• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

The Official Thread Dedicated to "Trump Winning"

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Don't think I have ever been on a flight when EVERYONE is watching the same thing (except long ago, when you had no choice) <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachmentHearing?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachmentHearing</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constanttraveler?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constanttraveler</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/friendlyskies?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#friendlyskies</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ambassadoryovanovitch?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ambassadoryovanovitch</a> <a href="https://t.co/vzG5YHUu7M">pic.twitter.com/vzG5YHUu7M</a></p>— Georgiana Platt (@gianabanan) <a href="https://twitter.com/gianabanan/status/1195361583238713344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

Sure, his base doesn't care, no doubt about that. He could do a lap around the WH naked and take a dump on the front lawn, his supporters wouldn't bat an eye. But as we saw in the midterms, and in recent elections, Americans far and wide seem to be increasingly turned off by Trump. He still has the lowest all time approval rating of any President in history, and the only one never once to hit even hit 50%. Thank God for that. If impeachment doesn't get to him first, it will be up to voters to get rid of this asshat once and for all. This time, the electoral college won't be enough to keep in power. And he will go down in the annals of history as the very worse President the country has ever had. Congrats to you all, for sticking by so much mediocracy for three years running, truly impressive.
<iframe scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2d991e3dfc9abb2549972ce8b64c5d85.html?origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernationforums.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2d991e3dfc9abb2549972ce8b64c5d85.html?origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernationforums.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe" frameborder="0"></iframe>

You're correct in that everyone has already made up their minds on President Trump, and it will come down to November 2020. The question I have is,will those that aren't foaming at the mouth to get him out of office, vote for one of the current Democratic candidates?
Trump may have an ego the size of Montana, and at times should keep his mouth shut, but there is no one currently running from the opposing party that I would vote for, and that's the real issue for the Dems.
 
Dems love their victims. They've got crocodile tears for any victim who advances their cause, brow beatings for anyone not also feigning dismay, and are absolutely ruthless towards the actual victims of their policies. Would love to know how all the strong women out there feel about this bullshit from this woman.
 
Dems love their victims. They've got crocodile tears for any victim who advances their cause, brow beatings for anyone not also feigning dismay, and are absolutely ruthless towards the actual victims of their policies. Would love to know how all the strong women out there feel about this bullshit from this woman.

It's scary how blatantly incorrect some of you are, as you gobble-up and regurgitate right-wing talking points.

Ambassador Yovanovitch is about as outstanding a foreign service officer this country's ever had. She began her tenure under Reagan, and has served the country honorably for over thirty years under four Republican, and two Democratic presidents. She's been stationed in hardship places like Mogadishu, Moscow, Krygyzstan, Armenia and most recently Ukraine. Yovanovitch received the department's Senior Foreign Service Performance Award six times and the Superior Honor Award five times.

The fact is, Guliani and his Ukraine mafia henchmen pushed Trump to get rid of her because she was in their way. She was honest and steadfast in representing American foreign policy in Ukraine and stood against corruption in that country. She was in the way for Trump to begin his murky campaign of bribery and extortion for Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rival Biden. That's it, that's what she did wrong.

It is truly pathetic to watch a deranged president push out an excellent Ambassador who's served the country with honor. It's even more pathetic to watch his uninformed base spout out bullshit talking points in trying to defend this President's actions. But we've seen that for three years running now, nothing new here.
 
Last edited:
So the only reason this woman testified was to clear her name and make Trump look like a bully? That'll probably be the next thing Schiff will charge him with and begin a new investigation....for being a bully.
 
It's scary how blatantly incorrect some of you are, as you gobble-up and regurgitate right-wing talking points.

Ambassador Yovanovitch is about as outstanding a foreign service officer this country's ever had. She began her tenure under Reagan, and has served the country honorably for over thirty years under four Republican, and two Democratic presidents. She's been stationed in hardship places like Mogadishu, Moscow, Krygyzstan, Armenia and most recently Ukraine. Yovanovitch received the department's Senior Foreign Service Performance Award six times and the Superior Honor Award five times.

The fact is, Guliani and his Ukraine mafia henchmen pushed Trump to get rid of her because she was in their way. She was honest and steadfast in representing American foreign policy in Ukraine and stood against corruption in that country. She was in the way for Trump to begin his murky campaign of bribery and extortion for Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rival Biden. That's it, that's what she did wrong.

