ScottS said:

---

Quash, are u saying we must elect democrats to get the debt to go down?

---

Can you do me a favor? Can you point to anything I've said to make you ask that? Especially in light of my reference to the LP platform as the solution.

curtpenn said:

---

Name a better option for my consideration that isn't a total leftist, will most likely appoint originalists for any court openings, and is a conservative on social issues who stands a good chance of being elected. I'm ready.

---

I don't keep up with candidates like that, they oppose my views on liberty.

quash said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Quash, are u saying we must elect democrats to get the debt to go down?

---

Can you do me a favor? Can you point to anything I've said to make you ask that? Especially in light of my reference to the LP platform as the solution.

---

You run opposition to Trump.

Opposition to Trump is pro Democrat because this country will NEVER leave the 2 party system.

It's like tug o war.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Quash, are u saying we must elect democrats to get the debt to go down?

---

Can you do me a favor? Can you point to anything I've said to make you ask that? Especially in light of my reference to the LP platform as the solution.

---

You run opposition to Trump.

Opposition to Trump is pro Democrats because this country will NEVER leave the 2 party system.

It's like tug o war.

---

Biinary thinking at the core.

---

It's not binary thinking.

It's being forced into the binary.

Surely you can understand the machine that D.C. is?

---

Which poster uses the term "Too Party"? Can you recall?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Quash, are u saying we must elect democrats to get the debt to go down?

---

Can you do me a favor? Can you point to anything I've said to make you ask that? Especially in light of my reference to the LP platform as the solution.

---

You run opposition to Trump.

Opposition to Trump is pro Democrats because this country will NEVER leave the 2 party system.

It's like tug o war.

---

Biinary thinking at the core.

---

It's not binary thinking.

It's being forced into the binary.

Surely you can understand the machine that D.C. is?

---

Which poster uses the term "Too Party"? Can you recall?

---

Yeah but which poster understands that the American public can't escape the Uniparty?

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Quash, are u saying we must elect democrats to get the debt to go down?

---

Can you do me a favor? Can you point to anything I've said to make you ask that? Especially in light of my reference to the LP platform as the solution.

---

You run opposition to Trump.

Opposition to Trump is pro Democrats because this country will NEVER leave the 2 party system.

It's like tug o war.

---

Biinary thinking at the core.

---

It's not binary thinking.

It's being forced into the binary.

Surely you can understand the machine that D.C. is?

---

Which poster uses the term "Too Party"? Can you recall?

---

Yeah but which poster understands that the American public can't escape the Uniparty?

---

As I've said before, I'm not as cynical as you are.

Voted Libertarian until I was almost 40 then gave up on the notion of a viable 3rd party. Frankly, never been a huge fan of the Republican Party which has always been too beholden to the 1% for my liking. So, who do you like that stands a chance?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Quash, are u saying we must elect democrats to get the debt to go down?

---

Can you do me a favor? Can you point to anything I've said to make you ask that? Especially in light of my reference to the LP platform as the solution.

---

You run opposition to Trump.

Opposition to Trump is pro Democrats because this country will NEVER leave the 2 party system.

It's like tug o war.

---

Biinary thinking at the core.

---

It's not binary thinking.

It's being forced into the binary.

Surely you can understand the machine that D.C. is?

---

Which poster uses the term "Too Party"? Can you recall?

---

Yeah but which poster understands that the American public can't escape the Uniparty?

---

As I've said before, I'm not as cynical as you are.

---

You should be. It would take a revolution, civil war or global depression/starvation to undo the Uniparty.

There are trillions of dollars at stake, special interests, deals.

They're not going to let anyone disrupt the system. Ever.

I understand that it's a hard pill to swallow, but you need to swallow it if you're going to be truthful about our political system.

Some of y'all remind me of Republicans prematurely celebrating Clinton's demise back in the 90s. I didn't like what Clinton did and thought he should have resigned when it was clearly shown that he lied under oath, but I never really understood the visceral hate of the man some seemed to have. Nevertheless, impeachment is a political process, as Democrats at the time taught us, and it remains so today. If the Senate doesn't have the needed votes, House Democrats can make all the noise they want, and could very easily overplay their hand as Republicans did before them.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You mean the same guy who has beaten all records on campaign fundraising the moment Democrats started talking about impeachment...?

