Ukrainegate - Page 56 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15049108
BigSteve wrote:We had a Secretary of State who believed it was perfectly okay to have an unsecured server in her home to handle classified information.

The State Department's broken, but Trump didn't break it...


Oh, it's so broken, the US State Department like the rest of the ''Deep State'' unelected Bureaucrats are active enemies of the American people and constitution. From Ex-CIA Bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer's blog, http://www.non-intervention2.com;
U.S. diplomats are among the republic’s worst enemies
Posted on November 17, 2019 by admin
The televised impeachment hearings this past week will be very useful for the American people. What each witness said will help the citizenry understand part of the reason why the United States gets into so many wars — U.S. diplomats side with foreign leaders — and why their taxes are spent and wasted in foreign countries, and always are channeled to the local favorites of the Democratic party, particularly to George Soros’s network of subversive, anti-U.S. organizations.

Posing as a demure, Shirley Temple-like innocent, the fierce Democratic partisan Yovanovitch, in particular, explained this to Americans. After preaching to the committee that no government should be allowed to interfere in the elections of another country, she admitted under oath that neither she nor her embassy staff made a single attempt to stop either the then-Ukrainian government’s long and vicious campaign of public attacks on candidate Donald Trump, or its creation of the false evidence which it provided to the FBI to nail Paul Manafort. I wonder how much of a gratuity she got from George Soros and/or Hillary Clinton for doing nothing to protest the pro-Clinton, Ukrainian government’s rhetorical and material intervention in the 2016 election? Yavanovitch also is reported to have arranged the electronic monitoring of U.S. journalists working in Ukraine to investigate the crimes there of the Clinton Foundation, Burisma Energy, and the flamboyant and hysterically inept Biden criminal family.

A few other points about the hearings are worth noting:

–Taylor (who worked for Soros-funded groups), Kent, and Yovanovitch provided no information about improper behavior by President Trump. They did, however, present endless and self-aggrandizing personal views about how U.S. foreign policy should be conducted, as well as their intense resentment of the President for not agreeing with, and following in an unquestioning manner, their sage advice based on long experience. They also resented the President and his advisers for ignoring “inter-agency policy agreements” on which of his policies should be followed and which to ignore. In short, these three senior time-servers were claiming that only senior bureaucrats, rather than the constitutionally designated elected official, ought to formulate and manage U.S. foreign policy.

In my own experience, the inter-agency process is designed for only one purpose, and that is to prevent the full and immediate application of policies that the president has directed to be pursued. During the Soviet-Afghan Communist-Mujahedin War (1979 to 1992), for example, only CIA and NSA reliably labored to implement President Reagan’s policy of driving the Red Army from Afghanistan. The State Department led the effort of other agencies to slow-roll or derail Reagan’s orders in order to protect the Democrats’ beloved Gorbachev and his barbarous Soviet regime. This resistance to Reagan also wanted to provide weapons not to men who would kill Soviets, but to Afghanistan’s Gucci guerrillas, corrupt men who wore suits; talked a lot, often in English; ran heroin internationally; and fought not at all.

–This loathsome diplomat threesome also underscored the enormous difference between Trump’s “America First” foreign policy and their “Ukraine First” foreign policy. Not one of the diplomats could find fault in anything the Ukrainian government wanted U.S. taxpayers to finance. Indeed, they were upset that working stiffs in the United States have not been forced to fork over more of their taxes to help Democratic-allied diplomats like themselves to pal around with the generally corrupt Ukrainian elite, while allowing the latter to stuff their private bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars. This sort of behavior is common to all U.S. diplomats and especially those of ambassadorial rank. They do not represent the republic, but rather the foreign government to which they are accredited. For these people, who are falsely identified as loyal U.S. ambassadors, America is never right and never, ever first. Once installed in a foreign capital, they are the ambassador of the local government – rich, poor, democratic, authoritarian, or tyrannical — in its unending campaign to extort as much money, military assistance, loan guarantees, and other booty from the U.S. government and people as possible. They also actively belittle the president to local government officials and political leaders and assure them it is safe to ignore what he says. Overall, U.S. ambassadors are a lethal, anti-U.S. cult of the savagely self-interested.

