.

        For example, when Julián Castro challenged Biden about his statement that people would have to buy into his healthcare plan, Biden said he didn’t say it. (Well, he pretty much did. The Washington Post’s fact-check, which has its own problems. which I will get into soon, has the transcript.) But Castro’s press secretary highlighted the part of the transcript the former HUD secretary called him out on:

        Biden may not have meant what he said, but the way the Washington Post analysis portrayed it was as if Castro misheard him, and that simply is not true. Also, the author colored her fact-check with an accusation of ageism.

        “Castro was calling Biden old, plain and simple, by accusing him of forgetting what he said,” Amber Phillips wrote. “Whispers about Biden’s age have followed him on the campaign trail.”

        This is intellectually dishonest.

        Castro didn’t mention his age. Phillips did. And her analysis gave Biden a lot of grace that does not accurately reflect his actual words. We all heard Biden say, and I am quoting his words: “The option I’m proposing is Medicare-for-all— Medicare for choice. If you want Medicare, if you lose the job from your insurance—from your employer, you automatically can buy into this. You don’t have—no preexisting condition can stop you from buying in. You get covered, period.”

        Even Vox wrote that Biden contradicted himself.

        It was up to Biden to clarify his words, not for Castro to help a former vice president who has run for the White House THREE TIMES to figure out what he meant to say. It certainly isn’t our place as media to do that for any of the candidates. But Phillips isn’t the only person writing articles glossing over the fact that Biden is only on stage because a black man picked him to join his crew.

        New York Times contributing opinion writer Timothy Egan accused Castro of ageism in a column entitled, “It Will Take More Than Cheap Shots to Knock Off Biden.” In addition to framing Castro’s vigorous check of Biden’s record as “dirty work,” Egan tries to create a sympathetic historical correlation between Biden and statesmen who served their countries later in life and the scrutiny they faced as a result:

        Age itself is not the problem. Winston Churchill was in his mid-70s when he became, for a second time, Britain’s prime minister. Konrad Adenauer served as chancellor of postwar Germany well into his 80s. And how old was Nelson Mandela when took office as South Africa’s first black president? He was 75.

        But age will be the weapon that Biden’s opponents will use, because it’s basically all they have.

        Biden is running as a normal guy. Normal is dull. It stirs no blood. Normal is not having to worry about who’s piloting the plane; it’ll land. Uncle Joe is comfort food, the “Home is the place where, when you have to go there, They have to take you in,” in Robert Frost’s words.

        Well, for one, Mandela presided over post-apartheid South Africa and prevented a race war. Biden participated in and perpetuated racism. Big difference, Egan.

        And besides the fact that Biden isn’t worthy of shining Churchill’s shoes, this use of the word “normal” suggests that white equals normal. Egan doesn’t interrogate why it is “normal” for a white man who has been accused of invading women’s space for decades, authored legislation that is credited for locking of millions of black people and supported anti-school busing bills is leading in the polls. “Normal” doesn’t explain why Biden has yet to sit down for a serious one-on-one national interview with a reporter who would actually challenge his policy positions.

        None of this is normal. It is institutional racism….”

        DEM ACTIVISTS; WE DONT LIKE THE OLD WHITE GUY BIDEN. THROW HIM UNDER THE BUS!

        1. DEMOCRATS: ASK YOURSELVES HOW MANY OLD WHITE GUYS WILL VOTE FOR YOUR PANTSUIT WEARING FAVORITE IN THE FALL IF YOU KEEP ON USING JOE BIDEN’S ACTIVITIES IN UKRAINE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ATTACK ON THE OTHER OLD WHITE GUY TRUMP!

          trust me, old white guys are not quite so stupid as to fail to get the message.

          if they have half a brain, they will vote for Trump, just because the Dem leadership is clearly out to purge and neuter what little of the the “old white guy” leadership remains in your party.

          Democrats seem to be trying to make it more real than ever, the old racist slogan: “your skin is your uniform”

          https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/28/democratic-debate-kamala-harris-leads-changing-of-guard

          “No country for old white men: Kamala Harris heralds changing of the guard
          The Democratic debates’ standouts have been Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris and Warren – none a straight male Caucasian – while Joe Biden looked like this year’s Jeb Bush”

          1. clearly the gasbag writer of that silly article is totally clueless and not familiar with the work of the author of the novel whom he alludes to Cormac McCarthy. (No Country for Old Men)

            Who was definitely an old white guy– and a Southerner to boot.

            and worse yet– the title to that book was itself an allusion to a W B Yeats poem

            That is no country for old men. The young
            In one another’s arms, birds in the trees
            – Those dying generations – at their song,
            The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
            Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
            Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
            Caught in that sensual music all neglect
            Monuments of unageing intellect

          2. Kurtz, I’ll ask you what I asked Mespo – he hasn’t answered:

            Are you saying that in the face of evidence from multiple sources – none of whom are Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi – you still don’t believe Trump tried to get help from a foreign government against his strongest political opponent in return for a WH meeting and military assistance already approved by the Congress, or rather that you do believe it – it is obvious after all – but think that is proper behavior for our presidents, now and in the future?

            1. Anon1:

              “Are you saying that in the face of evidence from multiple sources – none of whom are Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi – you still don’t believe Trump tried to get help from a foreign government against his strongest political opponent in return for a WH meeting and military assistance already approved by the Congress, or rather that you do believe it – it is obvious after all – but think that is proper behavior for our presidents, now and in the future?”
              ************************
              Here, I’ll answer your question only for me:
              Sure he did. It’s only illegal to get something of value from a foreign government to aid in your campaign for office. The OLC and DOJ have ruled getting help from a willing foreign entity on a criminal investigation isn’t something of value. So there is no illegality. JT agrees with this legal analysis saying:

              “It is not uncommon for an attorney general, or even a president, to ask foreign leaders to assist with ongoing investigations. Such calls can shortcut bureaucratic red tape, particularly if the evidence is held, as in this case, by national security or justice officials.”

              So, as is so often the case, you got the answer wrong because you framed the question wrong. The question is “did the POTUS commit high crimes and misdemeanors in asking a foreign government for help in a DOJ criminal probe?” Answer: “No. because he neither coerced nor received anything of value for his campaign.”