---

Rebpulicans and the right wing media will be talking a whole lot about Democrats after they haven't uttered a peep about Trump's funnelling governing business to his hotels and all other manners of corruption that characterized his campaign AND his presidency.

They're trying to distract from a POTUS so stupid he's self-destructing before your eyes.

We'll see how soon the rats start leaving the burning ship. Ted Cruz is one to watch. He's very calculating. He'll stick with Trump as long as he thinks Trump may survive and then totally turn on him as soon as he realizes Trump's a goner.

---

Fake News Jinx.

---

The whistlebrlower complaint is not fake news. There are recordings of those phone calls. This may finally be an incident where Trump and his supporters--the guys walking along behind the circus elephant with the buckets and shovels--can't erase the evidence of their boss's corruption fast enough to create plausible deniability.

But, whatever happens, you won't believe it, becasue you buy into the Trump inerrancy doctrine. I'm putting you on ignore, because you won't have anything enlightening to say on this topic--just regurgitated Republican talking points (like the ones Trump's White House staff mistakenly sent to Democrats yesterday--bwa-ha-ha)).

So long, Doc.

---

There's actually NO recordings of the phone call. Zero.

They don't record them for security purposes. It's been this way for a long time.

There are about a dozen people listening in on the calls and if you think POTUS did something illegal or damning, you're just being fooled by media and Democrats looking to spin this in order to get your hopes up.

---

There is an official word for word transcript that White House lawyers tried to hide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistleblower-complaint-released.html

WASHINGTON After hearing that President Trump tried to persuade Ukraine to investigate a 2020 campaign rival, senior officials at the White House scrambled to "lock down" records of the call, a whistle-blower alleged in an explosive complaint released Thursday.

In an attempt to "lock down" all records of the call, in particular its "official word-for-word transcript," White House lawyers told officials to move the transcript into a separate system reserved for classified information that is especially sensitive, actions that the whistle-blower suggested showed that those involved "understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call," according to the complaint.

These and other details surrounding the call in which Mr. Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., were so "deeply disturbing" to senior White House officials that an unnamed intelligence official felt compelled to file a formal whistle-blower complaint.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You mean the same guy who has beaten all records on campaign fundraising the moment Democrats started talking about impeachment...?

---

Rebpulicans and the right wing media will be talking a whole lot about Democrats after they haven't uttered a peep about Trump's funnelling governing business to his hotels and all other manners of corruption that characterized his campaign AND his presidency.

---

There's nothing corrupt about the hotel business, especially when he donates the profits to the US Treasury.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Some of y'all remind me of Republicans prematurely celebrating Clinton's demise back in the 90s. I didn't like what Clinton did and thought he should have resigned when it was clearly shown that he lied under oath, but I never really understood the visceral hate of the man some seemed to have. Nevertheless, impeachment is a political process, as Democrats at the time taught us, and it remains so today. If the Senate doesn't have the needed votes, House Democrats can make all the noise they want, and could very easily overplay their hand as Republicans did before them.

---

Clinton was impeached for lying about a stupid affair. He was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. He should have apologized, not resigned.

Trump has committeed as much, if not more, sexual misconduct as Clinton. I haven't heard a single Republican in a position of power other than Mitt Romney saying that disqualified HIM for office.


If Trump is impeached, it will be for trying to use the power of the federal government's purse to punish his political enemies.

But, given the same outcome but much more serious charges that reflect an egregious disregard by Trump for the separationo of his role and responsibilities as president, for the rule of law, and for democracy and due process, how many Republicans do you think will call for HIS resignation. The only hope then will be that people will be disgusted enough by the blatant power grab and the corrupt behavior they won't vote for Trump.

curtpenn said:

---

Voted Libertarian until I was almost 40 then gave up on the notion of a viable 3rd party. Frankly, never been a huge fan of the Republican Party which has always been too beholden to the 1% for my liking. So, who do you like that stands a chance?