It is truly pathetic to watch a deranged president push out an excellent Ambassador who's served the country with honor. It's even more pathetic to watch his uninformed base spout out bullshit talking points in trying to defend this President's actions. But we've seen that for three years running now, nothing new here.

Doesn't matter. Ambassador is a political appointment and you serve at the pleasure of the President. Every new President replaces almost all the ambassadors. It's not a lifetime government job.
 
Doesn't matter. Ambassador is a political appointment and you serve at the pleasure of the President. Every new President replaces almost all the ambassadors. It's not a lifetime government job.

Exactly. So why didn't he simply replace her and move on? Why carry out a smear campaign against her, lasting months? Because she was doing a great job, there was nobody better in the State Dept. Because she stood against exactly the type of corruption Trump//Giuliani are now claiming they're trying to root out. Because Trump doesn't know his *** from a hole in the ground, and had no idea what was going on in Ukraine - nor does he care. Until Giuliani conviced him that they can try to go after Biden, and have the nefarious contacts on the ground to get it done. All that came to a screeching halt thanks to the whistleblower making a formal complaint. The whole scheme fell apart. A day later Trump released the military aid he'd been holding up and using to bribe and extort the Ukrainian government, to try to cover his ***. And that is how this entire mess Trump created has brought us to this point.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. So why didn't he simply replace her and move on? Why carry out a smear campaign against her, lasting months? Because she was doing a great job, there was nobody better in the State Dept. Because she stood against exactly the type of corruption Trump//Giuliani are now claiming they're trying to root out. Because Trump doesn't know his *** from a hole in the ground, and had no idea what was going on in Ukraine - nor does he care. Until Giuliani conviced him that they can try to go after Biden, and have the nefarious contacts on the ground to get it done. All that came to a screeching halt thanks to the whistleblower making a formal complaint. The whole scheme fell apart. A day later Trump released the military aid he'd been holding up and using to bribe and extort the Ukrainian government, to try to cover his ***. And that is how this entire mess Trump created has brought us to this point.

She was let go because she was trying to stop President Trump's investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden. Part of the swamp that we need to get rid of just like Lois Lerner.
 
She was let go because she was trying to stop President Trump's investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden. Part of the swamp that we need to get rid of just like Lois Lerner.

Don’t waste your time. Tibs is not mentally healthy. He ignores facts, reason, reality and common sense.
 
KANGAROO COURT!

This is an outright coup attempt by the treasonous Marxists in our government


Adam Schiff Again Refuses to Allow Elise Stefanik to Ask Questions

During the second half of questioning at Friday's impeachment inquiry hearing on Capitol Hill, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff shut down questioning of former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Schiff did so after Ranking Member Devin Nunes yielded his time to Stefanik.

"The gentlewoman will suspend," Schiff asked.

"What is the interruption for this time?" Stefanik asked. "This is the fifth time you've interrupted duly elected members of Congress."


"You're gagging the gentle lady from New York?" Nunes asked. "Mr. Chair, we control the time. It's been customary in this Committee that whoever controls the time can yield to whoever they wish. It seems appropriate that we let Ms. Stefanik ask her question."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...llow-elise-stefanik-to-ask-questions-n2556562

-----------------------


Once again, Adam Schiff flat out REFUSES to let duly elected Members of Congress ask questions to the witness, simply because we are Republicans. His behavior is unacceptable and he continues to abuse his Chairmanship.

https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/s...llow-elise-stefanik-to-ask-questions-n2556562
 
KANGAROO COURT!

This is so ******* stupid. The hearing is run by the exact rules enacted by the GOP. The session got started with 2 x 45 min with the majority & minority chairs alotted this time for themselves and/or the counsel from each side. That's it. During this period nobody else was alotted time, from either side.

Of course she tried to rudely interrupt the hearing during this initial period of questioning. Schiff obviously shut her down based on the accepted rules. Following this initial session, came the period where all committee members - including this whiny snowflake Stefanik - could ask whatever questions they wanted. Of course the dimwit GOP wankers -- Nunes, Jordan, Stefanik went crying to the media afterwards, as that's all they have to hang their hats on.

