Looks like the infamous Vindman will be doing the duffle bag drag

[busybee01]

View attachment 305741

/---/ So getting shot in combat gives you a free pass to lie, deceive, twist and distort?
What lies did Rush spread?

Trump didn't serve. Col Vindmann told the truth to Congress.
Rush Limbaugh has been the fence for every Trump lie.

 

[busybee01]

BREAKING: Alexander Vindman Is Escorted Out of the White House and Pearls Are Clutched

Escorted by security.....God I love Trump!!!

Audios gringo!

Dirty pool.

tRump and co. are vindictive scumbags.

He spied on Trump, fuck if it were Washingron, he would have shot the guy. Hes lucky Trump was so nice. Oh and Obama was ok with Patreus leaking? Didnt he get jail?

SPIED? He was doing his job. Same as the FBI was doing it's job when it checked out the Russians sticking their nose in the 2016 campaigns.

No he wasnt

He didn't follow chain of command, it was a hit job with Schiff.....

Congress is a part of the chain of command.

 

[busybee01]

View attachment 305741

/---/ So getting shot in combat gives you a free pass to lie, deceive, twist and distort?
What lies did Rush spread?

Rush's greatest crime was telling the truth.

Rush Limbaugh has not told the truth in some time. He is Trump's sock puppet.

 

[Zorro!]

View attachment 305741

/---/ So getting shot in combat gives you a free pass to lie, deceive, twist and distort?
What lies did Rush spread?

Trump didn't serve. Col Vindmann told the truth to Congress.
Rush Limbaugh has been the fence for every Trump lie.

No. In this Great Nation we don't have Lieutenant Colonels dictating foreign policy, if that is what you are looking for, you might want to go find a Banana Republic.

 

[busybee01]

He wasn't just "brought up on the call". Trump was pressuring Zelensky to go on CNN and publicly announce investigation into Bidens.

That is not good faith pursuit of justice, it has nothing to do with justice, it's the opposite.

Belive it or not there actually is a proper process to report illegal activities to DOJ.

The same DOJ that tried to stage a coup against Trump?

TDS morons like you are crazy.

Coup, sh-mew. Here's examples of coup. Congo Crisis - Wikipedia 100,000 believed killed. 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt - Wikipedia
300 killed, including most of the conspirators. 1963 Togolese coup d'état - Wikipedia They took over government buildings, arrested most of the cabinet, and assassinated Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio outside the American embassy in Lomé. 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état - Wikipedia On October 28 Chief of Staff of the 800-man Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country[16] to prevent a civil war. He dismissed the cabinet, dissolved the Assembly, suspended the constitution and banned any type of demonstrations.[19] After having Maga sign his resignation the same day. In late November, it began prosecuting members of the cabinet, such as the Minister of National Economy and the Finance Minister for misusing public funds.[19] Maga was soon to find himself in jail too. Ramadan Revolution - Wikipedia the February 1963 coup d'état in Iraq, was a military coup by the Ba'ath Party's Iraqi-wing which overthrew the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963. The most powerful leader of the new government was the secretary general of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa'di, who controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Algerian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Around 1:30am, Tahar Zbiri, Said Abid, and colonel Abbes approached Villa Joly and were let in by the replacement guards at the entrance. Tahar Zbiri knocked on Ben Bella's door and explained to Ben Bella that he was no longer the president. The three military officers allowed Ben Bella to get dressed and then took him to an undisclosed location where he was placed under house arrest.

You get the point. All you little drama queens crying "Coup, Coup, Coup" are just so full of sh#t. This was no coup. It was an investigation of the illegal activities for political gain by the now "Impeached President of the United States, per the Constitution. The House of Representatives proved their case. We all know Donny's guilt. He just wasn't removed, mainly because spineless Republican Senators thought the election in 9 months was the place for the people speak on the matter, and it would allow them to hold on to power until election day. I am proud, the House exposed Donny's bullsh#t, and am proud of the whistle blower and all those that testified in the House as great American Patriots. I will support whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November to replace the crooked SOB at that time.