---

I don't generally choose candidates by their chance of success, but by their alignment with my views.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Some of y'all remind me of Republicans prematurely celebrating Clinton's demise back in the 90s. I didn't like what Clinton did and thought he should have resigned when it was clearly shown that he lied under oath, but I never really understood the visceral hate of the man some seemed to have. Nevertheless, impeachment is a political process, as Democrats at the time taught us, and it remains so today. If the Senate doesn't have the needed votes, House Democrats can make all the noise they want, and could very easily overplay their hand as Republicans did before them.

---

Not a fan of the guy, but I did not want the Dems to go down this path. First of all, conviction --even now--is almost impossible. That being said, 67 votes in the Senate may be but another tweet or phone call away. The fact is, Trump has brought us here by his own actions. He had to bring it up on a phone call with intelligence agencies around the world listening in? There are a hundred different ways a President could have gotten what he wanted from Ukraine without it blowing back on him like this. He either didn't know, didn't care or just couldn't control himself despite constant warnings by his lawyers.

Always thought the Clinton impeachment was score settling after watergate. Next Dem. to get elected better keep control of the House. If not, he/she sneezes in public and it will be deemed a high crime and misdemeanor.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You mean the same guy who has beaten all records on campaign fundraising the moment Democrats started talking about impeachment...?

---

Rebpulicans and the right wing media will be talking a whole lot about Democrats after they haven't uttered a peep about Trump's funnelling governing business to his hotels and all other manners of corruption that characterized his campaign AND his presidency.

---

There's nothing corrupt about the hotel business, especially when he donates the profits to the US Treasury.

---

Doesn't escape the Emoluments Clause, nor the smell test. See President Zelensky.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You mean the same guy who has beaten all records on campaign fundraising the moment Democrats started talking about impeachment...?

---

Rebpulicans and the right wing media will be talking a whole lot about Democrats after they haven't uttered a peep about Trump's funnelling governing business to his hotels and all other manners of corruption that characterized his campaign AND his presidency.

They're trying to distract from a POTUS so stupid he's self-destructing before your eyes.

We'll see how soon the rats start leaving the burning ship. Ted Cruz is one to watch. He's very calculating. He'll stick with Trump as long as he thinks Trump may survive and then totally turn on him as soon as he realizes Trump's a goner.

---

Fake News Jinx.

---

The whistlebrlower complaint is not fake news. There are recordings of those phone calls. This may finally be an incident where Trump and his supporters--the guys walking along behind the circus elephant with the buckets and shovels--can't erase the evidence of their boss's corruption fast enough to create plausible deniability.

But, whatever happens, you won't believe it, becasue you buy into the Trump inerrancy doctrine. I'm putting you on ignore, because you won't have anything enlightening to say on this topic--just regurgitated Republican talking points (like the ones Trump's White House staff mistakenly sent to Democrats yesterday--bwa-ha-ha)).

So long, Doc.

---

There's actually NO recordings of the phone call. Zero.

They don't record them for security purposes. It's been this way for a long time.

There are about a dozen people listening in on the calls and if you think POTUS did something illegal or damning, you're just being fooled by media and Democrats looking to spin this in order to get your hopes up.

---

There is an official word for word transcript that White House lawyers tried to hide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistleblower-complaint-released.html

WASHINGTON After hearing that President Trump tried to persuade Ukraine to investigate a 2020 campaign rival, senior officials at the White House scrambled to "lock down" records of the call, a whistle-blower alleged in an explosive complaint released Thursday.

In an attempt to "lock down" all records of the call, in particular its "official word-for-word transcript," White House lawyers told officials to move the transcript into a separate system reserved for classified information that is especially sensitive, actions that the whistle-blower suggested showed that those involved "understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call," according to the complaint.

These and other details surrounding the call in which Mr. Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., were so "deeply disturbing" to senior White House officials that an unnamed intelligence official felt compelled to file a formal whistle-blower complaint.

---

It's amazing. Notice no one is actually defending Trump's actions? The best they can do is attack the source. That won't work this time.

