trump is cleaning out of all the traitors

[iuwclurker]

He's been yanking your chain in that fashion all afternoon now.

We're witnessing an MO in all debates which is to pettifog, tergiversate, and divert with the basic underlying intention to obscure a lack of even a single humanitarian cell in the marrow.

Let me simplify and highlight that:

We're witnessing a "Christian" utterly devoid of humanity.​

 

[Lucy01]

We're witnessing an MO in all debates which is to pettifog, tergiversate, and divert with the basic underlying intention to obscure a lack of even a single humanitarian cell in the marrow.

Let me simplify and highlight that:

We're witnessing a "Christian" utterly devoid of humanity.​

Wow, do you have an Advil? Your post gave me a headache!

 

[iuwclurker]

Wow, do you have an Advil? Your post gave me a headache!

A bonus for you:



Oh, and by the way, you're not the only one with a heachache:

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You have to use COH's exact wording when you refer to his statements. Otherwise, he will suck you into the "not what I said" abyss. He's been yanking your chain in that fashion all afternoon now.

But if you quote him word for word, then he'll invariably move into "not what I meant" territory, so you can't really win.

 

[DrHoops]

Just what they want to do...become some shmo on cable news.

Addition by subtraction.

They'll both end up with lucrative gigs at CNN or MSNBC. Shed no tears for these two.

 

[DrHoops]

Vindman's twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who also worked at the NSC was fired despite giving no public statements about President Trump or impeachment.

First Colonel Vindman and now Ambassador Sondland. It's Bloody Friday at the WH.

If you're not loyal to the Reich, you gotta go.

Link

 

[DrHoops]

She hopes Trump will learn from this.

Susan Collins probably finds these latest developments concerning.

 

[DrHoops]

"He who wears the Purple Heart has given of his blood in the defense of his homeland and shall forever be revered by his fellow countrymen". George Washington

Vindman is a chickenshit. He's no hero. If he really felt that is boss was out of line, he had a professional responsibility to raise the issue in the context of his official duties. That would have been heroic. Instead he surreptitiously avoided all notice and seemingly took part in a contrived whistleblower event.

I dunno about Sondland. Based solely on the nature of his testimony, he doesn't seem to be a very competent guy.

 

[Standard Issue]

But if you quote him word for word, then he'll invariably move into "not what I meant" territory, so you can't really win.

.

 

[Lucy01]

If someone like Vindman was employed by you and tried destroying you and your family, why would you want an individual around you like that?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If someone was employed by you and tried destroying you and your family, why would you want an individual around you like that?

Good question, and that's why we want Trump removed. I am glad you came around to our side and decided to quit trolling.

 

[iuwclurker]

If someone like Vindman was employed by you and tried destroying you and your family, why would you want an individual around you like that?

Trump's like a donut -- asshole at both ends.

 

[Spartans9312]

Not Vindman; he doesn’t strike me as the type. He’s a soldier and a patriot.

From RCP: The scariest aspect of Vindman's testimony is his insistence that U.S. foreign policy should be made by unelected bureaucrats like himself. Vindman says he and his colleagues have formulated "the best, most informed judgement" about Ukraine and it wasn't "appropriate for government officials " like Trump's ambassadors to act "counter" to it"

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Good question, and that's why we want Trump removed. I am glad you came around to our side and decided to quit trolling.

Good grief. Obama and his cronies destroyed General Flynn for going against the Obama line. Obama prosecuted leakers under the 1917 espionage act for the same conduct. All these sudden hearts and flowers for Vindman really are disingenuous, Marv. This is all about political views and has nothing to do with whether Vindman is a victim of Trumpism.

 

[hoosboot]

It seems clear the whistleblower complaint embellished the contents of the call. Vindman likely was involved with that. He is not a good guy. He’s a sneak.

I believe the term y'all prefer is "snitch". And you know where snitches end up.

 

[outside shooter]

Surprised she can give an opinion with trumps balls in her mouth.

She offers up her opinion whenever Moscow Mitch or CoH are taking their turns!

 

[cosmickid]

Good grief. Obama and his cronies destroyed General Flynn for going against the Obama line. Obama prosecuted leakers under the 1917 espionage act for the same conduct. All these sudden hearts and flowers for Vindman really are disingenuous, Marv. This is all about political views and has nothing to do with whether Vindman is a victim of Trumpism.

Were any of these "leakers" testifying before a House Committee in reaction to a subpoena? Just curious...