              BTW here a question for you: “Does running for POTUS confer immunity from criminal investigation on you and your family if the current POTUS does it under his Art. II powers?” Come on. It’s an easy question. You can check with Obama if you have any doubts.

              1. Mespo, given there is no criminal investigation of Joe Biden, nor even an accusation, the OLC and DOJ leader proves himself once again a political hack protecting his boss and not the US. To swallow that cow pie, one must believe that not only is there a criminal complaint against Joe, but that of all possible corruption cases – there is none – Trump wants to pursue Biden as a legitimate part of his law enforcement responsibilities, and not for his pure selfish political self interest.

                No one with a functioning brain can believe that Mespo, so obviously you don’t. You can bet the country and the Congress won’t either.

                I might add that as an Obama voter – I worked on his campaigns too – it was and is not necessary to check with him or anyone as to what to believe every day. I understand how unusual that must seem to you as a Trump supporter.

                1. given there is no criminal investigation of…[fill in the blank]

                  Yeah, and a tree falling in a Democrat forest doesn’t make a sound; even one you see falling. Conversely, you hear all sorts of trees falling in a Republican forest, even though you can’t see any. You are as intellectually dishonest as one could possibly be.

                  Once Barr, Horrowitz and Durham release their findings, you’re are going to come face-to-face with the audio/video of the entire Democrat forest falling down. When that happens, you will no longer be able to hide behind your partisan myopia.

                  1. Promises, promises Olly. You don’t know what – or if – your saviors will produce.

                    So, what is the complaint against Biden?

                    I’m waiting.

                    1. So, what is the complaint against Biden?

                      I’m waiting.

                      Thank you for proving my point. At the very least, a quid pro quo with Ukraine. If you didn’t know this already, then your myopia is worse than I thought. By the way, this is the exact same complaint regarding Trump. However with Biden, there is audio/visual evidence proving it happened; regarding Trump, transcript evidence of a phone call with Zelensky shows no quid pro quo. Text messages contradict each other and whistleblower complaints allege something the transcripts do not support.

                      So where does that leave intellectually honest people? A full investigation into the Biden’s quid pro quo to gather the evidence proving the purpose was legitimate and not corrupt. And since the transcripts from Trump’s call with Zelensky show no quid pro quo and Zelensky said he was not pressured, nor was he aware of any delay in funding, it’s an imagined quid pro quo not worthy of further investigation; certainly not a pseudo-impeachment inquiry.

                      Regarding Barr, Horrowitz and Durham; I’m confident that what I expect they will produce regarding evidence is exactly what Democrats thought would never see the light of day with a Clinton victory. Oops.

                      So relax, grab some popcorn. Answers to all of it will be forthcoming.

                2. I’m sure its news to you and the Maoists of the Left but it’s investigation first after reasonable suspicion and then when evidence is developed charges are filed. Complicated, I know.

                  1. So, the way to investigate is by having the president of the country where supposed crimes occurred publicly announce an investigation – that’s how they begin? (Forgive me if I have dishonestly paraphrased you.)

                    I thought the FBI – or Intel – developed cases based on tips and then facts, not political pressure made public.

                    1. Mespo, you haven’t read the State Dept texts. The Ukrainians were to announce opening the investigation before they could come to the WH and before they would get their military assistance. They communicated this all to their Ukrainian counterparts in texts.

                      I

                    2. I’ve read them just like I listened to John Soloman confirm that the Ukrainians began re-investigating Hunter Biden’s gas company in FEBRUARY or about 7 months before the Trump phone call.

                    3. Then you were drunk because your comments don’t make any sense.I remind you of your embarrassing confusion on the EU ambassador.

                      By the way, Fox news contributor Solomon produced an afadavit from Shokin, the guy now represented by Fox news contributors Genovese and his old lady and previously denounced by the entire West including the EU, IMF, and the US in order to help a Manafort partner in jail in Austria who had to escape the Ukraine when the Russian stooge was run out.

                  2. Anon1:

                    Stick to whatever it is you do. Argument isn’t your strong suit. Sounding like a paid shill is. You’ve commented here so effusively you can’t possibly have any job besides a paid provocateur. Hope Soros pays by the word instead of content elsewise we’ll need a GoFundMe page for you.

                    1. Mespo, in the last 2 hours, while posting here, I’ve reviewed the structural engineering for a project, researched an on-demand water heater for another, and completed an elevation study drawing on how to treat the required railing next to some exterior steps on another.

                      And you think my posts are worth money?

                      Well that would be flattering, but I realize you’re just going to the fall back position of posters here as they run out of ammunition and retreat from the debate. It won’t go to my head.

                    2. LOL! In the last 2 hours, I’ve successfully removed a patient’s brain tumor, helped my son with his Common Core math and set my watering days for my sprinkler system. You need to step up your game.

                    3. The point wasn’t how impressive my work was – the engineering review was cursory – but how easy you all are.

                      Paul, it’s on CAD and problem solving options. Accuracy and the validity of the options are all that counts, not artistic value.

                    4. Anon1 – as a former designer, it is the art that matters, who the heck cares if it works.

            2. Anon1 – Joe Biden had not announced he was running when Guiliani started to get “handed” dirt on him. According to Guiliani, the Ukranians are happy to dish the dirt on corrupt Joe Biden.

            3. Nope. I don’t find any CIA spook supposedly blowing the whistle on a US POTUS credible about anything. They are expert liars who are supposed to only use their lying skills on the enemies of America not the elected leadership. I don’t believe the CIA spook, nor his ex CIA lawyer, nor the CIA general counsel in a pantsuit, nor their handler ex CIA capo John Brennan who’s delighted his plot seems to be stumbling along forward.

              What they are doing is very dangerous and you don’t seem to get it. Well. It’s the overall further slide into Praetorianism. Well, we’ve been warned about this before.

              even Phil Mudd, another CIA spook often on CNN, who has often spoken his open dislike of
              Trump and has let it known, finds this troubling

              https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/19/phil-mudd-trump-communications-foreign-leader-dni-whistleblower-complaint-bts-cpt-vpx.cnn

      1. Anon1 – according to Shokin, he was investigating Hunter Biden. He has signed an affidavit under oath to that fact.

        1. Paul –

          “….material that has been surfacing from The Hill’s “opinion” reporter John Solomon and then echoed by Giuliani seems to originate with one of Ukraine’s richest and most powerful oligarchs who is a former business partner of Paul Manafort and had to flee Ukraine after the overthrow of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He is in Austria, fighting extradition to the United States to face bribery charges.