He straight-up held up congressionally appropriated military aid HIMSELF (there's proof). Then he lied about twice with different reasons about why he did that. Then, there were pre-conditions for the phone call in question (that they were going to talk about the quid pro quo). Then he engaged in the quid pro quo. THEN he covered it up!

Giulliani bragged about how he'd used State Department resources to do his work -which is unlawful.

NOW the very prosecutor that Biden fired has come out and said that Hunter Biden didn't break any laws (he was hired to the board AFTER any allegations of wrongdoing by the company).

These are facts no one is disputing. What will it take for some of his supporters to see he just ****ing sucks at being President?

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Some of y'all remind me of Republicans prematurely celebrating Clinton's demise back in the 90s. I didn't like what Clinton did and thought he should have resigned when it was clearly shown that he lied under oath, but I never really understood the visceral hate of the man some seemed to have. Nevertheless, impeachment is a political process, as Democrats at the time taught us, and it remains so today. If the Senate doesn't have the needed votes, House Democrats can make all the noise they want, and could very easily overplay their hand as Republicans did before them.

---

Clinton was impeached for lying about a stupid affair.

---

Clinton was impeached for unlawfully depriving a sexual harassment victim of compensation for her injury.

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Some of y'all remind me of Republicans prematurely celebrating Clinton's demise back in the 90s. I didn't like what Clinton did and thought he should have resigned when it was clearly shown that he lied under oath, but I never really understood the visceral hate of the man some seemed to have. Nevertheless, impeachment is a political process, as Democrats at the time taught us, and it remains so today. If the Senate doesn't have the needed votes, House Democrats can make all the noise they want, and could very easily overplay their hand as Republicans did before them.

---

If Trump is impeached, it will be for trying to use the power of the federal government's purse to punish his political enemies.

---

Didn't this already happen before? I seem to remember the IRS being used in this manner by the previous administration. Certainly we can now all agree that the FBI was used to spy on his political rival.

I don't remember the outrage from you but I could have missed it. Those were BF days.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You mean the same guy who has beaten all records on campaign fundraising the moment Democrats started talking about impeachment...?

---

Rebpulicans and the right wing media will be talking a whole lot about Democrats after they haven't uttered a peep about Trump's funnelling governing business to his hotels and all other manners of corruption that characterized his campaign AND his presidency.

---

There's nothing corrupt about the hotel business, especially when he donates the profits to the US Treasury.

---

Doesn't escape the Emoluments Clause, nor the smell test. See President Zelensky.

---

Sure it does. The donation goes straight from the company to the Treasury. Assuming the Emoluments Clause applies, Trump isn't violating it unless he accepts a distribution.

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

He's not playing 3-dimensional chess.

He's a simple rich kid who has failed up his entire life.

He's going to ruin the party on his way out.

---

You, Jinx, and others like y'all have this reeeealllly weird assumption that conservatives and republicans all think Trump is awesome or something. I can't stand the guy. He was way down my list of desirable candidates. I'm frequently embarrassed by his vanity and petulance. I will, however, vote for him this time. You know why? Because leftist like you guys have practically forced me into the position of rooting for him.

I know you can't stand that he's president. You and I probably both feel the same way about him as a person. The difference is, I don't need someone to look up to. I need someone to put America first, get some **** done, and appoint conservative judges to the federal courts. Do I wish that person could also be an admirable guy (or girl)? Of course. But I will hold my nose and vote for an ugly narcissist who achieves some of what I want achieved over the utter LUNACY of what has become of the Leftist movement in this country. That's not Trump worship, it's supporting an alternative to something I would be able to tolerate even less.

To win a democratic nomination now you pretty much have to support killing babies indiscriminately at any stage of pregnancy (or even after birth), confiscating guns, offering tons of free stuff to buy votes (paid for by taxing the populace into oblivion), worshipping trees and rocks, and hating white people and men. That's basically the platform you have to adopt in a nutshell. If you're a reasonable, moderate democrat they won't even let you on the debate stage. The radicalization of the democratic party is its downfall. Hell, it's the reason Trump is in office RIGHT NOW.

---

Not "needing someone to look up to" is different from not expecting the president to respect the constitution and the rule of law and use his presidential powers on behalf of hte country and its citizens and not himself.