"Retired Marine Corps Col. David Lapan, a former Pentagon spokesman and the vice president of communications at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said he "absolutely" believed the ouster of Vindman and his brother was retaliation by the White House.

"It was Lt. Col. Alex Vindman who actually testified under oath in front of Congress," Lapan previously told Insider. "His brother didn't. Yet somehow his brother was also dismissed from his position in the National Security Council."

"I would recommend the Pentagon that given all the circumstances … to state very clearly that Vindman will be allowed to come back to the Army, that he will get his follow-on assignments and there won't be any retaliation against him," Lapan added.

"I think that is needed right now to send a strong message to the force that we're not going to allow retaliation for somebody who was subpoenaed."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-suggested-military-might-disciplinary-003325822.html

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Good grief. Obama and his cronies destroyed General Flynn for going against the Obama line. Obama prosecuted leakers under the 1917 espionage act for the same conduct. All these sudden hearts and flowers for Vindman really are disingenuous, Marv. This is all about political views and has nothing to do with whether Vindman is a victim of Trumpism.

The next post you make with a link to a source (not Breitbart that you now subscribe to as a populist) will be the first post you make with evidence Vindman leaked a damn thing. Who did Vindman leak to? You gave me 2 NSA names earlier, that isn't a leak unless you know those two people did not already have the information.

Just because Breitbart started a Vindman leaked story does not mean Vindman leaked. I am sure you will share with us the source stating who he leaked to and when. You named two NSA people above, that isn't a leak unless you know they were not supposed to have this information.

I do not know if you were always a populist masquerading as a principled conservative, or if Trump sucked you into full blown populism. Either way, Reagan is sad you don't pretend to be a conservative any longer. Say hi to the rest of the Birchers for me.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The next post you make with a link to a source (not Breitbart that you now subscribe to as a populist) will be the first post you make with evidence Vindman leaked a damn thing. Who did Vindman leak to? You gave me 2 NSA names earlier, that isn't a leak unless you know those two people did not already have the information.

Just because Breitbart started a Vindman leaked story does not mean Vindman leaked. I am sure you will share with us the source stating who he leaked to and when. You named two NSA people above, that isn't a leak unless you know they were not supposed to have this information.

I do not know if you were always a populist masquerading as a principled conservative, or if Trump sucked you into full blown populism. Either way, Reagan is sad you don't pretend to be a conservative any longer. Say hi to the rest of the Birchers for me.

Vindman admitted to talking with two people about his concerns. Those were not in his chain of command.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Were any of these "leakers" testifying before a House Committee in reaction to a subpoena? Just curious...

"Retired Marine Corps Col. David Lapan, a former Pentagon spokesman and the vice president of communications at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said he "absolutely" believed the ouster of Vindman and his brother was retaliation by the White House.

"It was Lt. Col. Alex Vindman who actually testified under oath in front of Congress," Lapan previously told Insider. "His brother didn't. Yet somehow his brother was also dismissed from his position in the National Security Council."

"I would recommend the Pentagon that given all the circumstances … to state very clearly that Vindman will be allowed to come back to the Army, that he will get his follow-on assignments and there won't be any retaliation against him," Lapan added.

"I think that is needed right now to send a strong message to the force that we're not going to allow retaliation for somebody who was subpoenaed."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-suggested-military-might-disciplinary-003325822.html

Somebody said once “elections have consequences”. Trump, as any president, is absolutely entitled to hand pick members of his administration and other leaders of the executive branch. There are reasons why some positions have civil service protection and some don’t.

 

[cosmickid]

Somebody said once “elections have consequences”. Trump, as any president, is absolutely entitled to hand pick members of his administration and other leaders of the executive branch. There are reasons why some positions have civil service protection and some don’t.

Yeah but we're not talking about Trump "removing" Vindman, at least I wasn't. I was talking about his veiled threat to having the military take action. Are you unaware of his doing that?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Vindman admitted to talking with two people about his concerns. Those were not in his chain of command.

Did those people already have this information? It is not a leak to talk to someone who has the same information. Imagine planning a military campaign if the army couldn't talk to the air force because they aren't in the same chain of command*. Did the people he discuss it with have information.

Funny use, in D-day the word used was "bigoted". To find out if another officer was in on the plans, one would ask "are you bigoted". I don't know if they considered how many officers were from the south and would proudly answer yes. But the assumption was that no one would claim to be bigoted so the code would work.

Do you know the people Vidman spoke with were not "bigoted"?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yeah but we're not talking about Trump "removing" Vindman, at least I wasn't. I was talking about his veiled threat to having the military take action. Are you unaware of his doing that?