Almost as embarrassing as the circus act these bozos tried to stage a week or so ago, when they went barging into a secret, closed-door hearing that was being held by Democrats and - gasp - Republicans alike.

Only the Trump base is dumb enough to fall for these shenanigans. They have zero defense of Trump or his actions. So they desperately try to sully the good name of honorable, non-partisan foreign service members, and cry foul over process issues they themselves implemented years ago for these House hearings. It truly is comedy gold.

All of this loudly projects the simple fact there is nobody on the GOP side who can argue for and defend the President on merit.
 
Last edited:
WAR!



Attorney General Barr defends Trump, assails 'Resistance' in fiery speech



"In waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war of Resistance against this administration, it is the Left that is engaged in a systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law," Barr said in a speech to conservative lawyers at the Federalist Society's convention in Washington.

Barr went into detail as he assailed the self-described "Resistance" to Trump, accusing them of adopting "dangerous" and "incendiary" language by implying the sitting government is illegitimate.

"This is a very dangerous and indeed incendiary notion to import into the politics of a Democratic republic," Barr said. "The fact is, that, yes, while the president has certainly thrown out the traditional beltway playbook and punctilio, he was upfront about what he was going to do and the people decided that he was going to serve as president."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/att...7057256&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed
 
Trump needs to shake things up and get some better representation in there.... these asshats are making things worse for Trump than they already are, if that's even possible.


N-vtelen.png

<iframe scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2d991e3dfc9abb2549972ce8b64c5d85.html?origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernationforums.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe" frameborder="0"></iframe>
 
Last edited:
Exactly. So why didn't he simply replace her and move on? Why carry out a smear campaign against her, lasting months? Because she was doing a great job,

Ha! It's sad but not unexpected that you are serious.
 
Trump needs to shake things up and get some better representation in there.... these asshats are making things worse for Trump than they already are, if that's even possible.


N-vtelen.png

<iframe scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2d991e3dfc9abb2549972ce8b64c5d85.html?origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernationforums.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Those are also the same faces made by your everyday citizen as they try to care about this snoozefest nothingburger. I feel sorry for those congressmen having to sit through every minute of it.
 
For anyone keeping score, pull up a chair and an adult beverage of your choice...this may take a while.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s been hard to communicate just how comprehensively Trump has been lying about his Ukraine scandal. So I made a list. <br><br>Here are 45 separate ways Trump has been dishonest about Ukraine and impeachment, fact checked: <a href="https://t.co/aHKtZvczvJ">https://t.co/aHKtZvczvJ</a></p>— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) <a href="https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1195705874372792321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 16, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>
<twitter-widget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-0" style="position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 500px; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" data-tweet-id="1195705874372792321"></twitter-widget> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
President Donald Trump is dishonest about a whole lot of things. But he is rarely as comprehensively dishonest as he has been about his dealings with Ukraine and the impeachment inquiry they have triggered.

Relentless deceit has seemed to be his primary defense strategy in the court of public opinion. Trump has made false claims about almost every separate component of the story, from his July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the whistleblower who complained about the call to Democrats' impeachment inquiry hearings.

The President is dissembling about so many different topics at once that it can be difficult to keep track of what is true and what isn't. To help you fight Trump-induced dizziness, here are brief fact checks of 45 separate false claims Trump has made on the subject of Ukraine or impeachment.

The phone call with Zelensky
1. Trump released an "exact transcript" of his call with Zelensky. (The document says on its first page that it is "not a verbatim transcript.")
2. Trump did not ask Zelensky for anything on the call. (Trump asked Zelensky to look into former Vice President Joe Biden, look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers, and speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.)
3. Zelensky criticized former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch "out of the blue" on the call. (Trump brought up Yovanovitch first.)
4. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was "angry" when she saw the rough transcript of the call, and she said, "This is not what the whistleblower said." (Pelosi has said no such thing in public, and there is no evidence she has said anything like that in private. Her public statement on the call was scathing.)
5. "Everybody" that looked at the text of the call agreed that it was "perfect." (Some of Trump's staunch defenders agreed with this characterization, but clearly not "everybody" did.)
6. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke to Trump about the call and said, "That was the most innocent phone call that I've read." (McConnell said he doesn't recall speaking to Trump about the call. His public statement on the call was far less effusive than Trump's description.)
7. People are not talking about the call anymore. (People continue to talk about the call, a central focus of the impeachment inquiry.)
8. The Washington Post made up fictional sources for its article on how Trump had allegedly tried to get Barr to hold a news conference saying Trump had broken no laws in the call. (There is no evidence that the Post invented sources. Other major news outlets, including CNN, quickly reported the same thing the Post did.)