–The only true thing that these three sad hacks had to say must have almost caused Schiff’s blood to shoot out of his ears. First, Kent somehow allowed himself to tell the truth, acknowledging that the Ukrainian energy company Burisma is deeply corrupt and that both it and Hunter Biden should have been investigated. Then Yovanovitch slipped and told the truth. She clearly acknowledged to a questioner that she had been briefed by Obama’s gang, before her Senate confirmation hearings, about the increasingly strong stink of corruption that was hanging over Burisma and the drug-using, tossed-from-military Hunter Biden and his father. Obama’s pukes also advised her on what to say and how to deal with the issue in her hearings and during her tenure in Kiev. Interestingly, when asked if the Obama briefers who had prepared her for the Senate hearing had supplied her with the same kind of data about the innumerable number of other deeply corrupt Ukrainian companies, which the three diplomats already had said threatened U.S. interests, Yovanovitch puased for a moment, searched her memory, but could not remember any such data, probably because there were none.

Schiff’s farce will continue for at least another week, but it is now clear that the three star witnesses struck out, and that there is nothing that can be said by those remaining in the parade of clownish witnesses – unless one or more decides to commit perjury — that merits even a passing thought of impeachment. The most positive thing to come out of the hearings so far is the reality of how abominably the U.S. citizenry is served by their State Department and its diplomats. Indeed, the three witnesses made it clear that they are operating to serve the regimes to which they are accredited and themselves. In all cases, the republic, in their view, can take the hindmost

I am being harsh here on U.S. diplomats. My views, however, are shaped by experience. The U.S. ambassador in Saudi Arabia – with his intelligence adviser, John Brennan – worked tirelessly with CIA chief George Tenet, in 1997-1999, to stop all attempts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. All of them feared the Saudis would be angry at America — and end their payoffs? — if an U.S. attempt to eliminate bin Laden was successful. Earlier, in the mid-1990s, the U.S. ambassador in Qatar and Clinton’s so-called “terrorism czar” forbid the execution of a CIA operation to try and capture an al-Qaida ally named Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. These founts of wisdom asked the Qatari government to arrest the man and turn him over to U.S. authorities. The Qataris snapped to attention and acted immediately — by warning Khalid Shaykh Mohammad and allowing (helping?) him to escape from Qatar without a trace. You may recall, that this fellow – more commonly called KSM – was later to be the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks. Such is traditionally the type of disasters that the State Department and its ambassadors are ready to inflict on their fellow citizens so long as can they keep their host regime happy, and probably their own bread being buttered by the foreigners..

The information in the foregoing paragraph is, of course, well-documented. The verifying documents can readily be found in the archive of the 9/11 Commission. I know this because I hand delivered them in a fat, three-ring binder — double-wrapped for security, of course — to the head of the Commission. For some reason the validating papers in the archive have not yet been published for the review and education of the American people. I believe that the citizenry would find the archive’s papers quite informative. Indeed, they might be so convincing as to make the republic’s collective trigger finger pull, pull, and keep pulling, and so begin to eliminate those who are torturing, fleecing, and deliberately killing the republic, its economy, its laws, its liberties, its cohesion, its children, and its religion.

President Trump, please release those papers. Time to let the cards fall where they may.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



I am still a Socialist of sorts, but I always loathed Liberals, and still do. What Michael Scheuer is talking about is one of the biggest clump of reasons why.
By late
#15049111
annatar1914 wrote:
Oh, it's so broken

I am still a Socialist of sorts..



I've been expecting you. We get into wars mostly for political reasons. In Vietnam, we were trying to stop the expansion of Communism everywhere. Putting a small amount of money into it was a waste of time and money, but it was small potatoes before LBJ. Spending a lot of money, and many thousands of American lives, was idiotic.

Iraq is another example. Cheney, who was running the country for the most part, was PNAC. That's the Project for a New American Century, and they pretty much wanted to conquer the world. Idiots.

The job of the State Dept is to carry out the policies of the administration. You are saying the tail was wagging the dog, and most of the time, the idea is hilarious. The rise of empire diminished the influence of State.

But what sort of Socialist? Your writing suggests a Stalin sort of Socialist.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15049118
@late

I've been expecting you.


I didn't have to 'expect' you being on this thread, this nonsense has drawn you like a moth to the flame, with similar results in the end.



We get into wars mostly for political reasons. In Vietnam, we were trying to stop the expansion of Communism everywhere. Putting a small amount of money into it was a waste of time and money, but it was small potatoes before LBJ. Spending a lot of money, and many thousands of American lives, was idiotic.


Yes...

Iraq is another example. Cheney, who was running the country for the most part, was PNAC. That's the Project for a New American Century, and they pretty much wanted to conquer the world. Idiots.