          His name is Dimtry Firtash.

          Viktor Shokin is the “fired prosecutor” at the center of all these stories. As part of Firtash’s effort to avoid extradition from Austria to the United States, he asked Shokin to swear out the affidavit in which Shokin accuses Biden of getting him fired to protect his son Hunter. (There is no evidence any of this happened. There was no investigation of Hunter Biden or the company on whose board he sat at the time Shokin was fired.)

          So to review, former Manafort business partner Firtash asks Shokin to swear out an affidavit in which he accuses Biden. The affidavit quickly gets into the hands of Giuliani and Solomon. And who just recently went to work for Firtash’s legal team? None other than diGenova and Toensing, as reported just this week by the Kyiv Post and other publications.

          So the duo who we now learned has been working on behalf of the President with Rudy Giuliani to extort the Ukrainian government just signed on to represent the oligarch behind the affidavit in which the disgraced prosecutor says Joe Biden got him fired. And yes, the oligarch who got booted from Ukraine in 2014 is a former business partner of Paul Manafort.

        2. Paul, in Anon’s world that type of information doesn’t count. Only third hand information that doesn’t agree with actual documents count when Anon is involved.

  4. Today’s AP reports Perry and Guliani working the Ukraine to get Trump donors to sell them natural gas.

    KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump’s main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former Soviet republic.

    Their aims were profit, not politics. This circle of businessmen and Republican donors touted connections to Giuliani and Trump while trying to install new management at the top of Ukraine’s massive state gas company. Their plan was to then steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by Trump allies, according to two people with knowledge of their plans.

    Their plan hit a snag after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko lost his reelection bid to Volodymyr Zelenskiy, whose conversation with Trump about former Vice President Joe Biden is now at the center of the House impeachment inquiry of Trump.

    But the effort to install a friendlier management team at the helm of the gas company, Naftogaz, would soon be taken up with Ukraine’s new president by U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, whose slate of candidates included a fellow Texan who is one of Perry’s past political donors.

    It’s unclear if Perry’s attempts to replace board members at Naftogaz were coordinated with the Giuliani allies pushing for a similar outcome, and no one has alleged that there is criminal activity in any of these efforts. And it’s unclear what role, if any, Giuliani had in helping his clients push to get gas sales agreements with the state-owned company.

    But the affair shows how those with ties to Trump and his administration were pursuing business deals in Ukraine that went far beyond advancing the president’s personal political interests. It also raises questions about whether Trump allies were mixing business and politics just as Republicans were calling for a probe of Biden and his son Hunter, who served five years on the board of another Ukrainian energy company, Burisma.

    On Friday, according to the news site Axios, Trump told a group of Republican lawmakers that it had been Perry who had prompted the phone call in which Trump asked Zelenskiy for a “favor” regarding Biden. Axios cited a source saying Trump said Perry had asked Trump to make the call to discuss “something about an LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant.”

    While it’s unclear whether Trump’s remark Friday referred specifically to the behind-the-scenes maneuvers this spring involving the multibillion-dollar state gas company, The Associated Press has interviewed four people with direct knowledge of the attempts to influence Naftogaz, and their accounts show Perry playing a key role in the effort. Three of the four spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The fourth is an American businessman with close ties to the Ukrainian energy sector.

    The Trump and Giuliani allies driving the attempt to change the senior management at Naftogazt, however, appear to have had inside knowledge of the U.S. government’s plans in Ukraine. For example, they told people that Trump would replace the U.S. ambassador there months before she was actually recalled to Washington, according to three of the individuals interviewed by the AP. One of the individuals said he was so concerned by the whole affair that he reported it to a U.S. Embassy official in Ukraine months ago.

    THE BUSINESSMEN

    Ukraine, a resource-rich nation that sits on the geographic and symbolic border between Russia and the West, has long been plagued by corruption and government dysfunction, making it a magnet for foreign profiteers.

    At the center of the Naftogaz plan, according to three individuals familiar with the details, were three such businessmen: two Soviet-born Florida real estate entrepreneurs, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, and an oil magnate from Boca Raton, Florida, named Harry Sargeant III.

    Parnas and Fruman have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations to Republicans, including $325,000 to a Trump-allied political action committee in 2018. This helped the relatively unknown entrepreneurs gain access to top levels of the Republican Party — including meetings with Trump at the White House and Mar-a-Lago.

    The two have also faced lawsuits from disgruntled investors over unpaid debts. During the same period they were pursuing the Naftogaz deal, the two were coordinating with Giuliani to set up meetings with Ukrainian government officials and push for an investigation of the Bidens.

    Sargeant, his wife and corporate entities tied to the family have donated at least $1.2 million to Republican campaigns and PACs over the last 20 years, including $100,000 in June to the Trump Victory Fund, according to federal and state campaign finance records. He has also served as finance chair of the Florida state GOP, and gave nearly $14,000 to Giuliani’s failed 2008 presidential campaign.

    In early March, Fruman, Parnas and Sargeant were touting a plan to replace Naftogaz CEO Andriy Kobolyev with another senior executive at the company, Andrew Favorov, according to two individuals who spoke to the AP as well as a memorandum about the meeting that was later submitted to the U.S. Embassy in Kiev.

    The three approached Favorov with the idea while the Ukrainian executive was attending an energy industry conference in Texas. Parnas and Fruman told him they had flown in from Florida on a private jet to recruit him to be their partner in a new venture to export up to 100 tanker shipments a year of U.S. liquefied gas into Ukraine, where Naftogaz is the largest distributor, according to two people briefed on the details.

    Sargeant told Favorov that he regularly meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and that the gas-sales plan had the president’s full support, according to the two people who said Favorov recounted the discussion to them.

