Liberal Forum

Apparently the talking point they are settling on is that Bolton is being 'disloyal' to King Sniffles.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2020 ... ssion=true

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 5:53 am » wrote:

Misty » 27 Jan 2020 4:40 pm » wrote:Check this out Precious.

Republican Senators Pushed for Ukraine Reforms at Same Time as Joe Biden
Run, Forrest, run!

The problem wasn't that Biden was pushing for reform, psycho. How utterly **** ridiculous.
The problem was that his son made a huge amount of money trading on his name, which stunned not only Ukrainian officials but much of the world.
Hunter Biden made considerably more than board members of huge American corporations, with zero experience. His presence on the board undermined US efforts to end corruption in Ukraine.
Biden blatantly lied about it, claiming he didn't know.
And increasing information is coming out making it probable that Shokin WAS investigating Burisma, meaning that Biden lied about that, too.
And the rest of the Biden family traded on his name, with his assistance in the White House making huge amounts of money.
Most or all with zero experience in those fields.
Gosh, didn't Trump promise to drain the swamp of sleazy deals like this?

I see you have your Trumplican talking point lies down cold.
I'm at amazed at how much **** you were able to cram into one post.

How ironic that Pam Bondi who took a $25,000 bribe from Sniffles to drop the Trump University lawsuit in Florida had the balls to stand in front of the Senate and complain that Hunter Biden is corrupt for taking a position in a Ukrainian gas company, when he had no experience in that area and does not speak the language.

How much do you think Bondi was paid by the the government of Qatar to work as a foreign agent for them?
And how much do you think she got paid as a lobbyist for a Kuwaiti firm?

But that's different.
I'm sure that she has vast knowledge about the Middle East and speaks fluent Arabic.


Here you go Precious:

A contract amendment shows that her firm was paid $115,000 a month for the work she and a second lobbyist performed for the Qatari embassy.

The lobbying firm she worked for was paid $300,000 this year to lobby the White House, National Security Council, State Department and Congress.

https://apnews.com/d533bfca6c934034be0ed745cad8c611

Kinda makes Hunter Biden look like a piker, doesn't it?

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 11:57 am » wrote:
What part of my post was a lie, psycho?

GOD you are STUPID I mean it is just STAGGERING how STUPID you are. For one Trump HAS BEEN IMPEACHED therefore BY DEFINITION he committed and impeachable act you PATHETIC MORON. There is much more your LIES and DELUSIONS are many and varied but just right off the BAT TRAITOR...

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 11:51 am » wrote:

Misty » 28 Jan 2020 11:16 am » wrote:I believe John Bolton, blah, blah

We haven't heard one single word from Bolton himself. Weird how you shriek in fake outrage about it, given how you refuse to accept an actual transcript of Trump's phone call.

There is no actual transcript of Sniffles' phone call with Zelensky.
It says right on the first page that it is NOT a transcript, so why do you continue to tell that lie?

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 11:51 am » wrote:No impeachable act.

No crime.

Polly want a cracker?

BTW, what crimes did Joe or Hunter Biden commit?

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 11:51 am » wrote:If Bolton was so important to hear from, why didn't House Impeachment Clowns do their **** jobs and go to court to hear from him?

If Sniffles did nothing wrong, why didn't he allow Bolton or anyone else to testify?

Riddle me this you gaping asshole............

The Republicans controlled Congress in 2015, when all this supposedly corrupt stuff with Biden and his son went down.

So how many hearings did they hold on that?

Oh, that's right.
Zero.

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 5:46 am » wrote:

Misty » 27 Jan 2020 7:59 pm » wrote:Apparently the talking point they are settling on is that Bolton is being 'disloyal' to King Sniffles.

Why is decades of ethical behavior by public officials a "Talking Point," psycho?
Laura Ingraham pointed out that Gates waited until after Obama's re-election before he published his book. Bolton should have done the same.
Presidents deserve confidentiality from their advisers for a period of time.

Not if they are breaking the law.
Speaking of confidentiality, this is how you waive executive privilege.



Executive privilege is the right of the president to maintain confidential communications with his advisers.

Sniffles waived that right when he spoke publicly about his communications with Bolton.

A great rant by Chris Hayes.
He made some very good points.

Chris Hayes says that even if Hunter Biden was suspected of wrongdoing in his relationship with Burisma, as Trump's defense team is alleging, there's no reason for Trump to deal with that by requiring Ukraine to investigate it in exchange for aid.

"We do not sic foreign systems of justice on American citizens... . if there is an actual predicate for some sort of investigation, there are processes by which that is pursued."

VIDEO

Zeets2 » 28 Jan 2020 3:20 pm » wrote:

Misty » 27 Jan 2020 2:31 pm » wrote:This why FOX News TRUMP TV viewers are so uniformed.

