Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's probably one strategy they will consider to get out of this. But you are correct. I think this is boomeranging on them, which of course, they never expected.
Trump Surges with Suburban Women, Beats All 2020 Democrats in Large Donations
When just looking at suburban women, the problem becomes even worse. Trump’s favorability stands at 34% favorable, 61% unfavorable and his job approval is 38% approve, 62% disapprove.
Battleground Poll: Trump’s Suburban Problem - Priorities USA
Another fairly accurate study was already given in here. It showed that Rump received a larger amount of large campaign contributions from large women donations. But when you looked at the totals, the small donations made up the lions share and went to the demos. In fact, overall, Bernie took home the bacon with Mayor Pete coming in a close second. I have no idea where they are getting the idea that there is a surge in Rumps suburban Women donations. I guess Rush and Hannity just made it up and told them to say it.
Then let me tell you what's not made up: Durham turned his investigation criminal. The IG is going to testify to Congress about his report on Dec 11th, which means it will be out well beforehand in a couple of weeks.
Then commies are having their fun now, but our fun is just around the corner.
I say "Let the perp-walking begin!"
Who gives a shit what Jim Jordan says? He's got his ear plugs in, just like you do. The President doesn't have to say it out loud, folks. The President, like any other human, does not have to publicly announce that he is doing it in order for it to be a crime.Right. Making direct quotes of what people said is crazy, while gifs of little creatures laughing is the epitome of realistic.I just have to laugh.It appears that everyone else knows.....except you, RealDumb.
Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm
And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time | Breitbart
And the Liberal elites have admitted what we on the right have said for decades.
1. Had it not been for Trump's election....none of this would be happening!
With Hillary running, the whole rape-apologist program of the Democrats came to the forefront....and they had to pretend that Trump was on the same level (the gutter) as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
Here's the 'divide:' the Democrats with at least a double digit IQ are ready to admit the truth, the rape history that the Right has been revealing about Clinton for...what....decades.
You, a total dunce, are still fighting the war you've lost.
2. Which Liberal outlets are now admitting what we on the Right have said for decades?
The New York Times
MSNBC
The Atlantic
Slate
Vox
Politico
"So the recent wave of liberals “reckoning” with Bill Clinton’s sexual offenses should be put into proper context. It is not the beginning of the end for the Clintons atop the Democratic Party. It’s just the end.
….the mea culpas from Bill’s defenders proliferating through lefty media, from the New York Times to Politico to Vox, are anything but brave. They’re convenient." https://nypost.com/2017/11/16/dems-...ses-is-the-final-nail-in-the-clintons-coffin/
3. On the other side....lying low-life imbeciles.....you.....who can't keep up with the program.
“Maher asked, "Could Bill Clinton, if he had done what he did in 1998, survive today or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?"
Farrow explained, "Bill Clinton is a different conversation. He has been credibly accused of rape. That is nothing to do with gray areas. That is, you know, I think the Juanita Broadderick claim has been overdue for revisiting."
Farrow also said that he is "heartened by the fact that people now routinely express outrage about Bill Clinton and particularly those more serious allegations about him." Ronan Farrow Says Juanita Broaddrick's Rape Claim Against Bill Clinton Should Be Revisited
Is there anything....ANYTHING.....you Leftists have been right about?Yeah, Trump told him she was bad news, and he agreed. Kissy kissy.Facts First: Volodymyr Zelensky did say Yovanovitch’s attitude was “far from the best”
Fact check: Trump tweets Ukraine's president spoke unfavorably of Yovanovitch. Here's what we know.
There you go, dumbass! You should have already known.
Zelensky said, “It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%.”
Don't mind her, dementia is taking it's toll.
How's this?
“Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’
…Democrats failed to prove a quid pro quo took place during President Donald Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
"No one's testified there's been a quid pro quo," Jordan explained. "Everyone's got second, third, fourth-hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn't think anything was improper or illegal in the call. Ms. Williams didn't think anything improper or illegal happened in the call."
