6 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Oct. 31, 2019, 3:02 p.m.

What in the world is going on?? with you people

Pelosie just said nobody ran for office and was elected with the clear goal of impeachment of Trump

Well maybe Pelosie thought she could get away with this lie but she can't.  Myself and others have seen Pelosis's lie

I think 4 people clearly said in their campaign they wanted to impeach Trump, and at least two videos show the evidence

Maxine Waters is one and AOC is the other. I can't remeber AOC side kick but that is the 3rd and one other escapes my memory

I could be wrong but I think Real Clear Politics dug up the videos

When pressed by Pubs in the commitee testimoney Schifttty clearly did not want some questions answered and would not allow the witness to answer

What kind of a sham gov't do you folks have down there, when Schiftty is clearly running the show???

This is really starting to look bad on the whole bunch of you. The world is watching and no amount of battle ships, jet planes bombers etc. can replace world opinion:

  World opinion is huge and asking why you are doing this. Some will be asking who has the real power in your gov't. Pelosie?? Schiftty?? Maybe we are talking to the wrong people with the real power ???

  because this makes no sense to an outsider like me or anybody in the world, 

1: For allowing such ridiculous things to happen

2:  That such ridiculous things can and do happen

Imagine what it looks like to me?? Some candidates who made it crystal clear, they wanted to be elected so They could impeach your duly elected president. 

And they were actually elected, with this goal in mind

And some talk about corruption in Ukraine??

This is the kettle calling the pot black

Re: Impeachment
By metmike - Oct. 31, 2019, 10:57 p.m.
Like Reply

You hit the bullseye dead center Wayne.

The dems and MSM completely misrepresenting the testimony today.

Using headlines to tell us Something different than what the witness actually testified to and the message he gave is The opposite of the one that CNN and the NYT gave with their headline. Allow me to show you.

This comes from CBS:

White House official on Ukraine call wasn't concerned "anything illegal" occurred

Washington — A top National Security Council official who listened to President Trump's July call with the president of Ukraine told lawmakers he "promptly" told White House lawyers he was concerned details of the call would become public, but did not think "anything illegal was discussed" during the conversation.

"Morrison testified he had "no reason to believe" the Ukrainians knew of a delay in military aid until August 28, and said he was unaware the aid may have been tied to the demand for an investigation into Burisma "

metmike:  So the testimony from this witness completely backfired. We've clearly established that there was no quid pro quo previously, The Ukraine getting their aid and Trump not getting anything in return, proves that. Today's testimony confirmed it by another guy. This guy tells us that the Ukraine did not even know of the minor delay in the aid(and the Ukraine has been telling us that they did not perceive any pressure) 

However, read the headlines that we got from CNN today............same testimony, same guy:

Impeachment deposition: NSC official corroborates testimony linking Ukraine aid to investigations

And from the NYT:

White House Aide Confirms He Saw Signs of a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine

Here is the transcript of the phone conversation again. The dems are trying to make it look like Trump was hiding it and storing it in a secret place, hoping nobody would see it. When asked for it back in September, he provided it immediately for all eyes to see......because there are no crimes to see. None. 

 "Declassified by order of the President' September 24, 2019"

The presidedent of the US is not violating any laws by asking a foreign government to cooperate with our country in an investigation. It happens all the time. The amueller investigation did this. There is no rule that states he can’t do this if the investigation involves corruption of somebody that might run for president in the next election or corruption related to an investigation that targeted him. 

To say this, as the dems/MSM are, would mean only investigations that involved members of his own party are allowed. Corruption is corruption, regardless of who committed it.

The real blatant and biased as has existed in the entire history of our country, designed to affect the 2020 election targeting a political foe is the one currently being used against Trump.

Also trying to affect the results of the 2016 election.....overturning it.

They are doing what they accuse President a Trump of doing........only 100 times worse and using lies, like those of Schiff and sneaky tactics like the planting of a Democrat operative as a whistle blower scheme over something that did not happen based on the phone call and facts....quid quo pro did not happen no matter how many twisted interpretations one side provides.

