11-5-2019 New Trump bashing Thread for cliff-e(others)
73 responses | 1 like
Started by metmike - Nov. 5, 2019, 11:16 p.m.

cliff-e continues to take advantage of  threads dedicated to his trolling and Trump bashing. 

This here is the new one for November.

The previous one got close to a record.

                10-5-2019 New Trump bashing Thread for cliff-e(others)         

   62 responses

                 Started by metmike - Oct. 5, 2019, 7:36 p.m.            


If you want to view the older Trump bashing posts go here:

                New Trump Criticizing/bashing Thread for cliff-e(and others)            

                            65 responses |    

                                            Started by metmike - Aug. 22, 2019, 1:16 p.m.            


Here is the previous one:

                Trump bashing thread for cliff-e            

                            53 responses |             

                              Started by metmike - Aug. 5, 2019, 1:35 a.m.            


By TimNew - Nov. 6, 2019, 3:56 a.m.
Like Reply

Notice that the entire case against Trump, in all phases  of the assorted investigations have been based on assumptions and unsubstantiated hearsay. 

By cliff-e - Nov. 6, 2019, 7:55 a.m.
Like Reply

So we're now up to 183 posts on 4 Trump "criticizing" threads started by someone else...seems like a reality subject that continues to live on and can't be wished away. Btw what's (others)? 


I get a kick out of the "Read the Transcripts" t shirts being worn by Cult 45. Many would like to but they've been hidden and not released yet. All we've seen is a "Memoradum" summary of that infamous phone call.

By metmike - Nov. 6, 2019, 12:49 p.m.
Like Reply

"So we're now up to 183 posts on 4 Trump "criticizing" threads started by someone else...seems like a reality subject that continues to live on and can't be wished away. Btw what's (others)?"

This is why we have it cliff .....glad that you are enjoying yourself so much but to give you a reality check, out of those 183 posts, you made 79 of them and metmike made 70 of them, mostly responding to your posts and setting the threads up.

The rest of Marketforum combined over the 3 month period made 24 posts from these 3 threads. So you made 3  times more posts than everybody else combined.

But I'm quite happy with it. You've not made any personal attacks....just posting links that reinforce your belief system that you know will either be responded to by me or read by others, who apparently prefer me to give the responses based on inconvenient authentic facts  which contradict the MSM spinning and misleading from your links.

Sometimes they make a good point.

But this is fun. 

By cliff-e - Nov. 7, 2019, 5:58 p.m.
Like Reply
By cliff-e - Nov. 8, 2019, 8 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 8, 2019, 10:47 a.m.
Like Reply

Great headlines and win for your side cliff!

AG James Secures Court Order Against Donald J. Trump, Trump Children, And Trump Foundation     


The "illegal" activity was not corruption......it was  IN-experienced people(on his political team) running the foundation not following specific law requirements and protocol required by the state of New York.

One of his violations was to call a campaign event a fund raiser. Though it raised money for good causes and the money went there, this was a violation.

So Trump donates 19,000,0000 to charities with less overhead costs than most charities and the democratic attorney general of NY decides to go after him for numerous technicalities that many hundreds  of charities in this country are violating every year.....with impunity. 

The Trump Foundation was a sham. We have no idea how many other foundations are, too.


"The fact that this one was founded and overseen by a presidential candidate who went on to win the presidency led to huge amounts of scrutiny from the press and the AG’s office. How likely was that to happen, absent Trump’s transition into politics? If there are dozens or hundreds of other foundations doing exactly the same thing, how would any of us know?"

But it would be a real shame if our lesson from the Trump Foundation is just “Trump is bad.” The lesson ought to be, “Foundations can be bad and we don’t have a system in place to hold them accountable.”

And the politically motivated attorney general of NY, decides which one that she wants to go after and for what reasons. 

So, is the world and country a better place after Trump donated 20 million to charities from his unconventional charity that used inexperienced people and his campaign when he should not have?

How many crimes were committed here?

None.  There was no corruption.

But they got the intended outcome. 

BTW, I have worked with half a dozen legit charities over the last 30 years, like the Easter Seals, Rescue Mission, Santa Clothes Club:


There's no doubt that Trump had positive political benefits in mind with this particular charity..........but money raised honestly for good causes is money raised regardless of the level of altruism of the entity raising that money for the good causes. 

Where are the headlines that tell us Trump raised 20,000,000 and where the money went?

By cliff-e - Nov. 9, 2019, 5:19 p.m.
Like Reply

No photo description available.

By metmike - Nov. 11, 2019, 3:42 p.m.
Like Reply

No need to lie cliff. The truth works just fine here! (I take that back, Adam Schiff's lying description of the phone call that he read into the record tells us the truth does NOT matter for the hearings).

As I've been saying, a quid pro quo did not happen by definition. The Ukraine did not conduct an investigation and they got their aid.