The congressman reminded Brennan of one important tidbit, the same one he has made in the past: the four facts surround the call have not changed.
"That's the funny thing about facts. They don't change.
1.The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of assertion of dollars for an investigation on the call.
2.We have the two guys on the call. President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure and no linkage," he explained.
3. "My point is that he [Zelensky] didn't know that their aid was held up at the time of the call.
4. And, most importantly, they didn't do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released." Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’
Better?
He's got ya, alright. When are you going to realize you're being played?It was, according to Zelensky, Trump who told him that. Why would Trump say something like that? In her testimony Friday, it was really clear she was positive and hopeful about the new administration in Ukraine. I never heard a whisper of a word that in any way was negative toward Zelensky.What did he say?
That Yovanovitch supported the previous president, not him.
.
So you think she was telling the truth? Who would lie after they were fired?
noDid Obama try to bribe the president of Ukraine?Of course, none of this is anything but political gossip. Marie Yovanovitch, the Ukraine ambassador who had been dismissed, testitfied the Obama administration had also been concerned about the Bidens' involvement in corruption in Ukraine and had tried to cover up the facts.
That's probably one strategy they will consider to get out of this. But you are correct. I think this is boomeranging on them, which of course, they never expected.
Trump Surges with Suburban Women, Beats All 2020 Democrats in Large Donations
When just looking at suburban women, the problem becomes even worse. Trump’s favorability stands at 34% favorable, 61% unfavorable and his job approval is 38% approve, 62% disapprove.
Battleground Poll: Trump’s Suburban Problem - Priorities USA
Another fairly accurate study was already given in here. It showed that Rump received a larger amount of large campaign contributions from large women donations. But when you looked at the totals, the small donations made up the lions share and went to the demos. In fact, overall, Bernie took home the bacon with Mayor Pete coming in a close second. I have no idea where they are getting the idea that there is a surge in Rumps suburban Women donations. I guess Rush and Hannity just made it up and told them to say it.
Then let me tell you what's not made up: Durham turned his investigation criminal. The IG is going to testify to Congress about his report on Dec 11th, which means it will be out well beforehand in a couple of weeks.
Then commies are having their fun now, but our fun is just around the corner.
I say "Let the perp-walking begin!"
Oh it will begin. Starting with Rudy and his band of criminals and it may even end up with Rump for contempt of Congress and a few other little tidbits that are definitely impeachable without a doubt. But first, they go after Rudy and his band of criminals. And that also involves Barr. It's going to be a little tough for Barr filing charges while the NY Federal Court is trying him.
Because their job is not to determine impeachable behavior. That is the job of congress.The Panel Of 'Witnesses' Was Asked Directly:TheProgressivePatriot said:NOTHING that Biden may have done will undo what Trump has done. NOTHING
"Was There Anything Impeachable In That Call ??"
View attachment 290504
View attachment 290505
Thank you for the article! It really seems, though, that Chalupa was looking into the same set of affairs that ultimately got Paul Manafort arrested. She smelled a rat and she was right, wasn't she? Trump ditched Manafort fast--perhaps he smelled a rat, too. This is really a story about Manafort, not Trump. Remember, Mueller didn't find any reason to think Trump was in on it.What DNC working with Ukrainians to dig dirt on Trump? Can I have a little more information on that?Did you read your link? He said it after Trump brought her up. Zelensky would do or say anything Trump wanted him to...Trump was extorting him after all.
Why would the State Department tell Yovanovich that she did nothing wrong if she had lost the confidence of the host country?
We know how this played out. Yovanovich pushed back against the "drug deal" that the "Three Amigos" were scheming and so she had to be removed to let Rick Perry secure Ukrainian drilling rights for his donors and to make conspiracy theories come to life to make Trump look like Russia didn't help him win. ( they did)
It's disgusting how all those politicians pat each other's back. They ALL did the great job and service to the country. Yeah, right.
