dmacleod comments

Posted in: Giuliani associates charged with illegally funneling cash to pro-Trump group See in context

Let me try one more time. The purpose of the whole article is to link the 2 guys to being part of investigating Biden. In order to discredit that investigation and alL people associated.

No, and let me try again. The purpose of the article was to show how two of Guliani's stooges just got arrested for doing illegal things.

The fact that you want to turn this into some kind of conspiracy theory isn't going to work.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Posted in: Giuliani associates charged with illegally funneling cash to pro-Trump group See in context

What I said is supported by the newspaper article. 

No, it isn't. They were not arrested for looking into Biden, and they were really not there as investigators.

Your “fact” isn’t there.

Perhaps Braille would help you then?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Giuliani associates charged with illegally funneling cash to pro-Trump group See in context

Oh but they were looking into it.

Really? How do you know that? Did you see a report? Are they trained investigators with a law enforcement background?

If you honestly believe that they were there "looking into Biden's corrruption," then I have some nice beach-front property in Nebraska that I'd like you to take a look at.

The fact is, they were there trying to cut illegal deals and engage in other crimes.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Posted in: Giuliani associates charged with illegally funneling cash to pro-Trump group See in context

It’s literally the first sentence.

But it is NOT what they were arrested for!

Try again.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Posted in: Giuliani associates charged with illegally funneling cash to pro-Trump group See in context

So the people helping to look into Biden corruption are actually arrested themselves. 

No, if you had read the article, they were arrested for participating in a scheme to illegally funnel money to a pro-Trump election committee and other U.S. political candidates. The people arrested were also "not looking into anything" related to the non-existent "Biden corruption" narrative that you and others keep peddaling.

. . .you mean like the old wives tails of Trump in a hotel with hookers? Lol

Wives don't have "tails." "Lol" indeed!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Posted in: Super typhoon on track to drench Japan's main island See in context

Just back from the hospital after an operation so I'll be in my bed until Tuesday.

Take care, and I hope that you get better soon.

I always enjoy your comments. You have some of the best input on many of the issues on this forum.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

 If that happens, I’ll owe you an apology.

Excellent. Then I have you on record for that.

And you failed to make your point,

Really? How so? Tell me how I failed when I quoted directly from the Constitution. I gave a specific section that was very clear. Please, go back to Article 1 of the Constitution and tell us the exact place where it says that a floor vote must be done before an impeachment inquiry is done. It's a simple request, and you should be able to show me so I can update my copy (and I will even use a Sharpie).

if the Dems don’t want to give due process to the executive branch, 

They are. They are following up on the whistleblower's complaints by trying to hold hearings so that the allegations can be either verified or shown to be false. Unfortunately, they can't do it because President "Phone Spurs" refuses to provide any evidence on his part showing his innocence.

. . . then take it to the Judicial Branch and let them sort it out.

I hope it does. Then we can get United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 -- 2019 Version and watch the Republican Senators jump off the sinking ship before they are forced to go on the record should the impreachment trial go to the Senate.

Done.

Yep, Trump and his henchmen will be.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

If they were so innocent they wouldn’t be worried about Barr and Durham.

Barr and Durham will be facing their own problems very soon--especially Barr. Remember a guy named John Mitchell? That's where Barr is headed.

Yes. So did I.

And you failed to make your point in a convincing manner, especially when I asked you cite the specific place in the Constitution where it says that a vote on the floor must be taken before an inquiry is done. I'm still waiting.

And too bad, the Dems can’t remove the President. McConnell will see to that.

Really? How? What can he do?

Thank the lord for the Senate.

Let's see if you feel that way after they start doing what their predecessors did back in 1974.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

No, in fact, I would submit to you I am not ok with the Democrats breaking the law, circumventing the political process and trying to impeach the President on something as weak as this accusation.

The Democrats have done none of these things, and you don't have one shred of evidence other than pure rhetoric to "support" your weak-sauce counter-arguments.

Just take a look at the Mueller hoax probe where Republicans we’re constantly denied to look at evidence or that a lot of it was highly redacted.

The fact that you still label the Mueller Report a "hoax" does nothing for your credibility. Republicans were not denied evidence since the Democrats didn't do any of the redacting--Barr did--take that up with him.

President the right to face his accuser, 

Only in a court of law. You really don't understand how these impeachment things work, do you?

Ahhh, like Biden and his son, gotcha.....

Zero evidence of this, but please provide it if you have it.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

. . . on with their flimsy hoax and the GOP, Barr and Durham who by the way just broadened his team and expanded his search as to the Dems corruption on the Russian and Ukraine scandal.