It doesn't matter if the dems or others "think" that Trump "wanted" a quid pro quo. It never happened................that should be the end of it. Spin  the phone call however you want but the facts show that a quid pro quo, absolutely did not happen. 

Andrew McCarthy: THIS is the impeachment question every Trump supporter should be prepared to answer


Is it an impeachable offense?

"That is the question of the hour. On “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace pressed it on Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas. It is a question every Republican supporter of President Trump should be prepared to answer. Democrats, by contrast, determined that the president was impeachable before he ever darkened the Oval Office door; it’s not worth asking them since their answer preexisted any real or imagined occasion for posing the question."

"Remember, the Ukrainians got their defense aid – which was in addition to defense aid President Trump was already providing to them, aid that President Obama denied for years, with no objection from Democrats, despite Russian aggression. The Ukrainians did not have to agree to investigate the Bidens to get the aid.

Plus, there would have been nothing wrong with Trump’s conditioning aid to a notoriously corrupt country on its commitment to combat corruption generally; nor would there be any impropriety in the president’s asking Ukraine to assist the Justice Department’s ongoing probe of the origins of the Obama administration’s 2016 Trump-Russia investigation – which appears to have had a Ukrainian component (Ukrainian investigative agencies being pressed by American agencies and Democrats to investigate Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign chairman; Ukrainian officials colluding with the Clinton campaign)."

By cliff-e - Nov. 12, 2019, 8:40 a.m.
Like Reply

Cult 45 cronies fleecing the taxpayers again. The 45 swamp gets deeper and deeper.


By cliff-e - Nov. 13, 2019, 6:27 a.m.
Like Reply

Image may contain: 1 person, suit and text

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 10:52 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks much cliff!

Look for the democrats to change the quid pro quo verbiage to bribery as  it makes it look like (to the American people) that they discovered something new(bribery) with the hearings.

Also, the desire for impeachment has lost some steam and they need a new element to the scheme to support the fake high crimes narrative. 

Again, there was no investigation done by the Ukraine and  Trump DID release the previously appropriated military aid in September before the deadline and the Ukraine didn't even know anything about this.  So by the legal  and every legit definition there was not and could not have been a quid pro quo.

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.

metmike: One can say that Trump may have wanted a quid pro quo or that he thought about it but the fact is, it didn't happen and those are just opinions(that I would agree with)

You can't prosecute a guy for robbing a bank because he was thinking about it or because witnesses testify that they think that he wanted to rob the bank.......if no banks were robbed.  

So what is the crime for impeaching?

It used to be colluding with Russia, then Obstruction. Then they contrived this whistleblower scheme which is getting great traction. 

Actually, you might have forgotten, the house voted on impeachment 2 years ago for other items. 

               So the point below is clear..........actually its not a point or opinion, its evidence. The dems started working on impeaching Trump from the day he was elected........before they had anything. And the objective was to take anything they can get, spin it into high crimes with convincing sounding narratives and witnesses who disagree with Trumps policies testifying.

                    Trump impeachment vote fails overwhelmingly                           12/06/2017 02:15 PM EST  

                        The measure drew the support of 58 House Democrats.


By cliff-e - Nov. 13, 2019, 12:30 p.m.
Like Reply

Flash forward to Oct. and the house votes for impeachment INQUIRY.



Also...Cult 45 has been whining for transparency during the process. Today there's even more transparency via publicly televised impeachment hearings and Cult 45 is still whining. Go figure.

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 12:54 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff, keep us posted.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Aha, there's the biggest reason that they changed the verbiage of the charges from quid pro quo to bribery and treason. Thanks!

Maybe you are not aware of this but the secret hearings were done so they could select what testimony and people to use for these public hearings. The didn't want us to hear testimony that contradicted the narrative(that was leaked out every day) so we were not allowed to see ALL the testimony.

We are now seeing democrat selected testimony.  The republicans should get a chance to have witnesses that they select testify.

By TimNew - Nov. 13, 2019, 12:59 p.m.
Like Reply

You would think people would be getting bored with all this.  Dems have launched impeachment efforts against every pub president since Ike, with the exception of Ford who had an abbreviated term.

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime".  

It appears dems have reduced impeachment proceedings to a cheap campaign tactic, and their loyal followers just lap it up.


By GunterK - Nov. 13, 2019, 1:36 p.m.
Like Reply

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 1:42 p.m.
Like Reply


Trump 'cared more about investigations of Biden' than Ukraine policy, says impeachment witness – live

"Bill Taylor says that his staffer overheard Trump asking about ‘investigations’ in Ukraine, during testimony in first day of public impeachment hearing"

So the testimony from this key witness is that, he claims that one of his staffers told him that they overheard Trump asking about investigations in Ukraine.

This is "hearsay". In this particular hearing "hearsay" is clearly allowed. 

Never mind there was zero quid pro quo or evidence that one actually took place. A person told another person who is now telling congress that they heard Trump asking about an investigation.