    These conversations were recounted to AP by Dale W. Perry, an American who is a former business partner of Favorov. He told AP in an interview that Favorov described the meeting to him soon after it happened and that Favorov perceived it to be a shakedown. Perry, who is no relation to the energy secretary, is the managing partner of Energy Resources of Ukraine, which currently has business agreements to import natural gas and electricity to Ukraine.

    A second person who spoke on condition of anonymity also confirmed to the AP that Favorov had recounted details of the Houston meeting to him.

    According to Dale Perry and the other person, Favorov said Parnas told him Trump planned to remove U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and replace her with someone more open to aiding their business interests…..

    https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2

    1. Basically, executives American companies tried to steer international contracts their way…as is their job. Many industries lobby government. The difference between them and Hunter Biden would be that they were experienced in the field, as well as had competent negotiating teams. They also do not involve a father son relationship like the Bidens.

      Giving plums to donors is routine, with many notorious examples going back decades. The most common form is ambassadorships. There have been many calls to improve this area of politics.

      Russia has control over some of the energy going to Europe, which puts some member nations in a difficult position geopolitically, when Russia behaves badly. The US has long worked to undermine that leverage.

      Executives of natural gas, probably obtained via fracking, would contribute to Republicans, as Democrats have worked to undermine domestic energy independence, as well as any form of fossil fuel. Interestingly, a chunk of our reduction in carbon emissions came about due to the use of natural gas.

      Presidents negotiate to aid our farmers, technology, and many other industries. Trump’s trade wars, right or wrong, are examples of his efforts to even out trade imbalances. This would also extend to energy.

      My concerns lie in the finite nature of fossil fuels, including natural gas. Solar and wind are expensive and inadequate to power a grid. Nuclear energy is clean, but radioactive ore like uranium is also a non renewable resource. Canada, the US, OPEC, Russia…so many countries export energy. It will become scarce one day. For another, government should not pick winners and losers in business. They should not favor particular companies in their field (such as Solyndra.)

      1. Of course you’ll sugar coat this swamp life with shady Soviet born hustlers with no visible means of support working the Mar A Largo and Guliani bayous while removing career diplomats who might ask questions.

        What else are you going to do? I pity you.

          1. The CIA/FBI wasn’t supposed to help shoot JFK in the head or remove Nixon either yet they did.

            10/28/2017 JFK govt doc dump by Trump. IE: Surgeon General’s autopsy report…. entry wound from the front of the throat…

            So maybe the govt can explain to us Citizens how their old story works again.

            Oh & then there’s the Engineering report recently out of the University of Alaska on how the official story of building 7 collapse of 911 is also false.

            Note almost no old dying media pick up that story. I guess they don’t believe in gravity yet. lol

            1. Well who the heck knows what made wtc 7 pancake on itself. it sure wasnt a bit of burning debris that ignited a fire on a couple floors that burned a while. before BOOM and whoomp it all collapses on itself freefall speed

              And who knows if its’ true or not the story that former CIA legend E Howard Hunt told near his death to his son that he was the bagman for the JFK hit, perpetrated by a cabal lead by Cord Meyer, green lighted by former CIA honcho Dulles and LBJ himself, to remove JFK, with the corsican frank sturgis and one other. who knows if that’s true. of course thats what CIA agent Victor Marchetti said essentially (who was a real whistleblower that testifed to the Church committee, too) now hunt sued him and his publisher Liberty Lobby for defamation and stuck with that through two appeals and lost. But the interesting thing, is hunt essentially embraced what he had so long and vehemently denied, near his death. Well, maybe they were fibbing.

              But who knows. maybe it was just the lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald

              who by the way we also know now, had contact some contact with CIA, which they lied about and they lied about again to the HSCA and Robert Blakey as i Have repeatedly quoted on here again and again. who knows what they had contact about. CIA was up to their eyeballs in whatever happened, that’s for sure.

              Gee, but Democrats want to trust them. Hey– maybe a smart move, Look at how it turned out for LBJ?

              CIA: EXPERTS IN LYING BUT ONLY SUPPOSED TO LIE TO AMERICA’S ENEMIES! NOT US!

              1. I’ve some choirs but 1st.

                Julian Paul Assange

                He helped the formed Prez of Ecuador & the Prez helped help him while he could.

                New Prez comes in & kicks Assange out.

                Same ole crap games.

                The book: Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins

                The 1st Prez wouldn’t sell out the Ecuadorian citizens to the Globalist Banking Trash, this current Prez did & now the citizens know he sold them out to the Deep State Bankers.

                I’m sure if we all entered into a computer algo all these past & current stories about the govt corruption, murders, arrest, false flag attacks, etc…. we’d likely know where those globalist authoritarians will likely attack next.

                https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/08/ecuador-moves-government-out-of-capital-as-violent-protests-rage

  5. Senator Johnson Has Melt-Down on “Meet The Press”

    Today on “Meet The Press” the first guest up was Senator Ron Johnson (R) Wisconsin. Johnson had made a statement last week in which his continued support of Trump sounded slightly shaky. Since then White House aides have presumably threatened Johnson unless he gets totally supportive of Trump.

    So this morning, on “Meet The Press”, host Chuck Todd opened his interview with Johnson with a question about Trump’s support in the Senate. Instead of answering the question, Johnson attempted to recite talking points the White House had given him; or so it appeared.

    Todd interrupted by telling Johnson to answer the question. But Johnson insisted on entering the talking points he was given. Said talking points sounded like a conspiracy theory involving former FBI Agent Lisa Page. But Todd kept interrupting until Johnson became highly upset.

    Johnson was more desperate than angry. Like he was under pressure from the White House to put forth the conspiracy theory; exactly what Todd was trying to preempt. Todd refused to let Johnson present the conspiracy which caused Johnson to almost cry. It was seriously pathetic.

    The exchange seemed to indicate that Republican senators are under extraordinary pressure to back Trump up.

    1. Sorry, let’s try a more accurate headline: Chuck Todd, allegedly independent, unbiased, “journalist” flips out on his guest. HE is the moderator, right? Upchuck Todd got all in a tizzy with Senator Johnson. Why Chuck? Why? Did your bosses tell you to do it if you didn’t get the “narrative” you wanted? It goes without saying, but Upchuck, you’re no Tim Russert. In fact, you’re a clown.