It was a coup. Just because thousands of people haven't been killed doesn't mean it wasn't one.

It is not a coup. It is specified in the Constitution.

Obtaining warrants to illegally spy on the President with the use of a forged documents is "specified in the Constitution"?

Are you sure?

(Impeachment is specified in the Constitution. Also the warrants on Carter Page was obtained after Page left the campaign Maybe you can tell us how a campaign can be spied on when the subject is no longer a part of the campaign.

 

[busybee01]

That's a lie.

which part? I have so much info in my posts you need to be specific

Well, it starts at "he" and ends at the question mark.

Oh Patraues didn't go to jail? Who did he server under Obama, I think I'm right as usual

What about Flynn?

My point on that was Obama prosecuted a leaker, which Trump should do with Vindman and especially Comey

The DOJ has already turned down a opportunity to prosecute Comey because the evidence was not there. Flynn was being investigated for more serious charges related to his lobbying activities. Prosecutors were giving him a break by allowing him to plead guilty to lesser charges.

 

[busybee01]

View attachment 305741

/---/ So getting shot in combat gives you a free pass to lie, deceive, twist and distort?
What lies did Rush spread?

Could you say the Lie Vindman said...

Rush said
"11 straight years of no major hurricanes striking land" in the United States "bores a hole right through the whole climate change argument."

Austin is "effectively" imposing "a ban on barbecue restaurants."

The children coming across the southern U.S. border "were never examined after they got here and quarantined if they had a disease. They were just sent out across the country. Many of them had measles ... We now have an outbreak of it all because of our immigration policy."

Look at his record
| PolitiFact

Vindman was part of the failed bloodless coup d'etat that they began plotting before Trump was even sworn in.

The Electorate thought he was the RIGHT President, the Swamp disagreed and tried to take matters OUT of OUR hands, but failed miserably, then Crazy Nancy committed a felony before the entire nation and proved she is completely out of her mind, which explains this ridiculous impeachment.

Note that in 2012, when Obama won an undeserved term against the loser Benedict Romney -- who almost seemed to be working for Obama himself -- Americans' satisfaction with their lives was a mere 78%. In 1992 %when Papa Bush managed to lose to BJ Clinton, satisfaction was

And now? 90%! Highest level ever recorded by Gallup.

On one hand, the economy is at levels never before seen; Americans say they're doing better than last year at the highest rate ever recorded; and furthermore they expect to do better next year at the highest rate since the Summer of Star Wars; and American's satisfaction with their lives is the highest level ever recorded.

But, on the other hand: Trump's TWEETS.​

This is what they got. This is what all their hopes are riding on.

Sure you're making money, America is at peace for the first time in decades, and you think the economy is in great shape.

On the other hand: Trump's Tweets.​

Easy call!

Ace of Spades HQ

There was no coup.

The electorate thought he was the least worst of the two candidates. 25% of the electorate was voting against the other candidate. trump is a part of the new swamp. He has appointed a number of lobbyists to run agencies they lobbied. The EPA has been taken over by the coal ind8ustry. Worth noting that the people who think this country is going in the wrong direction is still a strong majority.

The economy started growing under Obama. Even by your own chart, satisfaction under Obama was around 85% when he left office. Around 5% or less is not a strong increase.

Clearly Democrats have issues to go after Trump on. Voters disagree with Trump on nearly every issue. Healthcare, global warming, the environment, border security and immigration policy to name a few.

Ace of Spades has Spades in his head.