I'm waiting for the part where the heroic liberal democratic party stopped all that in a rousing chorus of righteous indignation... No, they didn't did they? Because they're just a wing of the same corrupt warmongering party as Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, etc...

The job of the State Dept is to carry out the policies of the administration. You are saying the tail was wagging the dog, and most of the time, the idea is hilarious. The rise of empire diminished the influence of State.


:lol:

Pull the other one. The other day you were extolling George Kennan and his role in the policy of containment during the Cold War... Seems to me that the State Department was all over that.

But what sort of Socialist? Your writing suggests a Stalin sort of Socialist.


Then you better read more of my writing if you think that.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15049124
skinster wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpASSqz1hGc


The reasoning is quite simple; some crypto-fascistic warmongers want wars, not peace, and they've captured the Democratic party through connections to the insane Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, etc.. and therefore the Democrats, in spite of the will of the American people, are the ''War Party''. This is what this is all about; conquest, aggression, and war and domination.
By late
#15049138
annatar1914 wrote:[usermention=41202]

@late[/usermention]



1) I didn't have to 'expect' you being on this thread, this nonsense has drawn you like a moth to the flame, with similar results in the end.


2) I'm waiting for the part where the heroic liberal democratic party stopped all that in a rousing chorus of righteous indignation... No, they didn't did they? Because they're just a wing of the same corrupt warmongering party as Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, etc...



3) Pull the other one. The other day you were extolling George Kennan and his role in the policy of containment during the Cold War... Seems to me that the State Department was all over that.



4) Then you better read more of my writing if you think that.



1) Putin wants to protect his investment.

2) Obama didn't start a big war. Bill Clinton didn't do a big war. Carter didn't do a big war.

3) So when you wanted to defend your silliness, you had to go back 70 years? That's a stretch. It's also wrong. After WW2, nobody had any idea how to handle Russian aggression. Then Kennan wrote a paper, which put the emphasis on economic containment. In the land of the blind, you follow the one guy that can see. So we did. Our response was a lot more militaristic than Kennan wanted. You're not entirely wrong, but I don't think this discussion is going to get that nuanced.

4) Uh huh, I notice you didn't say what your position was. I'm a Progressive, I support Liz Warren. See, that was easy...
By late
#15049143
skinster wrote:




Nice post, thanks.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15049145
1) Putin wants to protect his investment.


:lol: You really are in fantasyland.

2) Obama didn't start a big war.


Oh yes he did. What do you think all that ''Arab Spring'' horseshit was all about?

Bill Clinton didn't do a big war.


I'll have to ask my Yugoslav friends if that bastard started a 'big war' there to break up Yugoslavia at the bidding of his masters, or not.

Carter didn't do a big war.


His National Security Advisor ''ZBig'' sure as shit did, in Afghanistan, even bragged about it. We'll see if that debacle of a blowback ever ends...

3) So when you wanted to defend your silliness, you had to go back 70 years? That's a stretch. It's also wrong. After WW2, nobody had any idea how to handle Russian aggression. Then Kennan wrote a paper, which put the emphasis on economic containment. In the land of the blind, you follow the one guy that can see. So we did. Our response was a lot more militaristic than Kennan wanted. You're not entirely wrong, but I don't think this discussion is going to get that nuanced.


:roll: I started with George Kennan. And ''after WWII''? That's a laugh. DURING WWII the British were already plotting ''Operation Unthinkable'' to go to war with the Soviet Union right after Hitler's fall.

4) Uh huh, I notice you didn't say what your position was. I'm a Progressive, I support Liz Warren. See, that was easy...


Nothing ''Progressive'' about you or about the background story challenged Mrs. Warren, at all. I am well documented on PoFo as a National Bolshevist with traditionalist roots you'd consider ''reactionary'' I'm sure. But that's another story.
By late
#15049157
skinster wrote:
Liz Warren is rightwing.



Far from it.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was her idea.

It's funny, most Dems and Repukes are calling her Left wing. She's more of a Progressive. She wants to end the death penalty. Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, medicare for all, end private prisons, bring back Glass-Steagall, raise taxes on the wealthy, paid leave, raise the min wage to $15.

If that's Right wing, sign me up.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15049162
late wrote:She wants to end the death penalty.