Gee, do you think maybe that could be because NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN WATCHING IT?!?!? And just MAYBE the regular ratings of CNN and MSNBC are so poor, that even programming that so few people are watching gives them BETTER RATINGS than they normally would get? Did it ever cross your feeble mind that Fox News DIDN'T WANT to air this clown show in full BECAUSE THEIR RATINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER for their regular cast of programs?

Do you care to bet how happy Fox News is that they DIDN'T do so, after seeing the horrible ratings the clown show got? Take a look at some of the headlines:

Impeachment trial gets lower ratings than Jeopardy! on a bad night Washington Examiner

Impeachment Ratings Collapse as Trump’s Job Approval Hits Record Highs Breitbart

Ratings Show Americans Don’t Care About the Impeachment Trial Enough to Watch It NY Intelligencer

FAIL: CNN Couldn’t Even Get 1 Million Viewers for Impeachment Show Trials Washington Sentinal

Fox News Beats All Cable and Broadcast Networks in Trump Impeachment Trial Ratings on Day 1 The Wrap

TV Ratings Show Hardly Anyone Is Watching Impeachment Hearings Gateway Pundit

CNN’s Ratings Take Nosedive During Impeachment Week Red State

Looks to me like you should give yourselves a hand for discovering the programming that would ACTUALLY LOWER YOUR REGULAR **** RATINGS!!! I've got an idea! Maybe they'll qualify for a Participation Trophy for Losers!

Why should we give a **** about the TV ratings?
You sound just like Sniffles The Clown.

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 2:44 pm » wrote:

Misty » 28 Jan 2020 1:00 pm » wrote:

THE GAPING ASSHOLE SAID: We haven't heard one single word from Bolton himself. Weird how you shriek in fake outrage about it, given how you refuse to accept an actual transcript of Trump's phone call.

There is no actual transcript of Sniffles' phone call with Zelensky.
It says right on the first page that it is NOT a transcript, so why do you continue to tell that lie?

Except that there was sworn testimony that it was full and accurate.

By who?
Not Lt. Colonel Vindman.

White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president and was alarmed, testified that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

LIAR!

Here we go..........

Termin8tor » 29 Jan 2020 6:13 am » wrote:What crimes did the Impeachment Clown Show Managers accuse Trump of, psycho?
None.

Could anybody possibly be this stupid?
How many times do you have to be told that you don't have to violate any specific statute to be impeached?
There were no federal statutes codified into law until the first Congress in 1789.

BTW, what crimes did Joe Biden and his son commit, and why didn't the Republican controlled Congress investigate them in 2015 or 2016?

It's not like they were shrinking violets when it came to investigating anyone in the Obama administration.

You know why they didn't investigate Biden?
Because there was bipartisan support in Congress to fire the prosecutor in Ukraine.

A 2016 letter, sent by members of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was signed by Republican Sens. Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson.

And Hunter Biden taking seat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company may have been swampy, but it was not illegal.

Zeets2 » 29 Jan 2020 7:24 am » wrote:

We're going through an impeachment, and this is what you care about?
TV ratings?

Termin8tor » 29 Jan 2020 6:22 am » wrote:What crimes did the House Impeachment Clowns put in their bill?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

How many federal crimes were codified into law before the Constitution was signed?

Trump's lawyers gave thousands to Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz before the impeachment trial began.

President Trump’s legal team made numerous campaign contributions to Republican senators overseeing the impeachment trial.

Former independent counsels Ken Starr and Robert Ray, who both investigated former President Bill Clinton ahead of his impeachment, contributed thousands of dollars to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last year before they joined the president’s team, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CFPR).

Starr, who lamented that “we are living in … the age of impeachment” during the trial on Monday and accused Democrats of waging a “domestic war,” gave $2,800 to McConnell in July 2019, according to CFPR.

Ray, who wanted to indict Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair but now claims Trump has been vindicated by the transcript of his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, contributed the maximum $5,600 to McConnell in September 2019, according to the report.

The contributions came months before McConnell bragged to Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would be in “total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate.”

“Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” he said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

Starr also contributed $2,700 to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in 2017. Graham has been one of the most ardent Trump defenders in the Senate and previously pushed for Republicans to dismiss the impeachment charges against Trump without a trial.

Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow has contributed to multiple Republican senators over the last two decades, according to CFPR, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.

The right-wing Washington Times noted that “no Republican has been more active in defense of President Trump during the impeachment trial than Sen. Ted Cruz.”

Thune has accused Democrats of presenting an “especially partisan” case and rejected calls for new witnesses, arguing the record is “pretty complete.”

Sekulow, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin all also gave thousands to Sen. Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, according to CFPR.

Ironically, Romney has been one of the most vocal Republicans pressing for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify after his leaked book manuscript blew up Trump’s trial defense.

Romney’s comments drew criticism from fellow Republicans, like Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., who accused him of trying to “appease the left” by “calling witnesses who will slander” Trump.

Trump himself came under fire after he launched a fundraising committee effort to raise money for vulnerable Republican senators ahead of his impeachment trial.

Trump raised money for several vulnerable Republicans who expressed support for him ahead of the trial but snubbed others, including Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has said she may be open to witnesses.