We already have the whistleblower phone call transcript.......which tells us what we need to know using FACTS. This silly hearsay type testimony is an embarrassment to those using it as evidence, especially the MSM making it part of the headlines in their stories. 

By TimNew - Nov. 13, 2019, 3:25 p.m.
Like Reply

Two phrases we are hearing a lot in the testimony..

"I heard", often based on 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay    ....   and

"In my opinion.."  based on the above referenced hearsay.

When you look up "Kangaroo Court",   this is exactly what you'll see.

Due process does not factor in hearsay or opinion and will result in immediate objections that will be immediately sustained.  Due process involves substantiated fact beyond reasonable doubt.  Being an unpopular president does not disqualify you from these fundamental rights.

And the best part?  The media keeps referring to the testimony with phrases like "Devastating"..    "Earthshattering"...  

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 7:10 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim1

Funny thing that this all started because of corruption in the Ukraine but what its really showing is MUCH worse corruption in the United States.

No wonder the dems wanted the initial testimony in secret..... so that they could send out false narratives about the testimony to tell us that witnesses were providing "smoking gun" testimony to prove the quid pro quo that never happened as part of a marketing scheme to sell the impeachment to the American people.


“Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for,” Taylor said, revealing new information from his prior testimony last month. “At the time I gave my deposition on October 22, I was not aware of this information. I am including it for completeness.”

metmike: How could he not be aware of information about  a conversation months ago that he  had personally with Sonland and never mentioned once during his many hours of testimony on October 22? Why didn't he tell the committee in October about Sonland saying this?. That's what he was there for.

Just this fact by itself is very damaging to his credibility. Memory of this would have been pretty dang clear back in October, when he was given hours to tell it. Suddenly remembering it weeks later is almost impossible to believe. 

"The security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigations," he said he was told.

Republicans sought to undercut the Democratic case by saying the Ukraine aid was ultimately released without any of the investigations sought by Trump, arguing that shows no quid pro quo took place.

Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan referenced three separate meetings Ukraine’s president held with U.S. officials, saying there’s no evidence participants discussed the “linkage” of security assistance dollars in return for an investigation of the Bidens. Taylor confirmed that’s the case.

Jordan also got Taylor to acknowledge he’s never met Trump and stressed that Zelensky did not announce the investigations, saying, “Your clear understanding was obviously wrong, because it didn’t happen.”

Republicans were quick to point out that Taylor was not providing first-hand information. At one point, Taylor said, “I don’t know what President or candidate Trump was thinking about the Ukrainians.”

”The White House further argued that Taylor offered "hearsay of hearsay" and accused House Democrats of basing "this entire sham on what amounts to a game of telephone."

"'Meanwhile, during Kent’s testimony, he clarified that while he had raised concerns of a conflict of interest over Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings during February 2015, he did not see any effort from U.S. officials to protect that firm from criticism or investigation.

“My concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent said during questioning from Republicans. Kent also said he would like to see Ukraine investigate other accusations involving a corrupt prosecutor and Burisma."

metmike: These guys are supposed to be key witnesses for the democrats to use to  impeach Trump?


Glad they opened up the hearings so that the false narratives from the secret hearings last month could be exposed like this.

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 7:35 p.m.
Like Reply

From CNN:

Podcast: Taylor drops a bomb during historic testimony


clickbate journalism!!!!


By cliff-e - Nov. 13, 2019, 8:16 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 10:45 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff,

If you read the statement, you read that he stated that Ukraine,  was unaware that the military aid was being withheld until August 29th.

This makes it impossible for it to be a bribe, quid pro quo or whatever you want to call it before August 29th. This means that the July phone call  that the whistle blower complained about and the dems are claiming is proof of the quid pro quo could not have been a bribe or quid pro quo. The Ukraine has also confirmed this in their statements and stated that they felt no pressure.

It can't be a bribe if the person supposedly being bribed didn't know. How is this not crystal clear by now?

The aid was in fact released on September 11th, delayed from what this witness preferred but this was still before the actual deadline.........with no investigation, so the other end of the fake quid pro quo never happened either. 

As this witness testified, he was unaware of the reason that it was released then but it could not have been because of Ukraine agreeing to an investigation............because they never agreed to do an investigation.

Supposedly, according to CNN/NYT, the Ukraine was on the verge of announcing an investigation into Biden.........on CNN.   Right, and President Obama/H.Clinton always contact FOX news for personal interviews with breaking news to get the best coverage. 

CNN clearly would have been the WORST pick imaginable, as they are one of the "Bidens did nothing wrong" channels. 


Dems’ Impeachment Hearing Fear: Another Dud Like Mueller


Within the Democratic caucus, the sense that they struck out on Mueller is only fueling their already considerable desire to get this round right. “It’s a ‘go big or go home’ mind-set,” said one House Democratic aide. “This is our shot—we shouldn’t blow it and have it be like Mueller.”