Ending capital punishment has nothing to do with the topic of progressivism, or traditionalism. Capital punishment saves civilization from chaos, crime, and corruption. Some people who receive capital punishment are murders themselves. If capital punishment ceases to exist, then people would be killing each other in a criminal manner, so either way people will be getting killed - Via capital punishment, or street violence. Street violence is unpredictable, and humans are nasty. I would rather have capital punishment, then have criminals roam around freely killing random people.
Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences,

This is anarchist leaning, and has nothing to do with progressivism.
medicare for all,

To prevent socialist politics. The Confederate Empire of Germany also attempted to do this to prevent socialist politics.
end private prisons,

In terms of consequences, there are no differences between "private" prisons, and nationalized prisons.
raise taxes on the wealthy,

To prevent socialist politics.
paid leave,

The quantity of labour has nothing to do with progressivism. The more people work, the more wealthy a civilization gets.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15049204
late wrote:1) An ambassador is there to represent the country, and carry out the policies of the current administration. Your use of the word personal is simply wrong. The president may appoint him, but he swears his oath to the country.

Ambassadors represent the head of state. Their use of their plenipotentiary powers must reflect the will of the president.

late wrote:2) The State Dept wasn't broken until Trump broke it.

It's been more or less broken since the Clinton administration.

late wrote:4) The senate can't nominate.

They can advise.

late wrote:5) "I'd like you to do me a favor, though."

You can repeat it all you want. It's not a criminal offense. It's not even an infraction or a diplomatic faux pas.

late wrote:6) "They"?? There is one person in Congress that started talking about impeachment early on. It took over a year from that point before Pelosi came on board. Frankly, they should have started an investigation concerning the emoulements clause shortly after he was sworn in. If you didn't see this coming before he was sworn in, you weren't paying attention.

I've been watching the entire time--even the attempt at a 25th Amendment coup.

late wrote:7) Trump already admitted it. We have plenty of corroboration now, with more coming.

He has not admitted to any criminal wrongdoing.

late wrote:The FBI found no evidence her server was hacked, but we know anybody that wants to listen to Trumps unsecured phone does.

Chinese company hacked Hillary Clinton's email server: Report
The FBI under Comey wouldn't have found anything at all, as it would have hurt Hillary's chances at getting elected. Chinese company hacked Hillary Clinton's email server: Report

I can tell you by knowing she didn't obfuscate her identify with the URL, didn't hide who owned it, and it was a Microsoft Server with a web portal, it was most certainly hacked. We debated this years ago.

late wrote: That conversation between Trump and Sondland in a restaurant? Both phones were insecure, and that's in Ukraine which Russia has bugged out the yin yang.

Why don't you post some authoritative sources on that? Why don't you think pressing an impeachment case there is a good idea? The president should be using an encrypted phone at all times for official purposes regardless of his location.

late wrote:When Trump did that, I knew he had Putin's hand up his ass.

What did you think when Obama said Russia wasn't a strategic threat during the 2012 campaign?

annatar1914's repost wrote:and always are channeled to the local favorites of the Democratic party, particularly to George Soros’s network of subversive, anti-U.S. organizations.

Yes, Obama was a master of directing US taxpayer funds to leftist NGOs. I wonder how much of that Trump has undone. I wonder how much of the US government's propaganda efforts he's bothered to undo. Hell, even the NEA was used as a CIA front for propaganda purposes. There's just so much waste.

annatar1914's repost wrote:After preaching to the committee that no government should be allowed to interfere in the elections of another country, she admitted under oath that neither she nor her embassy staff made a single attempt to stop either the then-Ukrainian government’s long and vicious campaign of public attacks on candidate Donald Trump, or its creation of the false evidence which it provided to the FBI to nail Paul Manafort.

Yeah, that's why the Democrats highlighting these people is confusing. First, they have had no contact with the POTUS whatsoever, they know of no impeachable offenses, and their performance isn't exactly awesome.

annatar1914 wrote:The reasoning is quite simple; some crypto-fascistic warmongers want wars, not peace, and they've captured the Democratic party through connections to the insane Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, etc.. and therefore the Democrats, in spite of the will of the American people, are the ''War Party''. This is what this is all about; conquest, aggression, and war and domination.

This is the thing that I find most bizarre. The best case I think for impeaching Trump would be waging war in Syria without Congressional authorization, UN authorization or as part of a NATO exercise. Yet, Congress is criticizing him for not doing enough, criticizing him for withdrawing troops, and yet never created a specific authorization to use force in Syria.

late wrote:2) Obama didn't start a big war. Bill Clinton didn't do a big war. Carter didn't do a big war.