 

[busybee01]

Coup, sh-mew. Here's examples of coup. Congo Crisis - Wikipedia 100,000 believed killed. 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt - Wikipedia
300 killed, including most of the conspirators. 1963 Togolese coup d'état - Wikipedia They took over government buildings, arrested most of the cabinet, and assassinated Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio outside the American embassy in Lomé. 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état - Wikipedia On October 28 Chief of Staff of the 800-man Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country[16] to prevent a civil war. He dismissed the cabinet, dissolved the Assembly, suspended the constitution and banned any type of demonstrations.[19] After having Maga sign his resignation the same day. In late November, it began prosecuting members of the cabinet, such as the Minister of National Economy and the Finance Minister for misusing public funds.[19] Maga was soon to find himself in jail too. Ramadan Revolution - Wikipedia the February 1963 coup d'état in Iraq, was a military coup by the Ba'ath Party's Iraqi-wing which overthrew the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963. The most powerful leader of the new government was the secretary general of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa'di, who controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Algerian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Around 1:30am, Tahar Zbiri, Said Abid, and colonel Abbes approached Villa Joly and were let in by the replacement guards at the entrance. Tahar Zbiri knocked on Ben Bella's door and explained to Ben Bella that he was no longer the president. The three military officers allowed Ben Bella to get dressed and then took him to an undisclosed location where he was placed under house arrest.

You get the point. All you little drama queens crying "Coup, Coup, Coup" are just so full of sh#t. This was no coup. It was an investigation of the illegal activities for political gain by the now "Impeached President of the United States, per the Constitution. The House of Representatives proved their case. We all know Donny's guilt. He just wasn't removed, mainly because spineless Republican Senators thought the election in 9 months was the place for the people speak on the matter, and it would allow them to hold on to power until election day. I am proud, the House exposed Donny's bullsh#t, and am proud of the whistle blower and all those that testified in the House as great American Patriots. I will support whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November to replace the crooked SOB at that time.

It was a coup. Just because thousands of people haven't been killed doesn't mean it wasn't one.

Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.

I doubt it.

Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.

Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.

This is how Trump wins reelection in November.



He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.

ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.

​

Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.

In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.

Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.

The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.

Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:

“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”​

Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”

It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”

When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.

The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.

It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.

Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.

Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.

Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.

What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.

Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.

And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly.

This debate is back and forth, back and forth. It reminds me of an old George Carling joke: When two people are in an elevator and one of them farts, they both know who did it.

We all read the transcript. We all know what Trump said, so when you on the left keep repeating the lies, it's not going to make us believe them.

Trump never threatened aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky stated he felt no pressure from President Trump.
Biden was not Trump's rival. It was almost a year before their nominee would be selected.
The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.

If you honestly read the transcript, it proves that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to open a phony investigation. We also have Giuliani's attempts to do the same and now trying to palm off Russian misinformation.

Trump did threaten to withhold aid. Giuliani's effort was ongoing well before the call.
Zelensky is not going to get involved in this.
Biden is running for the same office Trump is.
The aid was released once it became public knowledge.
Trump wanted a phony investigation but the sordid affair became public. Even Mulvaney confirms the quid pro quo.
It is abuse of power as pressuring a foreign country to investigate a political rival is not a part of any legitimate foreign policy.

 

[busybee01]

Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.

I doubt it.

Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.

Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.

This is how Trump wins reelection in November.



He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.

ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.

​

Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.

In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.

Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.

The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.

Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:

“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”​

Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”

It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”

When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.

The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.

It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.

Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.




Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.

Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.

What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.

Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.

And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly. ..

Witnesses with no first hand information, even Kangaroos don't do that.

... The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.

It was all a bid farce by a Mad House Drunk With Arrogated Power. Now so shamefully repudiated that Crazy Nancy committed a felony, deliberately, in full view of the Nation.

That's where the fortune telling came into the impeachment. They couldn't say they impeached Trump for something that Obama did, and Joe on video laughing about it. So they made up this little story that Biden was Trump's rival, even though any honest person knows that wasn't true. We won't know for a couple of months who Trump will be facing. And if Biden is not chosen, I wonder if the Democrat leadership will offer Trump a public apology for impeaching him on something that never existed, such as Biden being his rival?

Any honest person knows that Biden was seen by Trump as his chief political rival. E-mails that show Trump's state of mind are being withheld by Trump's administration. The question is what is he hiding? If they were exculpatory, they would have been made public.

 

[busybee01]

Besides that you need to go get your facts straight, Shokin NEVER claimed to have been investigating Biden's son himself, only the company he worked for.

He didn't, huh?