A second Democratic aide put it another way: “This is a second chance, a second bite at the apple.” 

metmike: If today's disaster is any indicator, this one is headed in the same direction as the Mueller investigation and testimony debacle.  

The strangest thing is that half the country and MSM accept unlimited, constant investigations into President Trump as if its normal.......even when they come up empty or end up being an embarrassment.  Let's just go on to the next one. 

With all these investigations, you would have thought by now they would have found an impeachable offense ............if there was one.

Had Trump colluded with Russia(as we were told for 2.5 years), he should have been removed from office ASAP.

I don't think that Trump will be re elected with so many enemies and hatred for him and round the clock negative publicity/attacks by the MSM but the dems keep doing and saying such horrible things that if Americans didn't hate Trump so much, he would win by a landslide. The devious tactics and dishonesty  is off the charts. Since the MSM, with their yellow jouralism is part of it, there is nobody to hold them accountable. 

If he does win in 2020. There's a good chance that the dems will try to impeach him again during his 2nd term with another scheme like this that they will try to sell to Americans. 

Very amusing but sad. I feel bad for America. 

By GunterK - Nov. 13, 2019, 10:57 p.m.
Like Reply

metmike, your points are well taken,,, and they are facts. But this is not what the American public hears on TV

Sometimes I wonder.... is Josef Goebbels really dead, or did they bring him over with Operation Paperclip, to work for the Deep State.

By TimNew - Nov. 14, 2019, 3:33 a.m.
Like Reply

Unless, in the unlikely event the dems are saving the best for last, this is not going to turn out well for them. Even the LA Times agrees with me. The dems are not getting close to proof beyond reasonable doubt. They  aren't even going beyond unreasonable doubt.

Of course, when it all falls apart, Schiff, Pelosi, et. al. will spin it as a partisan miscarriage of justice.  They'll be right,of course,  but  for the wrong reasons.


"Day 1 of the public House impeachment hearings on President Trump is in the books, and nothing that happened will move public opinion in a meaningful way. The folks who have wanted to impeach Trump since he won the presidency still do, and the folks who don’t still don’t.

In other words, it’s a lost day for Democrats.

The burden of proof is on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) to do more than secure impeachment, which is all but certain. Their job is to conduct these hearings in a way that moves public opinion to the point that the Senate will convict the president. That means giving Republican senators something that changes their impression of Trump’s conduct of Ukraine foreign policy. What’s alleged may make many members of the GOP uncomfortable, but it doesn’t come remotely close to requiring that the president be removed from office.

The opening-day witnesses — diplomatic officials Bill Taylor and George Kent — testified professionally and with honor, but they failed to deliver a made-for-TV gotcha. Rather, they simply reiterated that they had no firsthand knowledge of the president’s interactions and had not had conversations with the president directly."

By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 8:50 p.m.
Like Reply

Even impeachment ‘rehearsal’ hearings won’t help Dems


"Democrats must have learned from the disastrous public hearings they’ve held in their attempt to impeach President Trump: Now, apparently, their witnesses must audition first behind closed doors before they go live before the TV cameras.

The tryout process follows spectacular backfires during earlier Dem hearings that were supposed to sway public opinion toward impeaching the president but only made Democrats look foolish. Trouble is, even rehearsals don’t seem to help: The Taylor-Kent show turned out to be a huge bore-a-thon, failing to produce any firsthand evidence to warrant impeaching the president.

What a farce. Democrats are desperate to get the public behind them. Yet no matter how many auditions they hold, it’s no substitute for hard evidence."

By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 9:14 p.m.
Like Reply

This story and news completely obliterates the democratic fake quid pro quo narrative. It's over. 

The longer the charade goes on in the form of hearings, the more the democrats have to lie and distort realities to manufacturer something that clearly did not happen according to the ones on the other end..........which is what should matter the most.

There was no investigation of Biden, and the money was released before the deadline. 

The MSM and dems will keep up their sensationizing and attempts to destroy President Trump over this but most of the facts are out there now. People looking at just the facts or with a few objective brain cells, will see this as a witch hunt by corrupt people. 

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister


KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.  

Trump and his allies are accused by Democrat opponents of freezing nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open investigations into Biden, Trump’s main rival for the 2020 presidential race. 

Trump calls the inquiry a witch hunt. 

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union."

By TimNew - Nov. 15, 2019, 5:17 a.m.
Like Reply

Seems we've really hijacked this thread supposedly dedicated to "Trump Bashing". But then, most Trump bashing does not stand up well to actual facts.

By cliff-e - Nov. 15, 2019, 7:40 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 15, 2019, 12:44 p.m.
Like Reply

Your MSM story: "Soon after that, Gordon Sondland, Trump's ambassador to the European Union and a close ally of the president, told top Ukrainian officials their aid likely wouldn't be released unless they launched Trump's politically motivated investigations."

The actual statement from top Ukrainian officials completely contradicts that:

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister


KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.  

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union."

Hmmmm. Who to believe. The MSM and dems telling us what happened to the Urainians or the actual Ukrainians telling us what happened to them from being there and experiencing it.