        1. Peter your grammar is atrocious and English utilization of that of a school girl.

          Grow some or get some from grindr

          🍆

    2. Johnson’s performance is not important. What is, is that he reported that our ambassador to the EU told him that Trump was holding up military assistance to the Ukraine in lieu of a promise from them to announce an investigation into Biden. As as strong supporter of that assistance in the Senate, Johnson said he was upset by that news.

      I posted that news article here yesterday.

      1. Anon1:

        “Johnson’s performance is not important. What is, is that he reported that our ambassador to the EU told him that Trump was holding up military assistance to the Ukraine in lieu of a promise from them to announce an investigation into Biden. As as strong supporter of that assistance in the Senate, Johnson said he was upset by that news.
        ******************
        You just forgot the text where our ambassador was disabused of his erroneous impression:

        [9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

        No biggie. Why be fair? It hurts your narrative.

        1. Mespo, this rather embarrassing, but I don’t know how to sneak you this information:

          Gordon Sondland? He is the EU ambassador.

          That means the guy you think was straightening out the other guy on “President Trump’s intentions” on the texts, is the guy who told Sen Johnson that Trump intended to hold up the Ukrainians for dirt on Biden, or no military assistance.

          Yeah, confusing, I know.

      1. Marx and Engels are generally considered to co-authors.
        I’ve also read that Marx was the primary author, but had some help from Engels.
        Do you have a citation supporting the claim that Engels wrote it, and Marx merely signed it?.

  6. CB said, in her newfound role as a “snarky” anon:

    Anonymous says:October 6, 2019 at 10:11 PM

    btw, never a fan of Stacy Dash, don’t even know what she’s ever said about anything. And you know…Kamala is married to a white guy….and Candace, well she just married a white British guy, who happens to be from a very wealthy, well to do British family….he proposed to her after they had only known each other 3 weeks…yep….and I say good for Candace…I wish her the best.

    Now maybe the same sort of love match will happen for the other snarky Anonymous….you know…the one who keeps following Allan around the blog….Anon…stop flirting with Allan…he’s taken…K?

    Psst. No one is flirting with Allan, just as no one is following him around. I can’t imagine anyone who would have an interest in him. His poor wife. He’s:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2019/10/06/impeachmittromney-trump-appears-to-call-for-the-impeachment-of-mitt-romney-in-tirade-of-personal-attacks/comment-page-2/#comment-1888626

  7. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-ukraine-what-we-know-11570389569

    Trump and Ukraine: What We Know

    As Americans watch two different movies, here’s a way to discern what’s happening off the screen.

    Scott Adams

    Oct. 6, 2019 3:19 pm ET

    Illustration: Scott Adams
    If you’ve followed the Ukraine phone-call news, you might have noticed reality branching into two completely different movies. In one, President Trump was doing his job of protecting the republic by asking an allied country to help out on an important legal investigation. The other movie involves Orange Hitler bullying a foreign country into meddling in our elections by “digging up dirt” on a political opponent.

    Which movie is the real one, if such a thing exists? I’d like to offer a rule of thumb for evaluating political news: If a fact is reported the same by both the left-leaning and the right-leaning press, it’s probably a fact. If not, wait and see.

    It’s also smart to wait a week or two before you make up your mind, as the fog of war often makes early reporting unreliable. But after the fog clears, if all sides agree on a fact, it’s probably a fact. Or at least it’s credible, even if future reporting debunks it.

    In the case of Mr. Trump’s Ukraine phone call, all sides agree a whistleblower exists, at least in the minimal sense of using the whistleblower process. We also agree a phone call was made, and the transcript seems to capture what was said. We also know a few other facts: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the call, and the whistleblower contacted Rep. Adam Schiff’s office before filing the complaint, and some other details.

    But that’s where the agreement stops. One side says the quid pro quo—in the form of Mr. Trump’s asking his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden at the risk of losing military funds already approved by Congress—was so obvious it didn’t need to be stated in direct language. The other side says every conversation among world leaders carries some kind of implied quid pro quo, and in this case the request for investigation was entirely appropriate. You might even say it was one of Mr. Trump’s highest priorities, given the risk that a potential future President Biden might be compromised in his dealings with a foreign government.

    I see conflicting reporting on the biggest fact about Mr. Biden and Ukraine: Did the then vice president want the prosecutor fired because his son Hunter was on the board of Burisma, which was at some point under investigation by Ukrainian authorities? The press on the left says no, the right says yes. My rule of thumb says we shouldn’t treat either version as true—for now.

    Did Hunter Biden accept the Burisma board seat, which paid $50,000 a month, while Ukraine was part of his father’s official portfolio? Yes, all sides report that to be a fact. Was Hunter qualified for such a role? Both sides say not so much. Both sides also agree that Hunter’s taking that position wasn’t illegal but sure looks swampy.

    Both sides further agree that Joe Biden is on video bragging about getting a Ukraine prosecutor fired by using the threat of withholding U.S. aid in the amount of $1 billion. But there is disagreement on why he did it. Was it because the prosecutor was ineffective and suspected of corruption himself or because the prosecutor was fighting corruption at Burisma? We see opposing press reports on the left and the right, so my rule says wait for all of that to sort out.

    If you strip out the parts of the Ukraine story we can’t yet know to be true, you still know enough to have a responsible opinion. Vice President Biden was handling the Ukraine portfolio while his son had a financial interest in Ukraine, and that is enough of a conflict to merit an investigation. We all agree that the sitting president is responsible for protecting the integrity of American elections and generally keeping foreign interference in U.S. politics to a minimum. That’s what Mr. Trump was doing on the Ukraine phone call. (For those of you who say such matters should be handled at lower levels of government, my experience in corporate America tells me nothing much gets done until the bosses talk and agree. I assume government is similar.)

    All sides can also agree that Mr. Trump was serving his own re-election interests by asking Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden. But we also agree our political system allows that—even encourages it—so long as the president is also clearly pursuing the national interest. Before the Democratic primary, would it be good for the country to know more about Joe Biden’s relationship with Ukraine? Democrats should appreciate finding out soon if there is anything of concern, because I assume they don’t want to go into the general election with a candidate who has some surprises in his Ukrainian closet.