She was Obama holdover. That alone is enough to replace her. Yet, she was badmouthing president that she was representing in Ukraine. That is another reason. So who was smearing whom in this case?
She should've been fired the moment Trump walked into White House for simple reason that she was there during time that Ukrainians were working with DNC against Trump and she did nothing about it, even more, I think she had a role in it.
Yovanovich has been in the State Dept since Reagan. Technically she's a Reagan holdover.
Oh, and the accusation that she was badmouthing Trump comes from a bunch of people paid off by Dmytro Firtash, who is currently fighting extradition to the US for Ukrainian Corruption. As was said in the hearing, you can't fight corruption without pissing off corrupt people.
OK, let's say she didn't badmouth Trump.
Tell me, what Ambassador Yovanovich did when she learned that DNC is working with Ukrainians to dig dirt on Trump?
What, you didn't know that Ukraine admitted their involvement and meddling in US elections?
Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused ‘Meddling’ in U.S. Election - NYTimes
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - Politico
Now, tell me, why would Ukraine work with DNC against Trump, and in favor of Hillary Clinton?
Imagine, had Trump had the 'whistleblower' arrested as a spy.....
Obama did just that.
The Obama administration had 8 whistleblowers. President Obama handled each one the same way - he had the FBI bust into their home, arrest them, and he then prosecuted them for espionage. Of course the biased media kept quiet and looked the other way. Their were a few exceptions. Here's one news report on it:
War on whistleblowers?
Bet you didn't know that.
What did they blow the whistle on? I watched the video and it never said.
The whistleblower claimed Donald Trump solicited a foreign country to help intervene in the 2020 election and that the White House sought to cover it up.
And to date there has been no evidence presented to support that claim. The evidence that has been presented so far shows Obama was just as worried about the Bidens' involvement in corruption in Ukraine but tries to hide the facts from the public and President Trump is determined to expose the facts to the public.
Obama officials wary of Hunter Biden’s big-money job, ousted Ukraine ambassador admits
There is plenty of impeachment worthy evidence. The White House memo recording Donald Trump’s July phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskiy is damning enough even without witnesses. The witnesses we have heard so far have provided details following the phone call and leading up to the firing of the Ukraine ambassador without cause to clear the way for Juliana. We heard the response of administration staff to the phone conversation. Over the next couple of weeks we will hear from people in the White House. A staff member in the OMB will testify as to the reason for freezing the military funds. Sondland's testimony will confirm the Taylor testimony. Others will testify to the securing of the memo of the conversation, the lack of required notification to congress of freezing of the funds, and possible witness tampering. Potentially, the most damning witness may be Bolton.
Of course, none of this is anything but political gossip. Marie Yovanovitch, the Ukraine ambassador who had been dismissed, testitfied the Obama administration had also been concerned about the Bidens' involvement in corruption in Ukraine and had tried to cover up the facts.
Obama officials wary of Hunter Biden’s big-money job, ousted Ukraine ambassador admits
The facts that President Trump also shared Obama's concerns about the Bidens' involvement in corruption in Ukraine cannot possibly provide a rational basis for an impeachment inquiry, and the fact that Obama was so worried about what the Bidens were doing in Ukraine,certainly does provide a reasonable basis for an investigation and to investigate the actions of a possibly corrupt US official in a foreign country would require the cooperation of that country's government.
If Obama's fears and Trump's suspicions that the Bidens acted corruptly in Ukraine are proved true by the investigation it would clearly benefit Trump and hurt the Democrats in next year's election, and that is the whole reason for the impeachment inquiry, because if the Democrats believed these suspicions of corrupt behavior were baseless, the investigation would only help establish Biden as an honest man, which none of us really believe he is. The very passion with which the Dems in Congress are pursuing this mishmash of political gossip to try to shape articles of impeachment is a testament to their fears that the investigations of the Bidens might show them both to be corrupt.
Adam Schiff Urges Due Process For... ......Terrorists.....But FUCK TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!
Without the DemonRAT HYPOCRISY, THEY HAVE NOTHING!!!!