Viktor Shokin: Biden outraged we seized Burisma assets | One America News Network

No, he didn't. Do yourself a favor and use real news sources. OAN is a fucking joke with no integrity.

Shokin claimed (with absolutely no evidence) that he wanted to interview Hunter about Burisma at the time he was fired, not that he was investgating Hunter personally.

The case on Burisma was 2 years dormant at the time and had to do with 2010-2012 period, well before Hunter joined the company.

You're the fuckin joke. OAN is straight up news. Sounds like Rachel got your tongue.

OANN is propaganda. Nothing more.

 

[busybee01]

Besides that you need to go get your facts straight, Shokin NEVER claimed to have been investigating Biden's son himself, only the company he worked for.

He didn't, huh?

Viktor Shokin: Biden outraged we seized Burisma assets | One America News Network

No, he didn't. Do yourself a favor and use real news sources. OAN is a fucking joke with no integrity.

Shokin claimed (with absolutely no evidence) that he wanted to interview Hunter about Burisma at the time he was fired, not that he was investgating Hunter himself.

Well what did he want to interview him for, to ask how his drug addiction was doing? His claim is that Joe had him fired because he was looking into money laundering operations by Hunter.

BREAKING: Fired Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin FILES FEDERAL COMPLAINT Against Joe Biden

Know any other good jokes?

 

[SmokeALib]

Besides that you need to go get your facts straight, Shokin NEVER claimed to have been investigating Biden's son himself, only the company he worked for.

He didn't, huh?

Viktor Shokin: Biden outraged we seized Burisma assets | One America News Network

No, he didn't. Do yourself a favor and use real news sources. OAN is a fucking joke with no integrity.

Shokin claimed (with absolutely no evidence) that he wanted to interview Hunter about Burisma at the time he was fired, not that he was investgating Hunter personally.

The case on Burisma was 2 years dormant at the time and had to do with 2010-2012 period, well before Hunter joined the company.

You're the fuckin joke. OAN is straight up news. Sounds like Rachel got your tongue.

OANN is propaganda. Nothing more.

The Truth will always be propaganda to the leftist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I doubt it.

Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.

Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.

This is how Trump wins reelection in November.



He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.

ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.

​

Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.

In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.

Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.

The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.

Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:

“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”​

Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”

It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”

When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.

The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.

It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.

Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.




Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.

Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.

What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.

Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.

And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly. ..

Witnesses with no first hand information, even Kangaroos don't do that.

... The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.

It was all a bid farce by a Mad House Drunk With Arrogated Power. Now so shamefully repudiated that Crazy Nancy committed a felony, deliberately, in full view of the Nation.

That's where the fortune telling came into the impeachment. They couldn't say they impeached Trump for something that Obama did, and Joe on video laughing about it. So they made up this little story that Biden was Trump's rival, even though any honest person knows that wasn't true. We won't know for a couple of months who Trump will be facing. And if Biden is not chosen, I wonder if the Democrat leadership will offer Trump a public apology for impeaching him on something that never existed, such as Biden being his rival?

Any honest person knows that Biden was seen by Trump as his chief political rival. E-mails that show Trump's state of mind are being withheld by Trump's administration. The question is what is he hiding? If they were exculpatory, they would have been made public.

Trump had his emails bleach bitted.

How does one predict his rival almost a year before the nomination? Maybe Trump can tell me the lotto numbers next draw?

Now that Biden is likely not Trump's rival, when are the Democrats going to offer a public apology to Trump for impeaching him on false claims since Biden is nearly out of the race?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Zelensky is not going to get involved in this.

Which is exactly why the Democrats charged Trump with this phony impeachment.

The aid was released once it became public knowledge.

The aid was released well ahead of schedule. Did the Thought Police tell you what Trump was thinking when he released the aid?

Trump wanted a phony investigation but the sordid affair became public. Even Mulvaney confirms the quid pro quo.

No, what he said is that he was misconstrued in his words. More lying MSM.

It is abuse of power as pressuring a foreign country to investigate a political rival is not a part of any legitimate foreign policy.

Yet it was okay when Biden actually did it.