The only "flimsy hoax" here is Barr abusing his authority and wasting taxpayers' money by flying around the planet and trying to get Russia off the hook for their interference in the 2016 election. He is essentially trying to undermine what the intelligence agencies and the Mueller Report showed. It won't work. The only people who buy into all of this nonsense of his are the hard-core Trump loyalists.

. . . if the Dems had a real solid case they would bring it to the floor for a vote and they’re not doing that. And why? Because they know they’d be in a political pickle.

Nope, and I went over all of this in great detail yesterday, but since you just want to be stubborn and keep repeating the false notion that some kind of floor vote is needed before impeachment investigations begin, then so be it.

They’ll get it and please don’t come at me with the FBI. I wouldn’t trust them with a bad of dog food. 

Too bad then since the FBI is the only agency that can do an actual criminal investigation here.

Odd......

That describes the entire Trump defense so far.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

Unemployment rate, particularly among minorities, at historical lows, and the Democratic Party wants to impeach the president whose policies made this possible?

Severe logic flaws here:

So, just because you believe that a President has achieved something positive, it's OK for him to break laws.

I've asked for specific policies that make all of these so-called wonderful achievements possible, but I've never gotten any--and don't bother, it's off the topic.

The Democrats are upholding the oath that the took to protect the Constitution. They received a credible complaint about criminal wrongdoing by the President, but since they are investigating this, they are actually just wanting to grab power, right?

Trump is in it for the people and delivering on his promises. 

No, Trump is in it for himself by using the office of the presidency to enrich himself, his family, and his business buddies. As far as promises go, we have no new healthcare plan, no wall, no term limits, and many other things that he vowed during his candidacy--and I don't want to hear about the supposed "200 or so Accomplishments" because that's a bunch of bull, too.

The impeachment drive will backfire spectacularly.

Only for those Republican Senators who willfully ignore hard evidence. Think back to 1974 and see just how fast some of them changed their mind after United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) was decided.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

Democrats . . . want to block Republicans from seeing any documents on Biden or Hunter as it relates to Ukraine?

The impeachment hearings are based on the whistleblower report. Biden and Hunter aren't in it.

Baseless allegations from conspiracy theories are not part of the impeachment hearings. Now, before you try to twist this by saying, "but that's what the Democrats are doing," try to remember that the Democrats are simply trying to follow up on a report submitted to them by a Trump-appointed IG named Michael Atkinson who deemed the complaint by the whistleblower as being credible. Therefore, by law, Congress must investigate.

Republicans are free to demand an inquiry into Biden if they have actual proof (which the do not), so when the FBI determines that there has been actual wrongdoing, they can have at it. Until then, this whole Biden smokescreen is nothing but a pathetic distraction.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

"Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office." Lindsey Graham – R, North Carolina, 1998.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

"No president can be allowed to subvert the judiciary or thwart the investigative responsibility of the legislature," Roy Blunt, R – Missouri, 1998

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

Oh, please! Hillary didn’t turn over 33,000 emails that somehow mysteriously disappeared. Or how about last year when the Democrats refused, flat out refused to let Nunes and Gowdy to view documents on Trump spying.

Off the topic. This is about Trump and his potential impeachment proceedings.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

But that’s what Democrats are doing now? They’re not allowing the Republicans to see any documents, won’t let them call witnesses, that’s wrong as well.

Really? How about some examples--you know, like not letting someone testify or something like that, or maybe refusing to handover documents from a secret server that really don't belong there? That kind of stuff?

Yes and now that’s he’s been hired by the WH he’s going to make sure they legally do that.

Yep, can't wait! Let's see how much Trey makes Trump hand over everything that the committees have been asking for.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

"The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles." - Trey Gowdy, R – South Carolina, 2012

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

We're seeing the exact same comments now about Trump as we did during the whole Russia debacle, and by the same people.

We are also seeing the same exact denials by members of Cult 45 regarding credible evidence against Trump and his corrupt administration.

Trump tuned your rear on that one and he'll done the same again.

What does that mean in English?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

No its because of the obvious media favoritism towards Biden and his son.

No, it's because the media has better things to do than to indulge Trump and his supporters with their feeble attempt at smearing someone without actual evidence. Most also realize that these baseless accusations are nothing more than a distraction by Trump to take the spotlight off of his impeachment problems.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Posted in: Defying impeachment inquiry, Trump makes charge more certain See in context

I really am disgusted by the MSM dismissal of Bidens corruption however.

What corruption? Please tell us what was exactly the Bidens did. What investigation are you referring to that have identified actual corruption?

Perhaps the reason that the MSM dismissed whatever you are looking for is because it never existed in the first place.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

The Democrat Party should change it's mascot from the donkey, to the kangaroo court.