The whistleblower
9. The whistleblower was "sooo wrong." (The rough transcript and witness testimony have proven the whistleblower to have been highly accurate.)
10. The whistleblower, a second whistleblower and the first whistleblower's source have all "disappeared." (There is no evidence for this. Whistleblowers do not have an obligation to speak publicly after filing their complaints.)
11. The whistleblower had "all second hand" information. (While the whistleblower did get information about the call from other people, the whistleblower also had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct," noted Michael Atkinson, the Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community.)
12. The whistleblower "said 'quid pro quo' eight times." (The whistleblower did not even use the words "quid pro quo" in the complaint, much less specify a number of times Trump allegedly said those words. Trump may have been referring to a Wall Street Journal article that had asserted that Trump urged Zelensky "about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani" on a probe that could hurt Biden; the article did not say this claim came from the whistleblower.)
13. The whistleblower "works now for Biden." (There is no evidence for this. The whistleblower's lawyers said their client has never worked for or advised a candidate, campaign or party; the lawyers said the whistleblower has come into contact with presidential candidates for both parties while working as a civil servant in the executive branch.)
14. Someone "changed the long standing whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. (Contrary to a report on a right-wing website, the whistleblower rules were not changed.)

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff
15. Schiff committed "a criminal act" by delivering an exaggerated interpretation of Trump's July 25 call at a committee hearing. (The Constitution gives members of Congress immunity for comments they make at committee.)
16. Schiff did have immunity for his comments at the committee, but not when he tweeted a video of those comments. (Experts say members of Congress also have immunity for videos of their comments at committee.)
17. Schiff might have committed "treason." (Treason has a specific constitutional definition that Schiff's actions do not come close to meeting.)
18. Schiff made his comments before Trump released the rough transcript of the call, not expecting Trump to release it. (Schiff spoke the day after Trump released the document.)
19. Schiff "didn't use one word that I said" in his rendition of the call. (Schiff did add words Trump had never said, but he didn't make up the whole thing; some of his remarks hewed closely to what Trump said.)
20. Schiff might have been the whistleblower's source. (This is nonsense. The whistleblower said in the complaint that information about the call came from "multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call.")
21. Schiff might have picked the whistleblower. (The whistleblower sought guidance from Schiff's committee before filing their complaint, but Schiff didn't "pick" the whistleblower.)
22. Schiff "will only release doctored transcripts." (Schiff has already released multiple transcripts of testimony from closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings, and there was no sign that any of them had been "doctored." Witnesses and their lawyers were given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcripts prior to release, and Republicans who attended the testimony did not allege that any transcripts had been improperly altered.)

The impeachment process
23. Republicans were not allowed into the closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings. (Republican members of the three committees holding the hearings were allowed into the room and to ask questions of witnesses. Only Republicans who were not on the committees were barred from the room.)
24. Republicans were not allowed to ask questions in the closed-door hearings. (Republicans were allowed to ask questions. Democrats and Republicans alternated questioning.)
25. Nobody else has ever faced closed-door impeachment hearings. (Both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment processes involved some closed-door hearings.)
26. Trump's opponents have committed "illegal acts" related to impeachment. (Trump wasn't clear about who he was talking about, but there is no evidence of illegality by either the whistleblower or Democrats.)
27. The people who have testified in the impeachment inquiry have had "no firsthand knowledge." (Various witnesses have had firsthand knowledge of various components of the story.)
28. Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, still says there was "no quid pro quo." (Sondland revised his original testimony to effectively acknowledge his belief that there had been a quid pro quo.)
29. Unlike Democrats, former House Speaker Paul Ryan "would never issue a subpoena." (Numerous Republican subpoenas were issued to the Obama administration during Ryan's tenure as speaker.)
30. "Many" of the people who had testified as of October 21 "were put there during Obama, during Clinton, during the Never Trump or Bush era." (FactCheck.org noted that just two of the nine people who had testified at that point had been appointed under Obama. The other seven were appointed by Trump or his appointees.)