Obama toppled the government of Libya and attempted to do the same to Syria, resulting in the largest refugee crisis since WWII. Carter didn't do a big war. True. He gave away the Panama Canal, watched Samoza get overthrown, watched Saddam Hussein take power in Iraq, watched Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini take power in Iran, watched the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan, and so on. He was a great spectator.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15049228
@annatar1914 said:

I am still a Socialist of sorts, but I always loathed Liberals, and still do. What Michael Scheuer is talking about is one of the biggest clump of reasons why.


You loathe liberals for the same reason I do. They profess to be these people defending certain principles. They don't. They are racists, but accuse the right wing people of being racists. They are sexist, but they accuse etc. A bunch lying hypocritical pieces of trash.

You either are for truly committed transformation of a just society between human beings or you pay lip service to all those claims of justice and equality.

They wind up paying lip service.

The other conservatives? They never claimed all these 'lofty' ideals. Can't expect anything from people from the Right, if they never said they believed in any sort of equality in the first place.

If you boil down the problem with the society Annatar14? It is basically not being committed to a set of values and principles that emphasize what makes society function in every way. Cooperative spirits, service, and being willing to serve, being creative and knowing how to support, give and spending time on helping the many. Finding connection and cultivating it.
By Hindsite
#15049248
late wrote:In terms of maintaining operational security, Trump is thousands of times worse. The FBI found no evidence her server was hacked, but we know anybody that wants to listen to Trumps unsecured phone does. That conversation between Trump and Sondland in a restaurant? Both phones were insecure, and that's in Ukraine which Russia has bugged out the yin yang.

We don't even know that call took place. It was just a rumor. When a news reporter asked President Trump about the call, he said he does not recall such a call.

late wrote:And that doesn't include Trumps other lapses, like making sure no record is made for some of his discussions with Putin. That famous meeting with Russians in the Oval Office? We found out about that from the Russians. Russian media wasn't supposed to be there at all. And he said he thought he had obstructed justice by firing Comey. That guy is a bad news buffet.

This is all nonsense. President Trump had the authority to fire Comey for any reason and he also has declassification authority, if he wants to use it. So it is all legal and not impeachable offenses.

late wrote:After we dump the chump, it will take over a generation to rebuild the expertise Trump threw away. This was one of the first things Trump did, and one of the things Putin wanted the most. When Trump did that, I knew he had Putin's hand up his ass.

More nonsense. Trump is in the process of draining the swamp. In case you did not know, it is the President that determines our foreign policy and not those so-called foreign policy experts. Their jobs are supposed to be to carry out the foreign policy as the President pleases.
By late
#15049262
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Ambassadors represent the head of state. Their use of their plenipotentiary powers must reflect the will of the president.


2) It's been more or less broken since the Clinton administration.


3) They can advise.


4) You can repeat it all you want. It's not a criminal offense. It's not even an infraction or a diplomatic faux pas.


5) The FBI under Comey wouldn't have found anything at all, as it would have hurt Hillary's chances at getting elected.


6) The president should be using an encrypted phone at all times for official purposes regardless of his location.


7) What did you think when Obama said Russia wasn't a strategic threat during the 2012 campaign?

8) Obama toppled the government of Libya and attempted to do the same to Syria, resulting in the largest refugee crisis since WWII. Carter didn't do a big war. True. He gave away the Panama Canal, watched Samoza get overthrown, watched Saddam Hussein take power in Iraq, watched Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini take power in Iran, watched the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan, and so on. He was a great spectator.



1) Fiction. Read the oath..

2) While there is no question State had problems, Trump has degraded it to the point where it is a wreck.

"Over 200 former U.S. ambassadors are ringing the alarm about a "crisis" in American diplomacy and the urgent need to restore its power and influence in U.S. foreign policy..."You try to cut [the budget] by one-third, you see an exodus of senior officers, you don’t fill positions — this is abnormal. We have never seen anything like it."..The redesign "was actually gutting the State Department," said Amb. Nancy McEldowney, the former director of the Foreign Service Institute, which trains U.S. diplomats. "It became more and more clear as we saw the ramifications of what [Tillerson] was doing, just how damaging, just how destructive those reforms were going to be."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alarmed ... d=54094907

3) IOW, you were wrong.

4) Using a foreign power to help win an election is the primary reason we have impeachment. That was the top concern of the Founding Fathers.

5) Comey talking about the investigation is one of the big reasons she lost. That violated JD policy, his action was not approved, and it's plain as day that it would hurt Hillary. You babble.

6) He never does.