The Republican Party should change its mascot from the elephant to the jellyfish--that is until they can find their spines.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

You may state it as many times as you feel comfortable, but that's not the precedent that was established during the last impeachments.

I'm stating a Constitutional fact. Precedents of procedure are not in the Constitution.

As far as following precedents goes, Trump has been quite happy to not follow them himself. Check out SuperLib's post from 10:25 this morning for further clarification.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

 Already the President is raising money hands over fist.

Irrelevant. It also won't help him in an impeachment trial in the Senate.

The man has lost all credibility with the Mueller hoax and now he’s back for more punishment. 

More hyper-partisan denial of reality. The only ones back for punishment are the ones here who keep posting falsehoods. You can deny all of what was found in the Mueller Report, but it won't change the facts that were in it. It's a shame that you never bothered reading it before dismissing it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

Wasn't it the mere mention of Joe and Hunter that caused the anonymous source to run screaming to Schiff's totally biased committee for whistleblower protection?

No, it wasn't. The whistleblower complaint dealt with several things--mainly the President's attempt at extortion as well as the improper use of a classified White House server to hide non-classified material--material that could implicate the President and others.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

So they are trying to hold a vote? That’s the process.

As I have stated many times before, a vote only gets held AFTER investigations are done in order to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. That is what is in the Constitution. There is no such passage in the Constitution which says that a floor vote is needed before any investigations take place, so stop making things up and parroting the President's ignorance.

However, if you can show us where this is in your Constitution, please cite the section.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

use the words- follow the process.

They are trying to but are getting stonewalled by Trump and his White House minions.

They haven’t been debunked, 

Yes, they have, but feel free to continue to ignore facts and follow your own narrative since it makes you feel better.

This is like 1998 all over again.

Try 1974--remember that?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

You have no idea what they have since these Democrat controlled committees haven't released any findings yet.

Actually, I have a fairly good idea of what they have, and from what I have read and heard, they have quite a bit to proceed with impeachment. However, I would like to see more, especially the public testimonies by those involved.

Schiff and Pelosi are doing their best to keep their latest witch hunt under wraps,

Ah the old "witch hunt" label. Since you don't have a good defense, why not keep trotting that one out.

The Democrats can hold an actual floor vote, 

How many times do you have to be told or shown that this is not an issue and should not prevent Congress from doing their investigative duties according to the Constitution? 10 times? 1000 times?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

Next person doesn’t testify until we get full transcripts of last testimony from Volker, not just selective leaks.

That's not up to you to decide. Also, who is "we"?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

  . . . so you can support and impeachment, but also not support a removal and the Republicans are not going to do that. 

You are completely missing the point here. Most people realize that the spineless and "party before country" Republican senators right now will not vote Trump out. However, they will be on the hot seat to explain themselves to their constituents--and many are in vulnerable states right now--and once the pressure and evidence gets to be too much to ignore, they will flip. I have a feeling that this is going to be 1974 all over again. Trump will be told that he will not have enough Senate support, and he will resign instead of face the humiliation of impeachment.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump escalates impeachment fight, barring envoy's testimony See in context

The whistleblower's complaint was a second-hand account. And the whistleblower has conspired with Schiff's committee before the whistleblower filed his 2nd-hand account. Schiff, of course, denied that is what happened, and then admitted that it had happened.

False on all counts. The whistleblower's complaint was vetted by the Trump-appointed Inspector General. The IG determined that the complaint was credible and needed to be further investigated by Congress. If you have a problem with that or have information to the contrary, I suggest that you take it up with him. His name is Michael Atkinson.

What elected Democrats are still missing is actual evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors.

You have no idea what they have since their committees haven't released any findings yet. They also don't have what they need because of all of the stonewalling by Trump and his henchmen at the White House. If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should turn over what the committees are requesting--which is plainly spelled out in the Constitution.

Democrats are also failing to convince a sufficient number of constituents that an impeachment is warranted.

Not exactly. Many Democrats came back from the summer recess after holding townhalls with their constituents, and more were in favor of proceeding with impeachment.

Meanwhile, the Justice Dept. will soon be releasing it's investigation of the investigators who trumped up the charges of Russian collusion with Trump. 

And they will find nothing as yet another pathetic attempt to undermine what the intelligence agencies and the Mueller Report all concluded. I know that Barr and company are trying to erase it, but they will not succeed.

Tick tock. The Democrats impeachment theories are about to disappear in a puff of Fusion GPS dossier dust.

You are clearly living in an alternative dimension. The clock is ticking on Trump and his corrupt administration.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.