Let's see. Which source(s) have proven to be objective and non partisan and reliable and would treat Trump fairly and which source(s) would not.

Who to believe. Such a tough choice.(-:

It's always possible that the Ukrainians are covering for Trump........except for the fact that the aid WAS released in early September and there was no investigation, so both ends of the quid quo pro never happened. 

By cliff-e - Nov. 15, 2019, 5:35 p.m.
Like Reply
By cliff-e - Nov. 15, 2019, 5:43 p.m.
Like Reply

The whistle was blown before the aid was released because they got caught attempting to commit a crime and thought they could just sweep the issue under the rug. Here's the timeline.


Also...I keep hearing this..."The Ukrainians got the aid and there was no investigation so everything's fine and dandy" yada yada yada. The legal problem with that argument is that there was a deliberate attempt to commit a crime.


By metmike - Nov. 15, 2019, 6:40 p.m.
Like Reply

Sorry for others here of the need to keep repeating the same thing.

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister


KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.  

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union."

Let's use some common sense, critical thinking here. An example that might help you. 

A person does not get charged with the crime of robbing a bank because people testify that they heard him say that he wanted to rob a particular bank(or in this case, people testify that somebody else told them that they heard him saying that he wanted to rob that bank). If the people running the bank say that they did not get robbed and he is one of their best customers, there is no crime of robbing the bank.  

In addition, if a person was to rob a bank, they would not notify the bank before hand.that would not be part of the crime.  However, with bribery and quid pro quo, the other party MUST be notified and acknowledge this because that is the essence of the act. The party that was supposed to have been bribed, keeps telling us they felt no pressure and make statements like those above that are being completely ignored.

Ukrainian president says he felt no pressure on his phone call with Trump


Let me guess, anybody that says anything that backs up Trump is just one of his puppets and is lying to protect him, so we should never believe anything anybody says if it's contradicts the false narratives we are being fed about Trump by the democrats and MSM.

We got this for 2.5 years with the Mueller investigation...........then the evidence showed that Trump was innocent. But that wasn't enough, they got Mueller to testify, hoping they could get some dirt on Trump in that hearing...........and it backfired, exposing them in increasingly  embarrassing fashion........ because there was no any evidence of a crime in that investigation.........but that didn't even slow down his enemies.

This is their MO. It's just the next play, using the same playbook. If they hadn't already been busted doing the same thing for years, we might give them more benefit of the doubt.

By cliff-e - Nov. 16, 2019, 7:30 a.m.
Like Reply

David Holmes testifies late yesterday afternoon.


More witnesses and testimony forthcoming despite "witness tampering" and "witness intimidation" which are also impeachable offenses.

By TimNew - Nov. 16, 2019, 7:51 a.m.
Like Reply

If there was any, the only witness tampering and/or intimidation was committed by Schiff.   Do you think he should be impeached or are you among those who feel laws only apply to pubs?

Trump expressing his opinion was neither except in the eyes of the blatantly biased.

By metmike - Nov. 16, 2019, 9:04 a.m.
Like Reply

When people testify to different contradicting things, what does the law do?

Believe only one side and discard the rest?

The law and logical/critical thinking requires that we look at the evidence.

There was no investigation done by the Ukraine.

The money was released before the deadlines.

The ones that were the victims of the "bribery" (the new buzz crime used in the marketing scheme to sell the American people) says they were not pressured and there was no connection with the money.

Did Trump want an investigation and  ask for the Ukraine to do an investigation? 

Of course he did. We have the transcript of the phone call.......let's use that.

The evidence to link it to the aid is completely tied statements by witnessed that contradict the facts and statements by more important people...........not hearsay or otherwise. 

All the most important evidence and the statements of the ones from the Urkaine indicate that this is a witchhunt.

Oddest thing is that the evidence and facts surrounding Biden and his son are the ones that look most compelling and at the least, involved nepotism with certainty. Instead  of doing a legit investigation of that, which is what Trump wanted, we instead investigatie the person who wanted that investigation.



Nepotism is the granting of jobs to one's  relatives or friends in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. Nepotism is the act of using one's power to secure better jobs or unfair advantages for a family member when they may not have the right skill, experience or motivation compared to others.

By cliff-e - Nov. 18, 2019, 7:34 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 18, 2019, 8:52 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff!

Since you have a picture of him accusing/claiming that he is whining. Let's actually hear what the man said and see if it was whining:

"Jim Jordan grills Dems’ ‘star witness’ Taylor in impeachment hearing"


After listening to Jim Jordan speak, which version of whining below does his questioning fall under?



verb (used without object),  whined, whin·ing.

1. to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.: The puppies were whining from hunger.
2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems.

verb (used with object),  whined, whin·ing.

3. to utter with or as if with a whine: I whined my litany of complaints.


4. a whining utterance, sound, or
5.  tone.a feeble, peevish complaint.