Who gives a shit what Jim Jordan says? He's got his ear plugs in, just like you do. The President doesn't have to say it out loud, folks. The President, like any other human, does not have to publicly announce that he is doing it in order for it to be a crime.
Because their job is not to determine impeachable behavior. That is the job of congress.The Panel Of 'Witnesses' Was Asked Directly:TheProgressivePatriot said:NOTHING that Biden may have done will undo what Trump has done. NOTHING
"Was There Anything Impeachable In That Call ??"
View attachment 290504
View attachment 290505
Why does the GOP have such a hard time understanding how the impeachment process works?
Once again, that is the job of The House of Representatives. They will list his accused crimes in their Articles of Impeachment. That will happen when the House of Reps is ready for it to happen.Because their job is not to determine impeachable behavior. That is the job of congress.The Panel Of 'Witnesses' Was Asked Directly:TheProgressivePatriot said:NOTHING that Biden may have done will undo what Trump has done. NOTHING
"Was There Anything Impeachable In That Call ??"
View attachment 290504
View attachment 290505
Why does the GOP have such a hard time understanding how the impeachment process works?
So what high crime, misdemeanor or treason is Trump accused of committing? Libtards cannot even answer that question!
Once again, that is the job of The House of Representatives. They will list his accused crimes in their Articles of Impeachment. That will happen when the House of Reps is ready for it to happen.Because their job is not to determine impeachable behavior. That is the job of congress.The Panel Of 'Witnesses' Was Asked Directly:TheProgressivePatriot said:NOTHING that Biden may have done will undo what Trump has done. NOTHING
"Was There Anything Impeachable In That Call ??"
View attachment 290504
View attachment 290505
Why does the GOP have such a hard time understanding how the impeachment process works?
So what high crime, misdemeanor or treason is Trump accused of committing? Libtards cannot even answer that question!
Why do you still fail to understand how this works? How any of this works?
Okay, let's investigate the Bidens, but Trump's investigation comes first. You're #2.Of course, none of this is anything but political gossip. Marie Yovanovitch, the Ukraine ambassador who had been dismissed, testitfied the Obama administration had also been concerned about the Bidens' involvement in corruption in Ukraine and had tried to cover up the facts.There is plenty of impeachment worthy evidence. The White House memo recording Donald Trump’s July phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskiy is damning enough even without witnesses. The witnesses we have heard so far have provided details following the phone call and leading up to the firing of the Ukraine ambassador without cause to clear the way for Juliana. We heard the response of administration staff to the phone conversation. Over the next couple of weeks we will hear from people in the White House. A staff member in the OMB will testify as to the reason for freezing the military funds. Sondland's testimony will confirm the Taylor testimony. Others will testify to the securing of the memo of the conversation, the lack of required notification to congress of freezing of the funds, and possible witness tampering. Potentially, the most damning witness may be Bolton.And to date there has been no evidence presented to support that claim. The evidence that has been presented so far shows Obama was just as worried about the Bidens' involvement in corruption in Ukraine but tries to hide the facts from the public and President Trump is determined to expose the facts to the public.The whistleblower claimed Donald Trump solicited a foreign country to help intervene in the 2020 election and that the White House sought to cover it up.What did they blow the whistle on? I watched the video and it never said.
Obama officials wary of Hunter Biden’s big-money job, ousted Ukraine ambassador admits
Obama officials wary of Hunter Biden’s big-money job, ousted Ukraine ambassador admits
The facts that President Trump also shared Obama's concerns about the Bidens' involvement in corruption in Ukraine cannot possibly provide a rational basis for an impeachment inquiry, and the fact that Obama was so worried about what the Bidens were doing in Ukraine,certainly does provide a reasonable basis for an investigation and to investigate the actions of a possibly corrupt US official in a foreign country would require the cooperation of that country's government.