 

[White 6]

It was a coup. Just because thousands of people haven't been killed doesn't mean it wasn't one.

Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.

I doubt it.

Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.

Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.

This is how Trump wins reelection in November.



He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.

ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.

​

Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.

In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.

Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.

The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.

Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:

“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”​

Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”

It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”

When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.

The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.

It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.

Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.

Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.

Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.

What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.

Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.

And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly.

This debate is back and forth, back and forth. It reminds me of an old George Carling joke: When two people are in an elevator and one of them farts, they both know who did it.

We all read the transcript. We all know what Trump said, so when you on the left keep repeating the lies, it's not going to make us believe them.

Trump never threatened aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky stated he felt no pressure from President Trump.
Biden was not Trump's rival. It was almost a year before their nominee would be selected.
The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.

If you honestly read the transcript, it proves that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to open a phony investigation. We also have Giuliani's attempts to do the same and now trying to palm off Russian misinformation.

Trump did threaten to withhold aid. Giuliani's effort was ongoing well before the call.
Zelensky is not going to get involved in this.
Biden is running for the same office Trump is.
The aid was released once it became public knowledge.
Trump wanted a phony investigation but the sordid affair became public. Even Mulvaney confirms the quid pro quo.
It is abuse of power as pressuring a foreign country to investigate a political rival is not a part of any legitimate foreign policy.

They know Bee. They just don't want to admit, specifically because they do know, and that would mean they are just as corruptly pursuing their own purposes as their corrupt leader.

 

[White 6]

What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.

Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.

And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly. ..

Witnesses with no first hand information, even Kangaroos don't do that.

... The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.

It was all a bid farce by a Mad House Drunk With Arrogated Power. Now so shamefully repudiated that Crazy Nancy committed a felony, deliberately, in full view of the Nation.

That's where the fortune telling came into the impeachment. They couldn't say they impeached Trump for something that Obama did, and Joe on video laughing about it. So they made up this little story that Biden was Trump's rival, even though any honest person knows that wasn't true. We won't know for a couple of months who Trump will be facing. And if Biden is not chosen, I wonder if the Democrat leadership will offer Trump a public apology for impeaching him on something that never existed, such as Biden being his rival?

Any honest person knows that Biden was seen by Trump as his chief political rival. E-mails that show Trump's state of mind are being withheld by Trump's administration. The question is what is he hiding? If they were exculpatory, they would have been made public.

Trump had his emails bleach bitted.

How does one predict his rival almost a year before the nomination? Maybe Trump can tell me the lotto numbers next draw?

Now that Biden is likely not Trump's rival, when are the Democrats going to offer a public apology to Trump for impeaching him on false claims since Biden is nearly out of the race?

He was his chief rival at the time. You know it, just as Trump knew it. You are a pain in the ass, but you ain't dumb. You are a strategy guy. OK. The strategy worked, deny, obscure, deny, point fingers somewhere else, deny, etc. Senator Alexander, thought it best to let it be resolved by the next election, but at least he acknowledge the wrongdoing. I guess you can do that when you are retiring. I still like the man. Been voting for Lamar since 1972. I knew what he thought of the Presidents actions. I have known this was how he would probably go since his letter of 9, December.

 

[busybee01]

His career is over.

Among his fellow rangers he was known for being a 'chow thief', 'lazy', and for going outside the chain of command - which led to his fellow Rangers voting for him to be released from the Ranger program. Due to his ability with languages (reportedly) he got pushed through the program anyway. Still, his fellow Rangers state he was not very trusted.

I am not attempting to slight his choice to serve or his service - just relating what his fellow Rangers have stated.

"Chow Thief" - Rangers Wanted Alexander Vindman Removed from Ranger School

He demonstrated his willingness to go outside the chain of Command and how he does not give much reason for people to trust him. It is well within the President's right to request that he be re-assigned, no longer on his team, as a President needs people around him he can trust. He proved to his Commander and Chief he can't be trusted.

He stepped into the spotlight, and it did not go well. He, his actions, his career, his reputation - all came to light / under scrutiny. I fully, reasonably, realistically expect him to retire before the end of the year.