Along with raising money for senators who will decide his fate, Trump has also been accused of threatening Republicans after a Trump confidant told CBS News that senators were warned: “vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike.”

Senators like Collins vehemently denied that any Republican was threatened by Trump but Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who is a member of Trump’s defense team, confirmed to CBS News on Monday that any senator who votes against Trump may “face political repercussions.”

“I mean listen, I don’t want to speak for my Senate colleagues. But there are always political repercussions for every vote you take,” Meadows said. “There is no vote that is higher profile than this.”

That time when John Bolton asked the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee to investigate the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.



https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press- ... 413B9ECD5D

Misty » 29 Jan 2020 10:41 am » wrote: We're going through an impeachment, and this is what you care about?
TV ratings?

I don't care about it in the least, other than to cheer for their continued collapse! But then, I'm not a DEMOCRAT, who are all counting on a huge number of Americans to rise up when they see the impeachment of the President and be eager to vote him out of office in November! If I WAS a Democrat, I'd be VERY worried that my party was once again caught thrashing about and grabbing at any straw no matter how insignificant, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T BEAT TRUMP IN AN ELECTION!!'

And you know damn well that if this sham trial had gotten huge ratings, you'd be delirious with joy because it would be a sign that people actually ARE ready to throw Trump overboard! But it was YOU that tried to make the point that Fox News was attempting to "cover up" the trial for the silly reason that they didn't want people to see it! And that's just plain dumb when the next two channels on the dial ARE covering it full time! But that's the desperation you're stuck in, isn't it?

Termin8tor » 28 Jan 2020 11:59 am » wrote:.....why didn't House Impeachment Clowns do their **** jobs as proscribed by the Constitution?

This came up today in the question and answer session.

Trump Tweeted the lie that the House never even asked Bolton to testify.

Adam Schiff pointed out that they asked Bolton to testify and he said no.
And his lawyer said that if they subpoenaed him, he would sue, just like his deputy Kupperman did, and Don McGahn did.

Schiff also pointed out that while Sniffles' lawyers are saying that the Committee should have gone through the courts, this is what his DOJ is arguing in court in the McGahn case, which has been dragging on for over 9 months now.



So Trump's lawyers argued this week in the impeachment trial that the House should have fought harder in the courts to enforce their subpoenas and the Senate shouldn't condone their negligence by bringing in new witnesses.

But what they don't tell you is that the DOJ is arguing in court that the House doesn't have any legal grounds to bring lawsuits to enforce subpoenas.

Zeets2 » 29 Jan 2020 1:37 pm » wrote:

Misty » 29 Jan 2020 10:41 am » wrote:We're going through an impeachment, and this is what you care about?
TV ratings?

I don't care about it in the least, other than to cheer for their continued collapse! But then, I'm not a DEMOCRAT, who are all counting on a huge number of Americans to rise up when they see the impeachment of the President and be eager to vote him out of office in November! If I WAS a Democrat, I'd be VERY worried that my party was once again caught thrashing about and grabbing at any straw no matter how insignificant, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T BEAT TRUMP IN AN ELECTION!!'

And you know damn well that if this sham trial had gotten huge ratings, you'd be delirious with joy because it would be a sign that people actually ARE ready to throw Trump overboard! But it was YOU that tried to make the point that Fox News was attempting to "cover up" the trial for the silly reason that they didn't want people to see it! And that's just plain dumb when the next two channels on the dial ARE covering it full time! But that's the desperation you're stuck in, isn't it?

Except FOX News TRUMP TV viewers don't watch CNN or MSNBC, because your dear leader has told them they're FAKE NEWS and can't be trusted, even though he watches them all the time.

The only you got right is that this is indeed a SHAM trial.
The outcome was predetermined before it even started.

Misty » 29 Jan 2020 1:43 pm » wrote: Except FOX News TRUMP TV viewers don't watch CNN or MSNBC, because your dear leader has told them they're FAKE NEWS and can't be trusted, even though he watches them all the time.


But if I WANTED to watch it, it was right there available to me, and WITHOUT the annoying leftist commentators! Why can't you just admit that you're jealous of the ratings numbers that Fox always gets for their prime-time shows, while CNN and MSNBC have an audience made up of a handful of Trump haters, that barely move the ratings needle? Explain to me why Fox News should pre-empt their best shows for something that obviously very few people care to watch?

The only you got right is that this is indeed a SHAM trial.
Of course it is! And it was the Democrats that forced them to hold it, while knowing full well they could NEVER get Trump removed with the **** pile of hearsay evidence which was all they had!

The outcome was predetermined before it even started.
Just like the House "investigation" was predetermined! There was NEVER enough evidence to even draw up those stupid and meaningless Articles of Impeachment, but did that stop Pelosi? NOPE! You desperate Dems DEMANDED a trial in the Senate, and now that it's failed you still want to whine about it and claim it was unfair! Well, the phony "investigation" was unfair too, so you reap what you sow!