dmacleod comments

Posted in: House Democrats plan 1st formal vote on impeachment inquiry See in context

Well, if you go by that then Democrats are breaking every rule.

Actual examples from the real world would help give your accusation some credibility, and if you can find some. let's see them. However, just the other day, a federal judge ruled that there was nothing wrong with the current impeachment proceedings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/house-impeachment-subpoenas.html

how the left media has not only been proven wrong, but this year the liberal media retractions were off the chain.

Nope, see the above link or similar stories about it if you are stuck behind a paywall.

Ok you believe that, this is what some very close associates have said about him and I tend to believe them.

I have no doubt that you would believe them since it supports your biased point of view. In fact, it's called "Confirmation Bias."

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: House Democrats plan 1st formal vote on impeachment inquiry See in context

disgruntled and wrong is some of the issues, not to mention not being happy because he wasn’t chosen for the supreme court position 

No, citing actual facts according to what is in the Constitution and pointing out how the right-wing media has been wrong is not the product of being "disgruntled and . . . upset because he wasn't chosen for the Supreme Court." In fact, it's quite the opposite.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: House Democrats plan 1st formal vote on impeachment inquiry See in context

If this is just a vote for an “impeachment inquiry” and not an official House roll call vote for an "impeachment resolution”, then the so called subpoenas remain what they have been all along: only written requests to appear, even if the House judiciary committee is involved.

Fact-free as usual. Subpoenas are legal requests that must be followed if issued by any Congressional Committee. There are no exceptions. I've pointed this out before, but many Trump supporters keep posting this falsehood.

Watch for President Trump to tell the democrats to pound sand and let this issue go to SCOTUS where the liberals will lose . . . again.

Really? Like when? Please tell us a specific case in which the Democrats have lost anything to the SCOTUS regarding this impeachment process. The fact is, the Trump administration has lost every single federal court case that they have tried in their attempts to obstruct the investigations.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: House Democrats plan 1st formal vote on impeachment inquiry See in context

News coming in is that Trump will step down as President - on Jan 20 2025.

More like "President of Cell Block A" at Riker's Island.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: House Democrats plan 1st formal vote on impeachment inquiry See in context

Trump is playing 4D chess and the Democrats are still playing go fish.

The content of that statement shows someone is not quite playing with a full deck.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Situation Room: 2 photos capture vastly different presidents See in context

The other picture is not in the article,

Uh, actually it is. Look for the two thumbnail photos in the upper left corner of the picture at the bottom of the article and then click on them. Magic!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. annual budget deficit largest since 2012 See in context

"It can be done. ... It will take place and it will go relatively quickly. ... If you have the right people, like, in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing ... you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country."

Donald J. Trump

Sources: Interviews with Sean Hannity Feb. 22 and April 4, 2016

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. annual budget deficit largest since 2012 See in context

"Our $17T national debt and $1T yearly budget deficits are a national security risk of the highest order."

Donald J. Trump - 11:12 AM - 13 Nov 2012

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

That’s your right. My right is to call Schiff a vindictive fool.

You can call Schiff and other Democrats all the names that you like. However, you still didn't adress my point about drawing my own conclusions from the testimony of the witnesses such as Ambassador Taylor and others.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

No, what I’m saying is, the Dems shouldn’t be so hard on McConnell, he’s just copying his former counterpart, Harry Reid.

No, Harry Reid did not pull even half of the shenanigans that McConnell has.

I have as well . . .

I seriously doubt that, especially if you read it in English.

But we need to listen to the partisans like Adam Schiff on the left and take his word . . .

I'm taking the words of testimony by Ambassador Taylor and other witnesses in this proceeding. Try arguing against what they said instead of your perceived Boogie Man.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

No Trump-Russian collusion, Google the Mueller Report.

I've read the Mueller Report. It's clear that you haven't.

I see you didn't bother to watch the Levin report. 

Nope, since Mark Levin has proven to be nothing but a hyper-partisan shill on the far right. If I use your words, he "can't be impartial."

And Judge Nap left out a whole bunch of stuff.

Like what? Please tell us.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

Yes, there is.

Please tell us then. Make sure to be specific and cite rules and regulations that can be found in the Constitution so we can verify your claims.

I see, two wrongs make a right. 

Are you telling us that the rules that Republicans made during the Clinton Impeachment that are being followed now were wrong? Wow! When did you come to this realization?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

Watch this and then tell us if you still think the Democrats are carrying out this impeachment inquiry properly  . . .

Read this and tell us if you think that the Democrats are carrying out this impeachment inquiry properly:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/467337-fox-news-napolitano-republicans-are-protesting-their-own-rules-for-impeachment

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

But that’s what they’re doing, 

No, again this is not about liberals. The Republicans are the ones complaining here. I quoted Mitch McConnell above to show their hypocrisy on the issue.

. . . if I were being impeached unjustly . . .

There is nothing "unjust" about how things are proceeding. The Democrats are simply following the rules that the Republicans put into place during the Clinton Impeachment.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

Liberals complain about the process being legally challenged.

Try reading the article again. This isn't about liberals complaining.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Senate Republicans push resolution assailing House impeachment process See in context

"You complain about the process when you are losing." -- Mitch McConnell, December 2017.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Republican lawmakers storm hearing room, disrupting Trump impeachment inquiry See in context

. . .upping their hatred to DEFCON 11,

You do realize that the higher the DEFCON number, the lower the threat is, right?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Posted in: Republican lawmakers storm hearing room, disrupting Trump impeachment inquiry See in context

And what exactly is "BS" about the Biden scandal?

That it never existed in the first place and was the product of the imaginations of Dmytro Firtash (also known as "Dmitry Firtash"), Rudi Guliani, and other Trump henchmen which later got amplified by right-wing conservative media and then spread like manure by loyalists on websites like this one.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Posted in: Republican lawmakers storm hearing room, disrupting Trump impeachment inquiry See in context

. . . so until the process is 100% fair, they’ll continue to moan . . .

Let's see here: There are about 45+ GOP committee members who are present at these hearings. They get to listen to witnesses and then ask them questions. What is so secretive about that? As far as the Republicans who were not allowed into the room, if they really wanted to be there, then maybe they should have asked for better committee assignments from their own leadership.

Oh, and if the Republicans really want to hear witnesses like Ambassador Taylor speak in public, why not invite them to read their opening statements on the White House steps? Let's see how that works out for them.

Be careful what you wish for.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Posted in: Republican lawmakers storm hearing room, disrupting Trump impeachment inquiry See in context

Why do Dems always insist on secret closed door members only meetings.

Whatever happened to transparency and accountability?

"Non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules. No exceptions made." -- Republican Trey Gowdy - June 15, 2015

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Posted in: Canada's Conservatives offer bland option to Trudeau's flash See in context

Maybe liberals should try running on policies that actually work instead of constantly trying to make up stuff and lie to people all the time.

Yes because "constantly trying to make up stuff and lie to people all the time" is the Republicans' job.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump drops plan to host G7 summit at his golf resort See in context

@Christopher Lowery:

The Constitution contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive. Any violation of this is an impeachable offense.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

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 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.