If a Democrat had done what Trump has apparently done, you guys would be having aneurisms and conniptions.

We don't have a "the ends justify the means" government, at least not totally. And not yet.

If the Republicans in Senate don't stand up for it, we may not going forward.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Some of y'all remind me of Republicans prematurely celebrating Clinton's demise back in the 90s. I didn't like what Clinton did and thought he should have resigned when it was clearly shown that he lied under oath, but I never really understood the visceral hate of the man some seemed to have. Nevertheless, impeachment is a political process, as Democrats at the time taught us, and it remains so today. If the Senate doesn't have the needed votes, House Democrats can make all the noise they want, and could very easily overplay their hand as Republicans did before them.

---

Clinton was impeached for lying about a stupid affair. He was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. He should have apologized, not resigned.

Trump has committeed as much, if not more, sexual misconduct as Clinton. I haven't heard a single Republican in a position of power other than Mitt Romney saying that disqualified HIM for office.


If Trump is impeached, it will be for trying to use the power of the federal government's purse to punish his political enemies.

But, given the same outcome but much more serious charges that reflect an egregious disregard by Trump for the separationo of his role and responsibilities as president, for the rule of law, and for democracy and due process, how many Republicans do you think will call for HIS resignation. The only hope then will be that people will be disgusted enough by the blatant power grab and the corrupt behavior they won't vote for Trump.

---

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Democrats taught us that sexual misconduct, lying about it under oath to a federal judge, and, evidence would suggest, trying to get others to lie under oath, is not sufficient to remove a president from office if he will appoint the "right kind" of Supreme Court justices. Trump can apologize if he wants, or he can wag his finger and say none of his sexual misconduct ever happened, and we should not expect Republicans to stop supporting him. Democrats already taught us that.

If Trump is impeached, it will be because his political enemies think they can gain political advantage by doing so.

---

If Trump is impeached, make no mistake about it, it will be because of his own misonduct. And because Republicans in the Senate and in the White House have covered for his misconduct in the past, and they now clearly see that doing that is no longer the right thing for them.

Since it's been apparent since they accepted Trump as a candidate because they didn't want to run against him as an independent that they do not care about doing the right thing for the country. They sold their party out to Trump. Now I hope the turkey is coming home to roost.

D. C. Bear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Some of y'all remind me of Republicans prematurely celebrating Clinton's demise back in the 90s. I didn't like what Clinton did and thought he should have resigned when it was clearly shown that he lied under oath, but I never really understood the visceral hate of the man some seemed to have. Nevertheless, impeachment is a political process, as Democrats at the time taught us, and it remains so today. If the Senate doesn't have the needed votes, House Democrats can make all the noise they want, and could very easily overplay their hand as Republicans did before them.

---

If Trump is impeached, it will be for trying to use the power of the federal government's purse to punish his political enemies.

---

Didn't this already happen before? I seem to remember the IRS being used in this manner by the previous administration. Certainly we can now all agree that the FBI was used to spy on his political rival.

I don't remember the outrage from you but I could have missed it. Those were BF days.

---

It's different when a Democrat does it.

---

Only Obama didn't do that. Here's the Bloomberg story that clearly spells out the false Republican narrative.

You and the other right-wingers on this site will call it fake news, but Bloomberg is a straight-arrow, well-regarded news service, and this analysis covers the canard the GOP promoted on Fox for years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-20/gop-surrenders-cherished-irs-scandal-at-last

The IRS scandal came to a pathetic, whimpering conclusion earlier this month. For half a decade the scandal had kept delinquent members of Congress occupied and served up reliable programming to Fox News and other conservative media. But when Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen walked out of his office on Nov. 9, of his own volition, on schedule, his fine reputation intact, the whole greasy production quietly expired.


When President Barack Obama appointed Koskinen in 2013, the Republicans had been swinging at the IRS for some time. A band of House Republicans later attempted to impeach Koskinen, claiming various misdeeds. But it was a late-inning stunt, a too-obvious effort to extend a scandal that had served so many so well for so long.