By TimNew - Nov. 1, 2019, 9:08 a.m.
Like Reply

Pelosi: " No one runs for congress in order to impeach the president"

Schiff: "We take no joy in going down this road".

And,  they said it with straight faces.  True politicians. 

By metmike - Nov. 1, 2019, 11:30 a.m.
Like Reply


People go to their favorite sources for information.

Those sources then set up readers with headlines using verbiage to influence the reader with the message they want told. Headlines are supposed to summarize a main theme or the key element in that article. 

Then, in the article, they will spin and editorialize, putting in things that support what they want the reader to think and leaving out other things........that the reader doesn't know is missing would they?

That  last element is key. 

Let's say that If I was reporting on a football game between the red and blue teams and the red won 35-28 but scored all their points in the 1st and 3rd quarters and I decided to write mostly about the 2nd and 4th quarters in the story and not even acknowledge that points were scored in the 1st and 3rd quarters................and the final score in my football game was not based on actual points scored but my version of telling the game. This is today's universe of the media abusing the freedom of the press.

There were no better examples than earlier this week. We had reporters, stations and articles treating Trump as a bad guy,  in the story of killing the world's most evil criminal. Instead of celebrating, they were upset that something happened to make President Trump look good, sabotaging  their mission. 

They twisted themselves into pretzels spinning bad things out of a really great thing. 

                President Trump-ISIS leader al-Baghdadi dead after US military raid in Syria            


                17 responses |         

                Started by metmike - Oct. 27, 2019, 9:46 a.m.    

Re: Impeachment
By cliff-e - Nov. 1, 2019, 3:53 p.m.
Like Reply

"Here is the transcript of the phone conversation again. The dems are trying to make it look like Trump was hiding it and storing it in a secret place, hoping nobody would see it. When asked for it back in September, he provided it immediately for all eyes to see......because there are no crimes to see. None." -metmike 

I keep hearing the word "transcript" as if it were a "verbatim transcript" but it is actually a "memorandum". There is a difference.

Here is an excerpt from the "memorandum". It's at the bottom of page one right below President Zelenskyy's reply.

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a


Let's see the REAL verbatim transcript or, better yet, hear the actual conversation.

By metmike - Nov. 1, 2019, 5:59 p.m.
Like Reply

You probably think that way because you realize that there is nothing bad in the transcript, so Trump must  have worded the transcript using verbiage to cover up the really, really bad stuff that he actually said.

I would not be surprised at all if there are very minor differences between the transcript and the call. However, there has been widespread agreement from almost everybody testifying that the transcript accurately depicts the phone conversation and differences are insignificant.......even CNN reported that,  so it would be a surprise if the deviations were significant.

However, I think that the MSM, if they can find a couple of words that were left out, will make it a headline story and call it a cover up by President Trump. 

Your wishful thinking that the real phone call will have some sort of crime or impeachable offense is highly unlikely to virtually impossible based on testimony this month from those that heard the call and say otherwise.

While we're on the topic. 

So if the transcript does capture the conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine, what is the crime that Trump committed?

Where is the quid pro quo and when/how was this transaction accomplished?

A delay of a short period in military aid to the Ukraine(which is not unusual) vs Trump getting nothing in return. It doesn't even match up with the legal or ortherwise definition.  If this were filed in court, the judge would read it and throw it out immediately and probably warn the party filing it for harassing the target without substantive evidence.......who might consider a counter suit for slander. 

Quid pro quo

"In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve the exchange of something of value for something else of value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk, a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have given up something of equal value in return."

Saying that Trump "wanted" to do a quid pro quo counts as much as a prosecutor claiming that somebody charged with robbing a bank............that didn't do it and with no evidence that he did it......saying "well, judge, I think personally that he "wanted" to rob the bank so we should convict him of it anyway. 

The law and Constitution doesn't work that way, though the ones violating it, are once again accusing the person they are targeting with doing what they are doing.

By TimNew - Nov. 2, 2019, 7:20 a.m.
Like Reply

Well, it's obvious to me that MM does not subscribe to the doctrine of "thought crime". Nothing that a stint in a re-education camp won't fix.