7) I haven't said a word about Trump's decision to assist Ukraine, or Obama's decision not to. The problem with Trump's move is that if Russia responds aggressively, what do we do then? Because Putin could easily overwhelm the Ukraine army. Because this is Trump, nobody is talking about it. How far are we willing to go the next time Putin gets pissed?

Before Obama was ever elected, I said he was too cautious, and too conservative, to get done the things that need doing. You can make a good argument that he should have responded more aggressively. But, as I pointed out above, once you go down that road, you are closing off more diplomatic overtures. The problem here is that this is enormously complicated, and Putin has been getting more aggressive, which changed the nature of the problem, as time went by. It deserves it's own thread, and honestly, the denizens here are really not up to a serious foreign policy discussion.

8 ) We owed Europe for their assistance, and their price was getting rid of Ghadaffi. It was a bad idea, and it turned out badly. But this sort of thing happens occasionally with multi-national alliances.

Syria was torn apart, a number of countries ripped it apart. This goes back to a pipeline deal. It's complicated, but it wasn't all that hard to start a civil war there. Not saying we are blameless, but ignoring all the other players is silly, to put it mildly. One of those players, perhaps the most important, was Big Oil.

Carter didn't give away the Panama Canal. The treaty expired. The implication is we should have overthrown the government to hold onto the canal. But there wasn't a good reason to do that.

Somoza was a dictator, a monster, really. Good riddance.

Bush 1, in the CIA, played a role in helping him gain power. The previous ruler of Iraq was an ally of Russia, and the warhawks wanted Iraq to go to war with Iran, purely for revenge. Carter wasn't a hawk. This is a good example of why I don't like Realpolitik.

The Shah was a dictator. After we had a number of foreign affairs disasters, like Vietnam, the country simply didn't want to impose another dictator. The mistake was shoving a dictator down Iran's throat in the first place.

Getting Russia to invade Afghanistan was Brezninski's idea. We weren't watching, we made it happen. Another reason I don't like Realpolitik...

I didn't want to respond to the rant at the end. But it was so close to completely wrong, I felt I had to.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15049277
News flash lefist's It is not illegal for the president to use his own channels in dealing with foreign countries. There is no law that says president Trump has to use life long unappointed partisan Democrat bureaucrats. AND why should he, these same never Trump lifer liberal bureaucrats, are part of the deep state that has been trying to frame him for 3 years.
By late
#15049281
Finfinder wrote:
News flash lefist's It is not illegal for the president to use his own channels in dealing with foreign countries. There is no law that says president Trump has to use life long unappointed partisan Democrat bureaucrats. AND why should he, these same never Trump lifer liberal bureaucrats, are part of the deep state that has been trying to frame him for 3 years.



"The intent makes the crime."

You can lie all you want. But Trump appointed a fair number of the people you are whining about. Diplomats are nonpartisan, and some of them were appointed by other Republicans.

What Trump needs is a good defense.

Ain't gonna happen, sport. He's guilty of a lot more than what they're talking about up on the Hill.

This is your karma running over your dogma.
User avatar
By Beren
#15049292
blackjack21 wrote:


Trump is a really unique political phenomenon.

He's unique and winning - again! :excited:

Image
Politico wrote:President Donald Trump traveled twice to Louisiana this month to campaign with Rispone

:up: :up:
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15049294
late wrote:"The intent makes the crime."

You can lie all you want. But Trump appointed a fair number of the people you are whining about. Diplomats are nonpartisan, and some of them were appointed by other Republicans.

What Trump needs is a good defense.

Ain't gonna happen, sport. He's guilty of a lot more than what they're talking about up on the Hill.

This is your karma running over your dogma.



It would be nice if for one time you would actually make an argument. I lied ? How did I lie? What is Trump guilty of? You just make this stuff up and gaslight. The very definition of projection.

My karma what does that even mean ?
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#15049306
Hindsite wrote:We don't even know that call took place. It was just a rumor. When a news reporter asked President Trump about the call, he said he does not recall such a call.


Several people heard this call

More nonsense. Trump is in the process of draining the swamp. In case you did not know, it is the President that determines our foreign policy and not those so-called foreign policy experts. Their jobs are supposed to be to carry out the foreign policy as the President pleases.


I think you'll find Speaker Pelosi will drain the swamp
  • 1
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 64
How to become an EU citizen

You basically invest around 1 000 000 USD/EUR in […]

Bed size and intimacy

Many years ago, the Full-size mattress was the sta[…]

@Truth To Power I pointed out that your graph[…]

LOL!! That is the decision to be made by an impe[…]