His career is hardly over. What we have is rumor and innuendo.. Col Vindman has proven to be a excellent soldier who has been a asset to the military and our country. Trump is a yellow dog coward. Interesting all of this comes out after he testifies. The question is whether this is a coordinated effort to discredit Col Vindmann. Those fellow rangers need to be court-martialed and drummed out of the service.

Chain of command is so much bullshit. You are just parroting Trump. These are the facts.
"It’s also true that Morrison said that Vindman did not follow the chain of command when Vindman reported his concerns about Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky to lawyers at the NSC instead of Morrison. Morrison said he would have preferred that Vindman came to him first, but it was not unusual for him not to do so because of the way things worked under Hill, who was Vindman’s supervisor before Morrison.

Morrison had only been Vindman’s supervisor for a little more than a week at the time the call between the presidents took place.

“My predecessor had a different style for managing her staff than I do,” Morrison said during his private testimony in October. “She did not have the same view of how reporting through the chain of command should work.”

Fact-Checking Trump's Defense for Removing Vindman

Whistleblowers should be protected and he clearly is a whistleblower. Trump is retaliating because he testified before Congress as he clearly should have given he took a oath to defend the Constitution. Trump only wants yes men and people who will cover up his criminal conduct. Trump is a terrorist pure and simple.

 

[busybee01]

Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.

I doubt it.

Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.

Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.

This is how Trump wins reelection in November.



He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.

ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.

​

Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.

In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.

Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.

The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.

Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:

“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”​

Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”

It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”

When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.

The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.

It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.

Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.

Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.

Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.

What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.

Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.

And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly.

This debate is back and forth, back and forth. It reminds me of an old George Carling joke: When two people are in an elevator and one of them farts, they both know who did it.

We all read the transcript. We all know what Trump said, so when you on the left keep repeating the lies, it's not going to make us believe them.

Trump never threatened aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky stated he felt no pressure from President Trump.
Biden was not Trump's rival. It was almost a year before their nominee would be selected.
The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.

If you honestly read the transcript, it proves that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to open a phony investigation. We also have Giuliani's attempts to do the same and now trying to palm off Russian misinformation.

Trump did threaten to withhold aid. Giuliani's effort was ongoing well before the call.
Zelensky is not going to get involved in this.
Biden is running for the same office Trump is.
The aid was released once it became public knowledge.
Trump wanted a phony investigation but the sordid affair became public. Even Mulvaney confirms the quid pro quo.
It is abuse of power as pressuring a foreign country to investigate a political rival is not a part of any legitimate foreign policy.

They know Bee. They just don't want to admit, specifically because they do know, and that would mean they are just as corruptly pursuing their own purposes as their corrupt leader.

The voters see who the corrupt leader is. It is Donald Trump.

 

[busybee01]

View attachment 305741

/---/ So getting shot in combat gives you a free pass to lie, deceive, twist and distort?
What lies did Rush spread?

Trump didn't serve. Col Vindmann told the truth to Congress.
Rush Limbaugh has been the fence for every Trump lie.

No. In this Great Nation we don't have Lieutenant Colonels dictating foreign policy, if that is what you are looking for, you might want to go find a Banana Republic.

He reported what he heard. Pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival is not a legitimate foreign policy.

 

[busybee01]

Besides that you need to go get your facts straight, Shokin NEVER claimed to have been investigating Biden's son himself, only the company he worked for.

He didn't, huh?

Viktor Shokin: Biden outraged we seized Burisma assets | One America News Network

No, he didn't. Do yourself a favor and use real news sources. OAN is a fucking joke with no integrity.

Shokin claimed (with absolutely no evidence) that he wanted to interview Hunter about Burisma at the time he was fired, not that he was investgating Hunter personally.

The case on Burisma was 2 years dormant at the time and had to do with 2010-2012 period, well before Hunter joined the company.

You're the fuckin joke. OAN is straight up news. Sounds like Rachel got your tongue.

OANN is propaganda. Nothing more.

The Truth will always be propaganda to the leftist.

You have no clue what the truth is.