Trump says so much it’s too hard for me to keep up. Most of it is without consequence. Being triggered by all of that is a choice I don’t make. I rather pay attention to the larger issues that actually have long term effects.

 

[iubud]

First Colonel Vindman and now Ambassador Sondland. It's Bloody Friday at the WH.

If you're not loyal to the Reich, you gotta go.

Link

If you are a CEO and have directors that openly question your decisions and direction of the company, would you want them working for you? If you say yes you are a dirty dog face pony soldier.

 

[zeke4ahs]

If you are a CEO and have directors that openly question your decisions and direction of the company, would you want them working for you? If you say yes you are a dirty dog face pony soldier.

Well, if you’re breaking the law then I’d imagine you would have people questioning you.

 

[wiede]

If you are a CEO and have directors that openly question your decisions and direction of the company, would you want them working for you? If you say yes you are a dirty dog face pony soldier.

This assumes that what Trump did was OK.

it wasn’t.

He clearly put his own interests (getting dirt on the Bidens) above those of the country- and used foreign aid that his office signed off on as leverage.

Had he been concerned with other corruption in the Ukraine, he may have an argument for his conduct. The evidence CLEARLY proved that his behavior was incredibly out of bounds. All he cared about was an announcement of an investigation- not what it might find. It was basically Hillary’s emails 2.0.

And he would’ve had his way- if it weren’t for the whistleblower coming forward. Even then, his attack dog Bill Barr tried to block it from coming out. The Ukrainian President relented, and scheduled an interview with CNN. Only after news of the whistleblower broke did he cancel the interview.

It amazes me that you think this type of conduct is OK. If a dem president had done a similar thing, you’d be losing your mind. And if you adhere to the unitary executive theory- which basically says a president is king, and above the law- then god help you. That’s the only real justification for what he did. Many of the pub senators even admitted that what he did was incredibly bad. They went from “he didn’t do it” to “maybe he did, but it was excusable” to “it was really bad, but c rise to the level of an impeachable offense”. And this is without the key witnesses- that the whites house c by I’ll

I’d love to see you and CO refute any of what I typed above with facts- the record is very clear about what transpired.

it wasn’t that he did it. He did. It was WHY he did it. He clearly didn’t care about any implications, outside of helping himself be re-elected.

 

[hoosboot]

Vindman admitted to talking with two people about his concerns. Those were not in his chain of command.

Alex, that would be "What is not a link with a source?" Let's go to "Trying to change the subject ineffectively" for $500.

 

[T.M.P.]

Trump says so much it’s too hard for me to keep up. Most of it is without consequence. Being triggered by all of that is a choice I don’t make. I rather pay attention to the larger issues that actually have long term effects.

Lol.....

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This assumes that what Trump did was OK.

it wasn’t.

He clearly put his own interests (getting dirt on the Bidens) above those of the country- and used foreign aid that his office signed off on as leverage.

Had he been concerned with other corruption in the Ukraine, he may have an argument for his conduct. The evidence CLEARLY proved that his behavior was incredibly out of bounds. All he cared about was an announcement of an investigation- not what it might find. It was basically Hillary’s emails 2.0.

And he would’ve had his way- if it weren’t for the whistleblower coming forward. Even then, his attack dog Bill Barr tried to block it from coming out. The Ukrainian President relented, and scheduled an interview with CNN. Only after news of the whistleblower broke did he cancel the interview.

It amazes me that you think this type of conduct is OK. If a dem president had done a similar thing, you’d be losing your mind. And if you adhere to the unitary executive theory- which basically says a president is king, and above the law- then god help you. That’s the only real justification for what he did. Many of the pub senators even admitted that what he did was incredibly bad. They went from “he didn’t do it” to “maybe he did, but it was excusable” to “it was really bad, but c rise to the level of an impeachable offense”. And this is without the key witnesses- that the whites house c by I’ll

I’d love to see you and CO refute any of what I typed above with facts- the record is very clear about what transpired.

it wasn’t that he did it. He did. It was WHY he did it. He clearly didn’t care about any implications, outside of helping himself be re-elected.

We have similar Obama conduct. He appointed 3 NLRB members after unilaterally declaring a senate recess; thus avoiding a confirmation process. SCOTUS rebuked him 9-0. You can’t get much more wrong than a 9-0 against you. Obama did this as a nod to his base as he was getting ready for reelection.