Shortly before Koskinen left office, the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration released the (presumably) final report on the scandal. Like a previous Inspector General report, it tried to soothe Republican feelings the IRS really, really should've handled things differently -- while utterly refuting Republican charges about what had transpired.


The story told by Republicans is so well known that it substitutes for fact. In the first years of the Obama administration, Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations rose up to defy the government. When the groups sought IRS approval for their designations as "social welfare" organizations under the tax code, the IRS targeted them with burdensome queries, harassing the groups while slow-walking reviews of their applications. In this telling, it was a political vendetta carried out against conservatives by a government agency that many anti-government, anti-tax conservatives especially despised.

Republicans claimed the IRS served as an attack dog for the Obama White House. But inquiries by the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the Justice Department all failed to produce evidence of political interference.

Perhaps it was because the premise of the scandal -- that Obama's political team would want to destroy local Tea Party groups -- was absurd. For Democrats, local Tea Party groups were a political Giving Tree, bearing glorious, loopy fruit such as Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin, Tea Party candidates who managed to lose crucial Senate campaigns that a competent Republican perhaps any competent Republican -- would've won.

What's more, none of the groups actually needed IRS approval to operate. "These organizations didn't have to wait for the IRS to tell them anything to go into business," Koskinen said in a telephone interview last week.

Yet the IRS clearly applied extra scrutiny to groups that it thought might be engaged in too much politics to warrant the preferential tax designation. One way IRS personnel did that was to look for key words, such as "Tea Party." Other words that triggered IRS scrutiny included: "Occupy," "green energy," "medical marijuana" and "progressive."

Contrary to the Republican story, the IRS never targeted conservatives. The IRS targeted politics, which was pretty much what it was supposed to do.

In September, the Trump Justice Department reaffirmed the decision of the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute Lois Lerner, the IRS bureaucrat whom Republicans settled on as a criminal mastermind after they had failed to find an exploitable connection to Obama.

"The great thing about it for the Freedom Caucus and Capitol Hill," Koskinen said of the GOP's investigative shtick, "was that it could keep going. You start with the substance of the issue and, when that runs out, you go to the process. And when that runs out, you go after the messenger."

The failure to punish someone upset Republican Representative Kevin Brady. "Today's decision does not mean Lois Lerner is innocent," Brady stated. "It means the justice system in Washington is deeply flawed."
Brady is not a reckless Freedom Caucus radical. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he is considered one of the more knowledgeable, capable and responsible members of the House Republican conference. And there's the rub.

The scandal wasn't just a production to keep fringe Republicans busy and far removed from serious business. It was part of a propaganda campaign with institutional GOP support all the way up to the speaker of the House.

An October story in Politico quoted retired House Speaker John Boehner in a fit of candor. Freed from his party obligations, Boehner was unsparing in his denunciations of two of the IRS scandal's biggest promoters House Freedom Caucus leader Jim Jordan of Ohio and former Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

As head of the House oversight committee, Chaffetz had tirelessly flogged the IRS scandal. Boehner called him a "total phony." Boehner described Jordan in more incendiary terms, calling the champion of government shutdowns, budget showboating and governing chaos a "legislative terrorist."

Both men earned their labels. Yet the gutter tactics that brought each to prominence were championed by Boehner himself. He invested Chaffetz and California Representative Darrell Issa with vast investigative powers, and then indulged the falsehoods and character assassination in which they trafficked. He mounted a Benghazi extravaganza that had more theatrical lives than "Cats."
In a 2013 press conference, Boehner expressed fury over the scandal at the IRS. Not because it was a partisan charade costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of government employee make-work. Boehner, like Brady, was enraged that no scapegoat was taking the rap.
"Now, my question isn't about who's going to resign," said the highest-ranking Republican in Washington. "My question is who's going to jail over this scandal?"
So, yes, it was heartening to hear Boehner confirm the truth about his former colleagues. But the next time the former speaker organizes a charity golf outing, perhaps he can apply the proceeds to Lois Lerner's legal bills.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

He's not playing 3-dimensional chess.

He's a simple rich kid who has failed up his entire life.