    What we all agree to be true about Joe and Hunter Biden is that they had the types of interactions with Ukraine that raise eyebrows and invite a closer look. We also all agree that protecting the integrity of American elections should be a top priority for a president.

    I won’t try to convince you that my rule of thumb works every time. I assume there are times when one side is simply right and the other is wrong. But keep an eye out for how often the rule does prove reliable. And remember to wait a week or two for the fog to clear before you make any decisions about what is fact and what is not.

    1. Good post, but I would add that usually the fog never clears: what happened at the Maidan massacre? Was the CIA behind it? Did we ally ourselves with actual nazis(Right Sector, Azov Battalion)? Was it a coup or a revolution? Who the hell is Josef Mifsud?, and on and on.

      Hopefully, we do get an impeachment trial that clears some of the fog.

  8. Mitt Romney is a country club Republican. He is a member of the Washington establishment. When he was done being governor of Massachusetts, he just left. His lieutenant governor was running for his old job. He didn’t do a thing to help her. He was one and done, and he just left the state. It was all about Mitt.

  9. Very interesting, President Trump has ordered up the US Marines to deal with this on going Coup/ it’s Plotters against us Citizen’s & our Republic.

    I haven’t read the whole article yet, but hell, we’ve already seen a enough proof that many of our claimed leaders/USA/Trump haters are Guilty As Hell.

    Round them Up Trump, they are Unlawful Enemy Combatants! Deal with them though JAG.

    https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-trump-activates-u-s-marine-reserves-for-emergency-within-the-united-states-to-stop-illegal-coup/

      1. Randy, I’m serious, even if the order is cancelled.

        Most people don’t have a clue as to just how Wacko the Anti-USA/Trump hatin Dims/Rinos/Islamic Nut Jobs(ie;Obama), etc are.

        They’re likely even ready to nuke DC.

        We’ll soon see when the reports of their illegal Sedition & Espionage finally get released by the IG/DOJ they’ll know their going to prison or worst.

        And then there’s the Fed’s Repo Wallst stuff from the last few weeks as they have been attempting to blow the economy.

        ie: GM union workers strike. $65 an hour, overtime, healthcare insur… WTF, union leaders & GM just want to hurt the economy & thus the USA & Trump.

      2. To Randy E. Pelton.

        A fair number of those who comment here are not playing with a full deck, Randy. Present company excluded, of course.

  10. Ya know, I’m now 60. So fooled by Both Bush H. & even worse George W. yet Mitt ! Fool me once, same on me. Fool me twice… is time for a correction of direction. One way or another, MITT “YOUR FIRED!”

  11. Mitt Romney’s net worth is $250 million

    A tad bit smaller than that of the other big players in the private-equity and leveraged buyout business.

    So where did Mitt go while at Bain Capital as CEO:

    Bain Capital is headquartered at 200 Clarendon Street in Boston, Massachusetts with additional offices in New York City, Chicago, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Dublin, London, Munich, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Mumbai, Tokyo, Melbourne and Sydney.

    The company, and its actions during its first 15 years, became the subject of political and media scrutiny as a result of co-founder Mitt Romney’s later political career, especially his 2012 presidential campaign.

  12. Certainly would be great if we had a President who spoke with more measured responses, but the American media and the Democratic left have gone off rails. Corner a lion and start clawing at him and see if he doesn’t roar and fight back. Trump has to attack these people who are out to destroy him as well as many of our Constitutional rights.

    1. Frederick Hsll – I do not know about others who voted for Trump but I voted for him because he wasn’t measured. He told it like it like it was.

      1. ” He told it like it like it was.”

        And usually, in the next sentence, he told it a different way. The only person I’ve ever heard contradict himself more is Guiliani. But in overall volume of lies, Trump’s the clear winner.

        1. enigma – tell a story, then 25 minutes later tell exactly the same story. Unless you have rehearsed it, it cannot be done. This is why Obama only used a teleprompter and spoke to reporters one on one after they submitted their questions 72 hours in advance.

          1. Paul – I’m not talking slight deviations, I’m talking opposite ends of the spectrum. Rudy is actually worse than Trump, he said in the same part of the conversation, “No, I didn’t” and then, “Of course I did!” I can’t even engage in a conversation about whether Trump is a liar? Now we’re to Rick Perry made him call Ukraine? Right!

        2. You bought into the Democrat/media narrative 100% didn’t you? Was it CNN’s table full of jars filled with colorful gumballs each symbolizing a Trump lie? They knew that would work for some gullible rubes, like you.

          Here’s what many of us know: Joe Biden is a corrupt liar who is fighting to save his corrupt a$$ from being exposed, along with the corrupt Obama administration that the media refused to question or hold accountable for eight long years. If you believe the media and the Dems are even close to being “truth-tellers” you really are exactly who the Democrats count on duping.

          1. Enigma is a product of the Dims plantation welfare ethos which means he abides by his Masters and thinks exactly as he is told.

            Blacks like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Hermann Caine, Allan Keyes, Thomas Sowell etc, aren’t “real” blacks because they distrusted and broke free from the slave thinking of the Dims Masters

            1. No. I’m saying they ALL lie. Trump is playing the game that they ALL play. They’ve never had a Republican play THEIR game better than they do. The Dems/media are in meltdown over it.

              When we have lowest unemployment in 50 years, rising wages, and blue collar Democrats feeling the impact of Trump’s policies/economy in their everyday lives — THAT is what matters to voters, not this media/Democrat Orange Man Bad narrative and spin.

              This “Impeach the MotherF’er” crap isn’t what real people want either. But that’s ALL the Democrats are offering voters. How foolish of any voter to choose what the Democrats are offering — which is nothing — that is what I’m saying.

                  1. enigma believes blacks are better off with Dem white masters placing them on housing plantations as long as they vote for them

                    yea, for that alone blacks were freed to be back on the plantation run by Dems

                    not too bright that one. Codependent by no other name

                    1. “not too bright that one”

                      Like some of the Repugs who write stupid and racist comments

                    1. Enigma — Okay then…you are going with “he’s a liar” and that’s the end of discussion. I am going with “yes, he lies AND he is accomplishing much that benefits the average American and I like what he’s doing and so I’ll take the good with the bad.”