Maybe you should replace whining with one of these words, which is what he was actually doing(despite the MSM's distorted yellow journalism reporting of what happened)



Synonyms for fact-finding

Yellow journalism


By cliff-e - Nov. 19, 2019, 8:48 a.m.
Like Reply
By cliff-e - Nov. 22, 2019, 9:16 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 23, 2019, 12:10 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks much cliff!

I was getting worried about you, as 3 days had passed without a comment from you.

From you article:

"Americans are even divided by party over what they believe the likely outcome of the impeachment inquiry will be. Overall, only 11 percent believed that Trump will be removed from office; a plurality (41 percent) expected impeachment in the House followed by acquittal in the GOP-controlled Senate. That’s a view shared by a majority (54 percent) of Democrats. Yet a majority of Republicans (56 percent) believe that Trump won’t be impeached at all."

metmike: From the get go, on this issue, my opinion was that it's been 99.9% certain that the dems in the house will impeach Trump.

From the get go, my guess was around 80-90% certain that the senate would NOT impeach Trump because they need a 2/3rds super majority and there are more republicans than democrats in the senate. 

After the hearings and all the evidence has been heard, in some cases repeated over and over numerous times, it appears to be more like a 99.9% chance that the senate will not impeach Trump over this issue. The

How 56% of Republicans think that Trump will not be impeached by the house makes no sense. I would like to see the wording of the questions to see if some of those respondents were confused and thought it was about him being impeached out of office.

Personally, I think that him asking the Ukraine to investigate the 2016 election corruption was absolutely justified but it was not appropriate to ask for an investigation into the Bidens.

However, this doesn't rise anywhere close to being an impeachable offense or a crime, especially since there was no quid pro quo. Delaying the aid for a few weeks, with no investigation happening, is no quid pro quo based on the facts,  no matter how many times the dems/MSM tell us otherwise. 

By cliff-e - Nov. 23, 2019, 8:11 a.m.
Like Reply

This just in as of late yesterday.


Albeit heavily redacted in places...the docs confirming involvement are there. And more to come soon.

By metmike - Nov. 23, 2019, 11:47 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff!

WOW!  It adds even more credence to the appearance that there was blatant corruption/illegal activity by the Bidens.

No wonder Trump wanted this investigated. I had been thinking that this was an inappropriate request.........by Trump but clearly, corruption is corruption, whether its by your party or the other party. 

By metmike - Nov. 23, 2019, 3:19 p.m.
Like Reply

Graham requests Biden-Ukraine records from State Department


Firm Hired by Ukraine’s Burisma Tried to Use Hunter Biden as Leverage, Documents Show  


WASHINGTON—A consulting firm hired by Burisma Group mentioned that former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s son served on the Ukrainian gas company’s board so the firm could leverage a meeting with the State Department, according to documents and a former U.S. official."

If you read the documents from cliff's link(I can't copy them) intended to show the influence by Trump in the investigation of this corruption, which there clearly was, the most eye popping fact is not that somebody wanted to investigate the Bidens but what appears to be the corruption by the Bidens.

Go to pages 78-79-80 for the timeline with regards to this particular element.

Thanks again cliff!

Here's his link:


By cliff-e - Nov. 23, 2019, 8:58 p.m.
Like Reply

A great deal of these docs appear to done on "Trump Hotels" stationary. Why?

By cliff-e - Nov. 23, 2019, 9:28 p.m.
Like Reply

By metmike - Nov. 24, 2019, 9:38 a.m.
Like Reply

Sometimes, it takes awhile for enough evidence to come out to make things clear. For me, it's become more clear thanks to your link cliff.

Of course there might be new items to gain more understanding(the main info that we are lacking relates to under investigated and under reported  Joe and Hunter Bidens actions. 

1. There was blatant corruption going on in the Ukraine while joe Biden was VP. He  took advantage of it using nepotism to get his son a job he was completely unqualified for in 2014 that made his son a wealthy man with the understanding that this would give them benefits because his father was VP of the United States. 100% chance that this happened(unlike the quid pro quo, where there was no transaction) because Hunter actually took the position and got paid millions of real dollars. 

2. While the corruption was being investigated.................and it affected Hunters company and position, VP Biden was right in the middle of it.  He not only had numerous conversations to influence the outcome but after the decision was made to fire a key person in the investigation, Joe Biden, later on bragged publically about him personally being responsible for causing that to happen. At the time, Joe wanted everyone to know about how he was so powerful as VP that he could have such influence......abuse of his power really.  Bragging about this has got to be the most regretable thing that Biden has done in his life. After this corruption and his son's position because an issue, to use against Trump, VP Biden, the dems and MSM want us to pretend that he really didn't say this. 

3. President Trump, aware of this REAL corruption(by his opponent) decides to investigate and uncover it. Funny, how all we hear from one side is that he was "digging up dirt"  Look at the facts, there WAS corruption, the Bidens were in the middle of it and VP Biden used his position as VP to affect the outcome(there was US aid to the Ukraine that was involved for a time). 100% chance of this. The evidence is screaming loudly at us to look at it. 