The Bidens
31. Joe Biden, along with his son Hunter Biden, has "ripped off at least two countries for millions of dollars." (There is no evidence Joe Biden has profited from his son's business dealings abroad.)
32. A video of Joe Biden speaking in 2018 about his past dealings with Ukraine is evidence of "corruption." (The tape does not show corruption. It shows Biden talking about his effort, in accordance with the policy of the US and its allies, to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor widely considered unwilling to fight corruption.)
33. There is a photo of Joe Biden playing golf with "the company boss" of Burisma, the Ukrainian company for which Hunter Biden sat on the board. (Neither Burisma's owner nor chief executive is in the photo. The person Trump had identified as a "Ukraine gas exec" was Devon Archer, another American board member at Burisma and a longtime business associate of Hunter Biden.)
34. That golf photo contradicts Joe Biden's claim to have "never met the gentleman." (Joe Biden had not claimed to have never met Devon Archer.)
35. Hunter Biden was under investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor who Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire. (There is no public evidence that Hunter Biden was ever himself under investigation. The prosecutor's former deputy has said that the actual investigation, into the owner of Burisma, was dormant at the time of Joe Biden's pressure.)
36. Biden pressured Ukraine to take the prosecutor "off the case." (There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case. Rather, Biden, like the US government more broadly, tried to get the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired.)
37. Before Joe Biden denied that he had spoken to Hunter Biden about Hunter's overseas business activities, Joe Biden had said he did speak to Hunter about those business activities. (Joe Biden had not said he did speak to Hunter Biden about those business activities. Hunter Biden said they had one brief conversation in which Joe Biden asked him if he knew what he was doing.)
38. Hunter Biden's acts were "illegal." (Hunter Biden has acknowledged using "poor judgment" in accepting the seat on the Burisma board, but there is no evidence of illegality.)

Dealings with Ukraine
39. Trump "didn't delay" the military aid to Ukraine. (His administration did delay the aid.)
40. Democratic senators sent a letter to Ukraine that threatened to deny US aid if the Ukrainians did not comply with their demands. (The letter did not make any threat to Ukraine. The senators expressed concern about a New York Times report that Ukraine had, to avoid Trump's wrath, stopped cooperating with the Mueller investigation and frozen investigations into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The letter urged Ukraine to reverse course if the report was true.)
41. President Barack Obama sent mere "pillows and sheets" in aid to Ukraine. (Trump was correct that Obama refused to provide lethal military assistance, but Obama sent other military assistance: drones, armored Humvees, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies.)
42. The US is the "only" country providing assistance to Ukraine, and "nobody else is there." (European countries have provided billions in grants and loans to Ukraine since Russia's 2014 invasion.)
43. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike is primarily owned by someone from Ukraine. (CrowdStrike is a publicly traded, US-based company co-founded by Dmitri Alperovitch, an American citizen who was born in Russia.)

Polls
44. Impeachment has caused Trump's poll numbers to go "way up" to "higher than they've ever been, ever." (There has been no sign of a significant increase in Trump's poll numbers. His approval rating has fallen slightly since the Ukraine scandal began, according to FiveThirtyEight's poll aggregate.)
45. It was "announced" that a Fox News poll showing majority support for impeaching and removing Trump from office was "incorrect." (Fox News says it stands by the poll.)
<iframe scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2d991e3dfc9abb2549972ce8b64c5d85.html?origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernationforums.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2d991e3dfc9abb2549972ce8b64c5d85.html?origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernationforums.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
 
Last edited:
Barr said in a speech to conservative lawyers at the Federalist Society's convention in Washington.

Good God, has everyone in Trump's orbit lost their minds? Not really, we're just seeing who these people are in real terms. Be it Stephen Miller sending out dozens of far-right, highly racist emails, or Barr now stepping forward as some sort of Apostle of right-wing Christianity, from the pulpit of the Justice Dept. Scary times, indeed. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves.