                      I plan to vote for him again. That is…IF the Democrats and their media stenographers and the CIA don’t successfully overturn the last election and steal the next one — which we can all see they are attempting to do.

                1. Or put another way Enigma…..so you’re saying you choose to ignore the stream of steady results Trump is producing that benefit the American workers and consumers because they’re cancelled out by the steady stream of lies told by others?

                    1. Or a gal. Cindy Bragg and Allan both post anonymously when it suits…and/or when they’re playing games.

                    2. Allan doesn’t post anonymously and Allan doesn’t believe Cindy does either. Just because you are stupid and ill prepared for a world that requires you to remain anonymous doesn’t mean that others have to do so. You function on a low level where honor and integrity are meaningless. Remain stupid. Remain anonymous.

                    3. Certainly not anonymous who proved what he is on that and other threads.

                      You are a loser.

                    4. Anonymous, you always have to blame someone else for your foolishness. It’s a habit of yours, something you find easier to do than actually think. It is a sign of a stupid person.

                      You are a loser.

                    5. This goes out to Allan who is so busy calling other people “losers” that he doesn’t recognize the biggest loser of all. We give you Allan:

                    6. >20 postings and rising.

                      The loser, anonymous, places himself in a spotlight for all to see. But, there is more than being just a loser and stupid. He is a sicko and that becomes more evident every time he posts.

                  1. Dare I ask what steady results? He inherited the economy which he’s doing his best to destroy with his trade war. He has created a welcome environment for “very fine people” like white nationalists, skinheads, and the klan. Even George feels comfortable spouting his views on ths very site, knowing it to be a safe haven. He’s made acceptable sexism, misogyny, and nepotism, destroyed many careers of those who came to work for him and brought into government the biggest set of corrupt fraudsters ever to occupy the space and that’s just his family and Cabinet. More people have gone to jail in a shorter period of time than any period since Watergate and I believe we’re just getting started.

                    1. There is nothing one could say to sway you, but as I said above: lowest unemployment in 50 years, rising real wages, prison reform, tax reform, ending testing on animals by 2030, pursuing clean nuclear energy options, exposing Washington corruption, resetting global trade away from China, forcing NATO to pay their share, securing the border, etc etc. There’s far more to be happy about. As with any politician we take the good with the bad and weigh it….for me….and millions others….the good with Trump far outweighs the bad policies, the bad tweets, etc. And no, this booming, busines-friendly economy is NOT Obama’s economy.

                    2. The only exposing Washington corruption he’s associated with is when his own people get indicted. Don’t forget he’s Individul #1. If he wasn’t President he’d be indicted as well.

                2. Listen to Kanye preach in SLC Utah this weekend. (Kanye 2024?) Democrats are gonna have to EARN the black vote. Its time Democrats work for it instead of taking it for granted —->

                  Kanye: “They try to tell me because of my color who I’m supposed to pick as president. I ain’t never made a decision based on my skin color. That’s a form of slavery. Don’t tell me who I’m supposed to vote for because of my color. I like Trump.”

                    1. Honey, I never called him an expert. I said 2024? because of the crowds he’s drawing and people toss that idea out there. He’s the artisit called Ye. He’s a free thinker. He’s doesn’t care what we think. It takes a hell of a lot more to go out on a limb and show support for Trump than to support Democrats as all of Hollywood does in lock step conformity. Not him. I like that about Ye.

                    2. btw, never a fan of Stacy Dash, don’t even know what she’s ever said about anything. And you know…Kamala is married to a white guy….and Candace, well she just married a white British guy, who happens to be from a very wealthy, well to do British family….he proposed to her after they had only known each other 3 weeks…yep….and I say good for Candace…I wish her the best.

                      Now maybe the same sort of love match will happen for the other snarky Anonymous….you know…the one who keeps following Allan around the blog….Anon…stop flirting with Allan…he’s taken…K?

                    3. I wish someone would take Allan so he can stop stalking me. He has no life apparently. BTW, I don’t mind Kamala being married to a white guy. If she made her living like Stacey did, trashing everyone black… that would be a problem. Fox fired her anyway. And she got arrested after calling 911 herself on a white guy. We’ll see if she learns anything.

                    4. “I wish someone would take Allan so he can stop stalking me.”

                      Enigma, you are always making things up like stalking. This is a blog where comments are expected. I don’t even respond to you much any more because so many people already recognize you are a nut and play the race card over and over again. You know what I am talking about. Example: Calling Trump a racists because about 20 years before he was born something happened to a person that might have been his father where contrary to what you believed his father did nothing wrong.

                      Imagine that. The nut can determine which child is a racist almost 20 years before birth and before he is even named.

                    5. “Exhibit A.”

                      Enigma, you do remember when you claimed DJ Trump was a racist for things that occurred about 20 years before he was born, right?

                      That is Exhibit A.

                    6. “I’ll give you $100 to prove that. ”

                      Enigma, at least this proves you are embarrassed by what you said. Congratulations for achieving the first step of a long ladder.

                      That is your blog which is not what was contained in numerous postings you made with specific context based on the replies and inquires of others. You have been trying to shake that notion about you that reveals how your mind works and thinks. It was proven there and in all over the blog.

                    7. I’m not embarrassed, I’m proving you a liar. If I put what you said in writing in “numerous postings,” you should easily be able to produce one. You can’t because it doesn’t exist, you may continue stalking now.

                    8. Enigma, I won’t call you a liar because I understand what you are trying to do while you try to dig yourself out of a hole. You might believe you are succeeding but I don’t think the memories of those on the blog are that short even if you wish they were.You should also recognize that the statements you made at the time do not stand alone and that has been evidenced by the rhetoric you permit to flow from your mouth.

                    9. Kanye is bipolar, but I think he is much more than that…

                      Yeezus, as in blasphemy to Jesus….Ye is short for Ye, as in Kan-Ye, but we all know what he is eluding too…raging narcissist who is on bipolar medication, def on an upper and an anxiety pills bc he is so calm.

                      As long as he keeps taking his meds….we saw his “episode” on stage a few years ago about Google and Facebook, mid concert.

                      He is having spiritual sessions based on egotism.