Should this have been considered an abuse of power? Impeaching? All I know is that impeachment wasn’t brought up. Trump’s abuse was not carried out to the end. Nothing transpired. The funds were disbursed within the appropriate fiscal year. No investigation happened. Compare this to Obama’s stubborn refusal to budge until the 9-0 rebuke.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

We have similar Obama conduct. He appointed 3 NLRB members after unilaterally declaring a senate recess; thus avoiding a confirmation process. SCOTUS rebuked him 9-0. You can’t get much more wrong than a 9-0 against you. Obama did this as a nod to his base as he was getting ready for reelection.

Should this have been considered an abuse of power? Impeaching? All I know is that impeachment wasn’t brought up. Trump’s abuse was not carried out to the end. Nothing transpired. The funds were disbursed within the appropriate fiscal year. No investigation happened. Compare this to Obama’s stubborn refusal to budge until the 9-0 rebuke.

Wait - Obama unilaterally declared a Senate recess? Wow I didn't know he could do that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Wait - Obama unilaterally declared a Senate recess? Wow I didn't know he could do that.

he can’t. That why the decision was 9-0 against.

 

[UncleMark]

Trump says so much it’s too hard for me to keep up. Most of it is without consequence. Being triggered by all of that is a choice I don’t make. I rather pay attention to the larger issues that actually have long term effects.

Shorter COH: "I got nuthin'."

 

[wiede]

he can’t. That why the decision was 9-0 against.

If you really think the two actions are comparable, there’s no need to continue this conversation. Obama tested something that hadn’t been done before. it wasn’t specifically illegal. It was later deemed by judicial action to be illegal.

And he ultimately failed, but it didn’t directly impact his election chances. At all.

In sum, no clearly defined illegal action, and no direct impact on his election. He certainly didn’t try to use his government to go after a political opponent.

I can promise you that Obama’s “base” could give two chits about what he did. I follow politics pretty closely.

If it were as close to being analogous to what Trump did, you can bet that the GOP house would’ve started impeachment hearings. They didn’t. This, despite being the house of the Benghazi! Hearings. You know, the ones that wasted a ton of time and money, all to show mistakes. Mistakes that were admitted before the first set of hearings even began.

Compare that to directly trying to use the levers of government to illegally withhold aid from an ally that really needed it. All to directly tank a possible political opponent. And it was specifically prohibited, as it was a law passed in the wake of watergate. In other words, it was a guard rail designed to keep Trump from doing what he did. And he brazenly ignored it. And before you say it wasn’t illegal- it was. The GAO explicitly stated that it was. It was a violation of a federal statute.

In sum, an egregious violation of a federal law, with a possible direct impact on an upcoming election. Again, it was another misdirection attempt by Trump. Hillary’s emails 2.0.

The comparison is not even a stretch- even for you. You’re the king of obfuscation and misdirection on this board. You seem to really enjoy it. And you can’t even make a serious argument as to how these two situations are analogous.

You’re either losing your ability to muddy the waters, OR you’re simply trolling. Its also possible that you’re so invested in defending Trump (while simultaneously slamming Obama) that you really might believe what you wrote. If you made that type of argument in a court, you’d be laughed out of it.

Just admit what’s obvious- Trump did an egregious act. An illegal egregious act. All to benefit one person- himself. And, because of enablers like you, he’s going to do more. He truly doesn’t give a chit about anything but himself.

And it’ll likely be much worse than even this episode- which, in normal times- should’ve have resulted in a resignation. Or a removal. The senators that pussed out are going to regret what they did. Trump is just getting started.

You’re so far gone you can’t even see that you’re effectively advocating for the abolition of the rule of law. That’s basically the one thing that separates us from everyone else. And it’s broken now. It’s truly party over country at this point- all you care about is that your side is “winning”. “Winning”=“destruction” now.

It’s really sad to see you and several others go down this destructive path.

What would it take for you to admit that Trump is blatantly unfit for his position? Does he literally have to shoot someone on 5th Avenue? Even then, I have a feeling you’d try to justify it.

 

[UncleMark]

What would it take for you to admit that Trump is blatantly unfit for his position? Does he literally have to shoot someone on 5th Avenue? Even then, I have a feeling you’d try to justify it.

If he thought it was in the best interests of the country...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If you really think the two actions are comparable, there’s no need to continue this conversation. Obama tested something that hadn’t been done before. it wasn’t specifically illegal. It was later deemed by judicial action to be illegal.

And he ultimately failed, but it didn’t directly impact his election chances. At all.

In sum, no clearly defined illegal action, and no direct impact on his election. He certainly didn’t try to use his government to go after a political opponent.