If Obama's fears and Trump's suspicions that the Bidens acted corruptly in Ukraine are proved true by the investigation it would clearly benefit Trump and hurt the Democrats in next year's election, and that is the whole reason for the impeachment inquiry, because if the Democrats believed these suspicions of corrupt behavior were baseless, the investigation would only help establish Biden as an honest man, which none of us really believe he is. The very passion with which the Dems in Congress are pursuing this mishmash of political gossip to try to shape articles of impeachment is a testament to their fears that the investigations of the Bidens might show them both to be corrupt.
Once again, that is the job of The House of Representatives. They will list his accused crimes in their Articles of Impeachment. That will happen when the House of Reps is ready for it to happen.Because their job is not to determine impeachable behavior. That is the job of congress.The Panel Of 'Witnesses' Was Asked Directly:TheProgressivePatriot said:NOTHING that Biden may have done will undo what Trump has done. NOTHING
"Was There Anything Impeachable In That Call ??"
View attachment 290504
View attachment 290505
Why does the GOP have such a hard time understanding how the impeachment process works?
So what high crime, misdemeanor or treason is Trump accused of committing? Libtards cannot even answer that question!
Why do you still fail to understand how this works? How any of this works?
No, you don't seem to understand how this works. I taught this topic for 21 years.
You can't answer the question either, because there simply is "no there there"!
What is your area of expertise? Gerbil smuggling? If so, they have started gnawing on your brain.
Almost showtime. You can watch it here.
WATCH LIVE: Day 3 Of The Trump Impeachment Hearings
Watching the commentary is not required--they don't interrupt during the testimony, which I like. I just shut it off during pee breaks.
Once again, that is the job of The House of Representatives. They will list his accused crimes in their Articles of Impeachment. That will happen when the House of Reps is ready for it to happen.Because their job is not to determine impeachable behavior. That is the job of congress.The Panel Of 'Witnesses' Was Asked Directly:
"Was There Anything Impeachable In That Call ??"
View attachment 290504
View attachment 290505
Why does the GOP have such a hard time understanding how the impeachment process works?
So what high crime, misdemeanor or treason is Trump accused of committing? Libtards cannot even answer that question!
Why do you still fail to understand how this works? How any of this works?
No, you don't seem to understand how this works. I taught this topic for 21 years.
You can't answer the question either, because there simply is "no there there"!
What is your area of expertise? Gerbil smuggling? If so, they have started gnawing on your brain.
Then tell us, teach, how "this works". You realize this is still the inquiry (investigation) phase, right?
Who gives a shit what Jim Jordan says? He's got his ear plugs in, just like you do. The President doesn't have to say it out loud, folks. The President, like any other human, does not have to publicly announce that he is doing it in order for it to be a crime.
Yep, Jim Jordan is so aggressive a presidential boot-licker, he comes dangerously close to licking the leather off Trump's boots.
For anyone with reading abilities, Trump announced the crime, and in plain English: "I would like you to do us a favor though."
As stated before: The usual response to the mention of Javelins should have been:
"The money for assistance has been appropriated. The DoD certified that your country made the required progress, particularly with respect to fighting corruption, for the appropriated funds to be delivered. That process meanders through the bowels of the U.S. bureaucracy, but there are no remaining obstacles to the release of the funds in the coming days."
Any answer other than that would raise alarm in Ukraine, and the ask for a favor doubly so. With that, the extortion attempt is complete. The subsequent ask for investigations of Crowdstrike and the Bidens amounts to soliciting a bribe in the form of a personal political benefit - that is, bribery.
That's the abuse of power right there.
Also of note: Zelensky and his team in all likelihood have written up a complete transcript of the call, likely in both Ukrainian and English, and analyzed every phrase and every syllable. They would have been derelict if they didn't. And so they cannot possibly have missed what the reply to the ask for the Javelins was, consistently, throughout the call - and as such the quid pro quo, Javelins for favors, CrowdStrike and the Bidens, must have been clear to them within hours, if not minutes. As such, the assertion Zelensky did not know the money was withheld, is ludicrous, and it takes a boot-licker's mindset to miss it.