Lunatic is right.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lawyers Call for AG Barr's Impeachment After Federalist Society Speech | Law & Crime <a href="https://t.co/05kpIb8sZr">https://t.co/05kpIb8sZr</a></p>— Mimi Rocah (@Mimirocah1) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mimirocah1/status/1195754849943654400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 16, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>
 
45 ways Daniel Dale (who??) lied:

  • He said he does not have a pet gerbil.
  • He enjoys putting gerbils up his ***.
  • He has put a gerbil up his *** at least 45 times.
  • One can presume the gerbil is thereby his pet.

My approach is 100% on par with the butt-gerbil Tibs cited. Some examples?

9. The whistleblower was "sooo wrong." (The rough transcript and witness testimony have proven the whistleblower to have been highly accurate.)

"Highly accurate"? Oh, okay, if you say so, that the inaccuracies are not important. To him at least. Lies about the supposed lies #1.

10. The whistleblower, a second whistleblower and the first whistleblower's source have all "disappeared." (There is no evidence for this. Whistleblowers do not have an obligation to speak publicly after filing their complaints.)

Lying non-sequitur. Who is this supposed whistle-blowjob? Nobody ******* knows. So the sources most certainly have disappeared. Lies about the supposed lies #2.

11. The whistleblower had "all second hand" information. (While the whistleblower did get information about the call from other people, the whistleblower also had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct," noted Michael Atkinson, the Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community.)

Hey, dumbfuck, the impeachment is about the phone call (supposedly). The invisible, unidentified whistle-blowjob did in fact relay hearsay. Lies about the supposed lies #3.

12. The whistleblower "said 'quid pro quo' eight times." (The whistleblower did not even use the words "quid pro quo" in the complaint, much less specify a number of times Trump allegedly said those words. Trump may have been referring to a Wall Street Journal article that had asserted that Trump urged Zelensky "about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani" on a probe that could hurt Biden; the article did not say this claim came from the whistleblower.)

Every bit of information about the supposed invisible whistle-blowjob is leaked by the lying (D)ims. They leaked a lie and were caught, as the (D)ims - NOT TRUMP - claimed that the whistle-blowjob reported quid-pro-quo eight times. Lies about the supposed lies #4.

13. The whistleblower "works now for Biden." (There is no evidence for this. The whistleblower's lawyers said their client has never worked for or advised a candidate, campaign or party; the lawyers said the whistleblower has come into contact with presidential candidates for both parties while working as a civil servant in the executive branch.)

Of course there is evidence to back this up - reports from numerous media sources.

Joe Biden worked with whistleblower when he was vice president, officials reveal

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...r-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal

REPORT: Ukraine whistleblower worked with Biden, Brennan, DNC to initiate Trump-Russia inquiry — and his identity is no secret

https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio/whistleblower-eric-ciaramella

Oops. Caught with your pants down and a gerbil up your rectum there, Dale Daniels or Daniel Dale or whothefuckever. Lies about the supposed lies #5.

14. Someone "changed the long standing whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. (Contrary to a report on a right-wing website, the whistleblower rules were not changed.)

Yeah, not quite.

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...rement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Lies about the supposed lies #6.

See, when Trump cites a published report that somebody argues against, that is a lie. When Dale Daniels or Daniel Dale or Buttgerbil Danny cites a report that is demonstrably false - as I have repeatedly done above - that is "good investigative journalism."
 
Missing the point by about 1,000,000 miles? See, the left has been screeching about impeachment for three years, and their entire approach is impeachment searching for a crime. Their latest go around is flaccid. A joke. Weak. There was no deal, no quid pro quo, except the one involving Biden. Facts don’t matter to leftists and liberals. Facts are simply an obstacle.

So what exactly is the status of that investigation in Ukraine? I can’t seem to find any evidence that it even started up. Interesting.
 
Clinton Benghazi Testimony

Would love to see Trump answer questions for 11 hours straight in sworn testimony, like Hillary did. Not a bad idea, kudos to you.
 
Tibs, still holding investigations in search of crime. The Democratic way, not the American way. No longer innocent until proven guilty. Orange man bad. String him up.

You have been wrong consistently for 3 years.
Three ******* years you have been wrong. You have been wrong. Three ******* years.

You are wrong again. Again.

You emotionally react like a stupid college freshman. You disappear for months when things are going bad for your team. Well, things are about to get a lot worse. We will see if you have the balls to hang in. I am not confidant,

Oh, and I have been right. For three years, I have been right. Not bragging. Thank you very much.
 
Top