He's going to ruin the party on his way out.

---

You, Jinx, and others like y'all have this reeeealllly weird assumption that conservatives and republicans all think Trump is awesome or something. I can't stand the guy. He was way down my list of desirable candidates. I'm frequently embarrassed by his vanity and petulance. I will, however, vote for him this time. You know why? Because leftist like you guys have practically forced me into the position of rooting for him.

I know you can't stand that he's president. You and I probably both feel the same way about him as a person. The difference is, I don't need someone to look up to. I need someone to put America first, get some **** done, and appoint conservative judges to the federal courts. Do I wish that person could also be an admirable guy (or girl)? Of course. But I will hold my nose and vote for an ugly narcissist who achieves some of what I want achieved over the utter LUNACY of what has become of the Leftist movement in this country. That's not Trump worship, it's supporting an alternative to something I would be able to tolerate even less.

To win a democratic nomination now you pretty much have to support killing babies indiscriminately at any stage of pregnancy (or even after birth), confiscating guns, offering tons of free stuff to buy votes (paid for by taxing the populace into oblivion), worshipping trees and rocks, and hating white people and men. That's basically the platform you have to adopt in a nutshell. If you're a reasonable, moderate democrat they won't even let you on the debate stage. The radicalization of the democratic party is its downfall. Hell, it's the reason Trump is in office RIGHT NOW.

---

If a Democrat had done what Trump has apparently done, you guys would be having aneurisms and conniptions.

---

And you'd care not at all.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You mean the same guy who has beaten all records on campaign fundraising the moment Democrats started talking about impeachment...?

---

Rebpulicans and the right wing media will be talking a whole lot about Democrats after they haven't uttered a peep about Trump's funnelling governing business to his hotels and all other manners of corruption that characterized his campaign AND his presidency.

They're trying to distract from a POTUS so stupid he's self-destructing before your eyes.

We'll see how soon the rats start leaving the burning ship. Ted Cruz is one to watch. He's very calculating. He'll stick with Trump as long as he thinks Trump may survive and then totally turn on him as soon as he realizes Trump's a goner.

---

Fake News Jinx.

---

The whistlebrlower complaint is not fake news. There are recordings of those phone calls. This may finally be an incident where Trump and his supporters--the guys walking along behind the circus elephant with the buckets and shovels--can't erase the evidence of their boss's corruption fast enough to create plausible deniability.

But, whatever happens, you won't believe it, becasue you buy into the Trump inerrancy doctrine. I'm putting you on ignore, because you won't have anything enlightening to say on this topic--just regurgitated Republican talking points (like the ones Trump's White House staff mistakenly sent to Democrats yesterday--bwa-ha-ha)).

So long, Doc.

---

You won't believe he's innocent...so how are you any different?

---

If they investigate and find him innocent, I'll accept the verdict.

I doubt Trump's supporters will do the same when they investigate and find him guilty. They have done everything possible to shut down ANY investigations of Trump, and Trump hasn't released his tax returns.

This is coming out in part because Joseph McGuire allegedly thretened to resign if the White House tried to stop him from testifying before congress. McGuire and the White House both deny this happend, but theWashington Post stands by its story.. What I think this says is that McGuire was at least smart enought or realize that Trump's expectations of loyalty mean disobeying the law to preserve him, and McGuire wasn't willing to do that (which is wise, since several of those who did are nwo behind bars)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/acting-director-of-national-intelligence-threatened-to-resign-if-he-couldnt-speak-freely-before-congress/2019/09/25/b1deb71e-dfbf-11e9-be96-6adb81821e90_story.html?outputType=amp

The current and former officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, said Maguire had pushed the White House to make an explicit legal decision on whether it would assert executive privilege over the whistleblower complaint, which centers on a call that Trump made with the leader of Ukraine in late July.
...
It was unclear whether Maguire's threat had forced the White House to acquiesce and allow him to testify without constraint. But officials said Maguire has pursued the opportunity to meet with lawmakers to defend his actions and integrity.

---

Definitely fake news. His alleged threatening resignation has been debunked and the acting DNI stated it himself if you had watched the clown show hearing today.