                      I hope a lighting bolt from Yahweh strikes near him…sends him a message

                  1. Kanye is a blasphemous One World Order puppet. He signed his soul to the devil years ago for a career in music.

                    The Actual Devil…the one who runs the music industry.

                    Why do you think they all constantly talk about selling their soul to the devil? Bc they “mean” It. You can find montage clips of famous celebrities claiming they signed on the dotted line.

                    Then, they end up having what looks like Dissociate Identity Disorder, or if you’re spiritual, multiple demon possessions of an empty vessel.

                    Or perhaps, MK Ultra…Who really knows at the end of the day.

                    Then they break down on video…crying Beyonce rings a bell. Their personality is so split into so many multiple parts…its sad to watch.

                    OT: I was just talking to my neighbor, who is a model and actor. He is mid 20s. He’s been trying for 2 years now. I asked him if he has been propositioned for sex in exchange for career advancement.

                    He laughed a little awkwardly and said ‘yes’ a few times so far.

                    I laughed and said the same thing happened to me when I tried the acting career years ago.

                    Point is, it’s a dirty business. Keep your kids out of it, if you have them.

                    Business side of Hollywood is okay, office jobs, etc.

                    But the Creative side of Hollywood comes with a lot of “extras” even in the wake of Post-Harvey scandal.

          2. Holy Crap, talk about being duped. What you think you know and what is the truth are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. You may want to check yourself into a hospital for a brain scan, because the one in there now is not functioning very well. It appears that it has become infected with a virus that has destroyed most, if not all, of your critical thinking functions.

            1. What is The Truth, Randy E. Pelton? Do tell…

              And keep in mind I’m not asking for your opinions, or your viewpoints, or your judgments, or your thoughts, or your
              regurgitated talking points. Nope, just share with us The Truth.

        3. This incoherent blather and solicitation for sympathy and “alms for the poor” is what Americans were unconstitutionally forced by the communists in America to pay $22 trillion for since 1965.

          Thank God for generational welfare and affirmative action privilege – oh Lord, I jus cain’t makes it on ma own!

          Wiffout dat communist dictatorship, compulsion and coercion, America wouldn’t be subjected to this rubbish.

          Lemme axe you a queshun.

          We were forced to pay for it, are we also forced to listen to it?

        4. This incoherent blather and solicitation for sympathy and “alms for the poor” is what Americans were unconstitutionally forced by the communists in America to pay $22 trillion for since 1965.

          Thank God for generational welfare and affirmative action privilege – oh Lord, I jus cain’t makes it on ma own!

          Wiffout dat communist dictatorship, compulsion and coercion, America wouldn’t be subjected to this rubbish.

          Lemme axe you a queshun.

          We were forced to pay for it, are we also forced to listen to it?

        1. REP, talk is cheap.

          Are you a billionaire or a pathological sinner who maniacally covets to the point of derangement?

    2. Bingo

      Take a look at realclearpolitics and the crap “journos” like Chuck Todd author.

      Trump is the bazooka all Americans wish they carried in their backpacks to slime the enemy of the people like Chuck Todd

    3. Marshall Kamena is a registered Democrat and was elected mayor of Livermore, CA.. He ran on the democratic ticket as he knew a Bay Area city would never vote for a Republican. He is as conservative as they come. He wrote the following from an article, originally written by Evan Sayet and his opinion he expressed as a columnists for Townhall.com were his own and did not represent the views of Townhall.com, were mistakenly attributed to Marshall Kamena by me.
      Trump’s ‘lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship’ By Evan Sayet in his article “He Fights

      My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

      Here’s my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

      We tried statesmanship.

      Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?

      We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

      And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

      I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

      I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.

      I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.

      Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

      The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60’s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

      The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

      With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

      During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.

      Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today.

      Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

      General George Patton was a vulgar-talking.. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

      Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

      That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.

      It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

      Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN.. He made it personal.

      Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”… Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. … They need to respond.

      This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

      Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.

      Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

      So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do.

      These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

      So, say anything you want about this president – I get it – he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!

    4. In what way are any of our constitutional rights under attack by “these people who are out to destroy” Deranged Donald? Don’t give me any generalities. Give me specifics. Which rights are you claiming are under assault, name who is threatening your right and how they are doing so.

      1. Because federal law enforcement and the federal intelligence services are running a lawfare campaign against the elected president in cahoots with grifters like Adam Schiff. This isn’t that difficult.

        1. Why you consistently take the bait from the same trolls posing as different individuals is strange.

          Surely you have better things to do, eh?

      2. Are you —-ing kidding me?
        ______________________

        “You can’t handle the truth!”

        – Colonel Jessup
        ______________

        You can’t grasp the magnitude and breadth of American freedom. The American Founders provided individuals maximal freedom as they severely limited and restricted government to the role of merely facilitating that freedom through the provision of security and infrastructure.

        Article 1, Section 8 provides Congress the power to tax only for “…general Welfare,…” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare or redistribution of wealth. Words mean things. General means ALL, as in goods and services that ALL people use in similar amounts and at similar frequency such as roads, water, sewer, electricity, trash pick-up, telecom, post office – archaic, etc. That’s it. Read it. The very same article and section provide Congress the power to regulate only money and “…commerce among the several States.” Congress has no power to regulate anything other than that. If regulation is to be implemented, regulation must be done by related industries just like all individuals must regulate their own behavior or suffer the criminal and civil legal consequences.

        Also, the right to private property is absolute. Congress has no power to possess, control or dispose of private property in any way, shape, fashion or form. Period.

        The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional. including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Dept.’s of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

        To be sure, bleeding-heart liberals who are suckered into giving away their money to parasites and dependents may “contribute” their entire estates; every penny they have, voluntarily through the charity industry in the free markets of the private sector all day long!

        Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

  13. Mitt needs to shut up and get in line, just like the Democrats do. If Mitt Romney thinks HE, as president, could withstand the pressures and manipulations, and dirty politics and outright lies that would be unleashed on him by the Democrats and their media allies, he’s sadly mistaken. We saw him fold when Obama was vulnerable, and it was beyond painful to watch. Mittens doesn’t get another chance to “choke” on the world stage. In the words of the great Steven Tyler: Dream on.

Leave a Reply