I can promise you that Obama’s “base” could give two chits about what he did. I follow politics pretty closely.

If it were as close to being analogous to what Trump did, you can bet that the GOP house would’ve started impeachment hearings. They didn’t. This, despite being the house of the Benghazi! Hearings. You know, the ones that wasted a ton of time and money, all to show mistakes. Mistakes that were admitted before the first set of hearings even began.

Compare that to directly trying to use the levers of government to illegally withhold aid from an ally that really needed it. All to directly tank a possible political opponent. And it was specifically prohibited, as it was a law passed in the wake of watergate. In other words, it was a guard rail designed to keep Trump from doing what he did. And he brazenly ignored it. And before you say it wasn’t illegal- it was. The GAO explicitly stated that it was. It was a violation of a federal statute.

In sum, an egregious violation of a federal law, with a possible direct impact on an upcoming election. Again, it was another misdirection attempt by Trump. Hillary’s emails 2.0.

The comparison is not even a stretch- even for you. You’re the king of obfuscation and misdirection on this board. You seem to really enjoy it. And you can’t even make a serious argument as to how these two situations are analogous.

You’re either losing your ability to muddy the waters, OR you’re simply trolling. Its also possible that you’re so invested in defending Trump (while simultaneously slamming Obama) that you really might believe what you wrote. If you made that type of argument in a court, you’d be laughed out of it.

Just admit what’s obvious- Trump did an egregious act. An illegal egregious act. All to benefit one person- himself. And, because of enablers like you, he’s going to do more. He truly doesn’t give a chit about anything but himself.

And it’ll likely be much worse than even this episode- which, in normal times- should’ve have resulted in a resignation. Or a removal. The senators that pussed out are going to regret what they did. Trump is just getting started.

You’re so far gone you can’t even see that you’re effectively advocating for the abolition of the rule of law. That’s basically the one thing that separates us from everyone else. And it’s broken now. It’s truly party over country at this point- all you care about is that your side is “winning”. “Winning”=“destruction” now.

It’s really sad to see you and several others go down this destructive path.

What would it take for you to admit that Trump is blatantly unfit for his position? Does he literally have to shoot someone on 5th Avenue? Even then, I have a feeling you’d try to justify it.

Trump did no clearly defined illegal act either. If there was, Nadler would surely have identified it in the articles.

Both acts can be easily be seen as an abuse of power. That is why that, in and of itself, is too loosey goosey to support impeachment.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Trump did no clearly defined illegal act either. If there was, Nadler would surely have identified it in the articles.

Both acts can be easily be seen as an abuse of power. That is why that, in and of itself, is too loosey goosey to support impeachment.

You said "We have similar Obama conduct."

It's not similar conduct. It might be equally unimpeachable, but it's not similar. Obama overreached on a matter of executive authority in an area that was an open question of law, and lost. Trump put the machinery of government in motion in order to gain a personal political benefit. They are entirely dissimilar, and only Trump's is ethically and morally repugnant.

 

[iubud]

This assumes that what Trump did was OK.

it wasn’t.

He clearly put his own interests (getting dirt on the Bidens) above those of the country- and used foreign aid that his office signed off on as leverage.

Had he been concerned with other corruption in the Ukraine, he may have an argument for his conduct. The evidence CLEARLY proved that his behavior was incredibly out of bounds. All he cared about was an announcement of an investigation- not what it might find. It was basically Hillary’s emails 2.0.

And he would’ve had his way- if it weren’t for the whistleblower coming forward. Even then, his attack dog Bill Barr tried to block it from coming out. The Ukrainian President relented, and scheduled an interview with CNN. Only after news of the whistleblower broke did he cancel the interview.

It amazes me that you think this type of conduct is OK. If a dem president had done a similar thing, you’d be losing your mind. And if you adhere to the unitary executive theory- which basically says a president is king, and above the law- then god help you. That’s the only real justification for what he did. Many of the pub senators even admitted that what he did was incredibly bad. They went from “he didn’t do it” to “maybe he did, but it was excusable” to “it was really bad, but c rise to the level of an impeachable offense”. And this is without the key witnesses- that the whites house c by I’ll

I’d love to see you and CO refute any of what I typed above with facts- the record is very clear about what transpired.

it wasn’t that he did it. He did. It was WHY he did it. He clearly didn’t care about any implications, outside of helping himself be re-elected.