4. So who investigated this corruption previously and what did they find? Clearly, any DOJ investigations of this real corruption would find no wrong doing by Biden. Heck, in early 2019, they were still not done with their 2.5 year bogus investigation into President Trump. 

5. So he answer is that VP  Biden's role in this corruption was NEVER investigated by a source that wanted to find anything but him innocent and if there ever was to be a legit investigation, Trump was going to have to do it. 

6. So now, we have the circumstances for which Trump, asking the Ukraine for help with the LEGIT investigation into REAL corruption that unquestionably involved VP Biden is in the line of fire because of how he went about it and who is being investigated and it being twisted into Trump as being the corrupt one, not Biden.

7. The MSN and dems continually insist that there is no evidence that the Bidens did anything wrong because they refuse to show us the CRYSTAL CLEAR evidence that cliff was kind enough to provide us. They characterize Trump as insisting the Ukraine dig up dirt on Biden, when thats not what happened at all. We saw the transcript of the REAL Trump evidence, the phone call. He asked nicely for help in the LEGIT investigation and never attached any conditions. The Ukraine repeatedly insists there was no bribe, they felt no pressure and didn't even know there was a delay in the aid until near the end. 

If there is justice in this world, the facts above will win over the current twisting of the facts to make it look like the investigation of the REAL corruption is the corruption.

Yes, the investigation of the REAL corruption was politically motivated by Trump and he used the power of the president(not illegally or corruptly)  but corruption is corruption and needs to be investigated and exposed whether it was your party's corruption(which would never happen in this universe) or corruption by the other party.

In this current universe of one sided politics, the only time corruption will be exposed is by the other party. Sadly, one party has been making up corruption that did not exist for 3 years and trying to sell it to us as real corruption. 

What the heck do you think the Mueller investigation was all about?

By metmike - Nov. 24, 2019, 10:01 a.m.
Like Reply

"A great deal of these docs appear to done on "Trump Hotels" stationary. Why?"

Because Trump was doing a legit investigation into REAL Ukrainian corruption as president of the United States which involved VP Biden.

Using his personal attorney?  Not a great idea but I'm open to a suggestion of how Trump, would use the rules of the swamp(trying to unseat him) would go about it any other way?

Funny, instead of looking at the evidence that shows Biden corruption right there, you completely ignore all of that and, instead look at the person that gathered the evidence and call them corrupt for doing it.

By metmike - Nov. 24, 2019, 10:13 a.m.
Like Reply

Here's a good recent example of what I'm saying about the MSM distorting the interpretation:


Trump impeachment: Pompeo, Giuliani and Parnas at heart of new revelations

"allegedly held to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden."

metmike: That's how the MSM refers to this legit investigation into the real corruption.

"The documents released late on Friday included a report, apparently on Trump hotel stationery, that appears to summarise an interview on 23 January 2019 with Ukraine’s former prosecutor general, Victor Shokin."

metmike: They want us to think that because it was on Trump hotel stationery, that it was being done to "dig up dirt" on Biden.........and forget the actual facts in Ukraine. Looky here folks, Trump station airy! This means the Trump investigation is corrupt and Biden is innocent.

"There is no evidence that Hunter Biden or his father did anything wrong in Ukraine."

How long can they keep saying this in the face of clear and growing more powerful evidence will determine how extraordinarily biased and unreliable they will be seen in the end as a source of information on this topic.

edit: Maybe a better way to put it, is how many more people will realize that they are so extraordinarily biased and and unreliable in the end. I suppose, when almost the entire MSM colludes on the reporting of this using distorted interpretations, they can perpetrate their version of "Saint Joe Biden" indefinitely.

By cliff-e - Nov. 24, 2019, 8:44 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 24, 2019, 9:10 p.m.
Like Reply

We can't wait to hear the tapes and will count on you to post the interpretation about this as soon as its out. 


By cliff-e - Dec. 1, 2019, 3:57 p.m.
Like Reply

Image may contain: text

By metmike - Dec. 1, 2019, 8:46 p.m.
Like Reply


By cliff-e - Dec. 5, 2019, 8:42 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Dec. 5, 2019, 10:10 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff!

Good one. 

Posts like that from you are some of my favorite. No need for me to respond with facts. Just copy some of your post or the title and it says it all.

Actually, if I had seen that myself, I probably would have posted it but it has a different meaning (means much more) coming from you. 

Trump’s mental state is deteriorating dangerously due to impeachment with potentially ‘catastrophic outcomes’, psychiatrists urgently warn Congress

By cliff-e - Dec. 8, 2019, 9:16 p.m.
Like Reply

Image may contain: 1 person, text

By cliff-e - Dec. 11, 2019, 7:45 a.m.
Like Reply
By TimNew - Dec. 11, 2019, 9:19 a.m.
Like Reply

As I always say,  if you want an honest unbiased evaluation of Trump,  ask Joe Biden.