Where did Trump say he was asking for an investigation on the Bidens for political gain? The context was that there was a history of corruption and Trump was wanting the Ukraine to investigate what took place to have a prosecutor removed from a case involving Hunter Biden. If Biden hadn't bragged that he forced the prosecutor to be fired, it may not have been discovered. Only a dolt would not see that a VP meddling in a foreign country's justice system to help a family member is corrupt. It should be looked at to make sure there weren't other items that Biden didn't mention. Should anyone running for the highest office be excused from investigation? Somebody forgot to tell the Obama administration about that.

We will find out in the coming months about how the FISA court was misled on false information to begin an investigation on Trump and private citizens working for the Trump campaign.

I want to know what Schiff planned to do with the nude pictures he was trying to get of Trump from the Russian comedian that punked him. That attempted collusion needs to be looked at. What other Russian contacts did Schiff make? I don't think that has been looked at. The fake pictures were supposedly from years before Trump ran for office.

Schiff and Nadler are deranged. Nadler is an incompetent boob and wants to settle old scores with Trump. Schiff is more devious and is capable of doing anything to remove Trump. All they have done is made Trump more popular.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Where did Trump say he was asking for an investigation on the Bidens for political gain? The context was that there was a history of corruption and Trump was wanting the Ukraine to investigate what took place to have a prosecutor removed from a case involving Hunter Biden. If Biden hadn't bragged that he forced the prosecutor to be fired, it may not have been discovered. Only a dolt would not see that a VP meddling in a foreign country's justice system to help a family member is corrupt. It should be looked at to make sure there weren't other items that Biden didn't mention. Should anyone running for the highest office be excused from investigation? Somebody forgot to tell the Obama administration about that.

We will find out in the coming months about how the FISA court was misled on false information to begin an investigation on Trump and private citizens working for the Trump campaign.

I want to know what Schiff planned to do with the nude pictures he was trying to get of Trump from the Russian comedian that punked him. That attempted collusion needs to be looked at. What other Russian contacts did Schiff make? I don't think that has been looked at. The fake pictures were supposedly from years before Trump ran for office.

Schiff and Nadler are deranged. Nadler is an incompetent boob and wants to settle old scores with Trump. Schiff is more devious and is capable of doing anything to remove Trump. All they have done is made Trump more popular.

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH. Will this lie ever die? The prosecutor we wanted removed was NOT investigating Burisma. We wanted him removed BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INVESTIGATING BURISMA. The Brits turned rock solid evidence over to him on Burisma and he did nothing. At that point the Brits asked for him to be removed. Then the EU and the IMF. Then the US. In fact, Republicans wanted him removed. None of this had one thing to do with Biden's son.

 

[UncleMark]

I want to know what Schiff planned to do with the nude pictures he was trying to get of Trump from the Russian comedian that punked him. That attempted collusion needs to be looked at. What other Russian contacts did Schiff make?

Please tell me you're not serious.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Where did Trump say he was asking for an investigation on the Bidens for political gain? The context was that there was a history of corruption and Trump was wanting the Ukraine to investigate what took place to have a prosecutor removed from a case involving Hunter Biden. If Biden hadn't bragged that he forced the prosecutor to be fired, it may not have been discovered. Only a dolt would not see that a VP meddling in a foreign country's justice system to help a family member is corrupt. It should be looked at to make sure there weren't other items that Biden didn't mention. Should anyone running for the highest office be excused from investigation? Somebody forgot to tell the Obama administration about that.

We will find out in the coming months about how the FISA court was misled on false information to begin an investigation on Trump and private citizens working for the Trump campaign.

I want to know what Schiff planned to do with the nude pictures he was trying to get of Trump from the Russian comedian that punked him. That attempted collusion needs to be looked at. What other Russian contacts did Schiff make? I don't think that has been looked at. The fake pictures were supposedly from years before Trump ran for office.

Schiff and Nadler are deranged. Nadler is an incompetent boob and wants to settle old scores with Trump. Schiff is more devious and is capable of doing anything to remove Trump. All they have done is made Trump more popular.

Seriously? That’s what you’re going with? Lol. Because Trump didn’t say the words I want you to investigate for my political gain he’s innocent? My goodness. First of all, Trump didn’t even want an investigation. All he wanted was the announcement of an investigation. Second of all, Biden, with the support of everyone , including the GOP, wanted the guy fired because HE was corrupt and not doing his job. And seriously, again, you’re buying the Nunes nude photos bit? YOu support Trump and you are calling the people who are actually patriots and trying to stop his corruption names? I’m just going to say that you probably need to find a different news source, because all of this is downright embarrassing.