By metmike - Dec. 11, 2019, 1:49 p.m.
Like Reply

Blaming Trump for a failing economy and lost jobs from bad policies would be like telling us Babe Ruth was a horrible baseball player because he made more outs than he got hits.

With regards to Biden, we know most of his positions(and most of the dems) without even checking closely.

Just take Trumps position on everything and his/their's is usually  the opposite. If they had the same position, this would mean they would have to concede that Trump has something right. 

Then, they make up stuff to justify the crazy opposite positions and try to sell it with the assistance of the MSM in a Twilight Zone type future where there is no accountability, physical laws of the atmosphere, energy/economic principles and common sense.

By cliff-e - Dec. 13, 2019, 5:46 p.m.
Like Reply


They could've voted on this yesterday had it not been for Cult 45's mindless yammering, stammering and stonewalling...it was as if they wanted the vote to be on Friday the 13th. Whatever the reason history was made and once again 45's bad legacy looks even worse.  The senate trial should be interesting...Cult 45 won't be able to hide key evidence and witnesses as they were directed to by 45.

No photo description available.

By TimNew - Dec. 14, 2019, 8:40 a.m.
Like Reply

Actually, Nadler shut down hearings before the vote could be taken because he wanted it done in prime time.

No matter.  The last thing the dems want is for this to make it to the pub controlled senate where they'll have subpoena power and the ability to question witnesses under oath.  Just imagine how much fun  Ted Cruz et.al. would have.  My guess is the dems won't let that  happen and this will never make it to the senate.

Setting that aside..  this has gone very badly for the dems.  They have actually added to Trumps reelection momentum, the exact opposite of what they were trying for.

Even worse, the wheels have started turning and may have reached a point of no return. I suspect that we're going to learn that much of the U.S. foreign aid has been a money laundering scheme that has enriched many elected officials on both sides of the aisle.  And none of them want that to happen...   It's a good explanation for much of what we've seen, though still highly  speculative. 

By metmike - Dec. 14, 2019, 2:52 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks for continuing to share your views here Cliff!

By cliff-e - Dec. 16, 2019, 8:03 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Dec. 16, 2019, 10:28 p.m.
Like Reply

To go with your post, here is the transcript of that call:


By cliff-e - Dec. 17, 2019, 9:03 a.m.
Like Reply

Once again it's a MEMORADUM not a verbatim transcript. Will we hear the real transcript during the senate trial?


And this...


Is Giuliani about to become a witness in the senate trial?

By metmike - Dec. 17, 2019, 10:56 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff!

"Trump and his allies falsely claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. The special counsel's investigation, as well as U.S. intelligence agencies, found that Russia, not Ukraine, meddled in the election."

metmike: Yes, we now know all about that investigation about Russia meddling in the election and its 17 significant "mistakes/errors" that could not be explained by anybody involved (because they were intentional).

Now we wait to see if criminal charges are filed against the corrupt individuals running that investigation. My guess is that there will be a few indightments based on the circumstances. 

FISA report: DOJ watchdog releases findings on Russia


                IG testimony today            

                            10 responses |             

                Started by wglassfo - Dec. 11, 2019, 5:09 p.m.        


Now that we know with 100% certainty that this FISA based investigation was flawed and corrupt in 2016 and targeting Trump, its ludicrous to claim that Trump should not be able to investigate the origins of it...........in fact, use it as part of the reason to impeachment because of his abuse of power. 

The Biden investigation is a separate matter. 

By cliff-e - Dec. 17, 2019, 11:14 a.m.
Like Reply
By cliff-e - Dec. 18, 2019, 9:50 p.m.
Like Reply

No photo description available.

By cliff-e - Dec. 19, 2019, 8:22 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Dec. 19, 2019, 10:50 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks for passing along the breaking news cliff. 

Who would have guessed that this was coming (-:

By cliff-e - Dec. 19, 2019, 5:47 p.m.
Like Reply

More winning news...45 is the 1st in the 1st term.

Image may contain: 2 people, text

By TimNew - Dec. 20, 2019, 3:40 a.m.
Like Reply

I think this says more about the current dem party than it does about Trump. Will history agree?  Guess it depends on who writes it.

By cliff-e - Dec. 20, 2019, 7:44 a.m.
Like Reply

Image may contain: 1 person, text

By cliff-e - Dec. 20, 2019, 2:24 p.m.
Like Reply

More support from another family mocked with 45's cruel and venomous blather.


By metmike - Dec. 20, 2019, 2:34 p.m.
Like Reply

We were  getting worried about you for awhile there cliff, with the Trump bashing drought for several weeks.

One can see that the impeachment has given you new life and Trump bashing, post generating enthusiasm.

This thread is almost 2 months long though and we will need to start a new one because the length requires excessive scrolling to get to the last post.