Last Sugar Rush For Adam’s Ants

When he sat down yesterday to testify at an impeachment inquiry that the American public isn’t watching and doesn’t care about, the relaxed-bordering-on-cheery Gordon Sondland had a handful of sugar to put on the table. His opening statement seemingly affirmed the President had indeed demanded Ukraine investigate the corrupt Bidens, Joe and Hunter, as a quid pro quo for military aid. The US Ambassador to the European Union must have known this would widen with ecstasy the already saucer-sized eyes of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and send his media minions scrambling for the sucrose.

Later under questioning, however – in the biggest testamentary turn-around in a congressional hearing since Frankie Five Angels changed his tune – Sondland clarified what he had meant. What he meant was Donald Trump had explicitly ruled out any quid pro quo but only wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do the right thing.” Sondland said he had merely presumed there was a link between the Bidens and aid. In a long and idiotic series of hoaxes, this cruel disappointment for Democrats was no different to any of the other letdowns but may as well be considered the fat songstress of the era. In the words of Harry Reid, this war is lost.

The question everybody wants answered is: why did Sondland do it? Tucker Carlson’s explanation is the most believable. All four of the Ambassador’s lawyers are Democrat Party donors. They wrote the opening statement. They may have hoped the “bombshell” they engineered would create enough media noise that its demolition at the hands of Republican committeemen wouldn’t matter. Or maybe they hoped if no line of questioning emerged that forced an addendum from their man, they would do a very big favour for Democrats and the failing cause of “resistance.”

Either way, like everything else they’ve tried since Donald Trump won in 2016, impeachment is not working out as expected. Polls show the public is hostile to the hearings which even some senior Democrats now regard as a political liability. Most important of all, there will be no Nixonian climax and no double-V-for-very-vanquished wave at the door of Marine One. Ultimately, the President won’t triumph because he’s a fighter who hits back. That’s only part of it. He’ll win because his enemies have become morally insane.

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to Last Sugar Rush For Adam’s Ants

  1. Roger

    The ambassador’s presumption, absent any evidence to support it – indeed his own testimony gainsays it -, is a “bombshell” according to the ABC’s James Glenday.

    Well, at least they’re not sending Matron Ferguson to Washington for a three part exposé of the “story of the century”.

  2. Biota

    Once again it is ‘get the headline out there and bugger the truth’. All the news I watched or read yesterday went with the quid pro quo line that was practically game over for DT.

  3. What’s utterly sad and shameful is that all of Australia’s media is simply parroting what CNN, NYT etc are publishing. It demonstrates that you can no longer get anything reliable or truthful from our media.

  4. Snoopy

    When the impeachment process ultimately fails it will be promoted as evidence by the Democrats and MSM (BIRM) that Trump has dangerously corrupted Congress and only a Democrat-controlled Congress and President can restore decency.

  5. Aethelred

    This article seems to have a somewhat different conclusion to what was reported in the ABC

  6. Roger

    What’s utterly sad and shameful is that all of Australia’s media is simply parroting what CNN, NYT etc are publishing. It demonstrates that you can no longer get anything reliable or truthful from our media.

    The quality of our journalistic class is such that they are forced to borrow their opinions from others, which they then pass off as their own “analysis”.

    No Sapere aude! for them.

  7. Tom

    As Bemused points above, there is NOT ONE credible source of news about American politics on Australian TV, which simply parrots the day’s Democratic Party/CNN talking points.

    One hundred per cent of Australian TV journalists are aligned politically with either Labor or the Greens against the Australian majority who installed the federal government in May this year.

  8. mh

    The Dems are putting this farce ahead of trade

    Nancy Pelosi Puts Impeachment Ahead of USMCA, Delays Vote

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/21/nancy-pelosi-puts-impeachment-ahead-usmca-delays-vote/

  9. Bela Bartok

    What is quite amazing, given the immense scrutiny Donald Trump has been under, with his tax, his business dealings, his phone calls, his personal life, they have found *NOTHING* to get him on.

    Is this guy a saint?

  10. a happy little debunker

    A 23 page submission of testimony that completely missed mentioning Trump’s actual directions.
    That completely missed that a quid pro quo was never raised in any meeting with Ukraine.
    That completely missed that Aid was never actually contingent on any Outcome.

    But if you read The Guardian or Their ABC, you’d never know it.

  11. Mother Lode

    This article seems to have a somewhat different conclusion to what was reported in the ABC

    Same with the US election, our election, the Brexit vote, hell even the freakin’ weather.

  12. Rusty of Qld

    This whole sham is the continuation of Russian interferance in the 2016 Presidential elections, and the Democrats are the useful idiots being used, either knowingly or unknowingly, to keep this sham going and cause as much disruption to America as possible. Russia (The KGB in the old days)) has been running infiltration and disruption and spying programs in the western countries for nigh on 100 years. Plus there is also Chins now in the game and they were trained by the KGB.
    Who represents a greater threat to the growth and expansion of Russia and China, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

  13. Bruce of Newcastle

    The question everybody wants answered is: why did Sondland do it?

    That’s a nice hotel you have there. It’d be a shame if something happens to it.

    ‘Witness Intimidation’: Democrat Ends Boycott of Sondland’s Hotels After He Testifies

    Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) officially ended his boycott of the hotel chain owned by U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland after he testified against President Donald Trump in Wedesday’s impeachment inquiry. Blumenauer had encouraged the public to boycott Sondland’s Provenance Hotels until he testified.

  14. NuThink

    Aethelred
    #3241867, posted on November 22, 2019 at 9:57 am
    This article seems to have a somewhat different conclusion to what was reported in the ABC

    So true, when the ABC got a report from the specialist on America from Planet America who essentially said it was all over red rover for the Donald, I knew it had to be swamp food.
    When I watched Sondland speak and he used the word presumed or believe I knew for certain that the ABC would believe anything in their narrowtive and should at lest understand the meaning of words. Another word not understood by our media is unprecedented.
    PS The name Sondland sounds too similar to our own poor person’s Judge Judy Trial by Kyle?

  15. OldOzzie

    NuThink
    #3241932, posted on November 22, 2019 at 11:01 am
    Aethelred
    #3241867, posted on November 22, 2019 at 9:57 am
    This article seems to have a somewhat different conclusion to what was reported in the ABC

    So true, when the ABC got a report from the specialist on America from Planet America who essentially said it was all over red rover for the Donald, I knew it had to be swamp food.

    WHY NO ONE CARES ABOUT IMPEACHMENT

    Like most Americans, I am paying little or no attention to Adam Schiff’s impeachment hearings. I knew everything I needed to know about the Ukraine hoax when I read the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call, weeks ago. Why is impeachment generating so little interest? Erick Erickson compiled this video which, although it ends around a year ago, provides a large part of the explanation. After years of false hysteria, most people have tuned out the Democratic Party press:

    Erick Erickson
    @EWErickson

    Dear members of the media, if you want to understand why no one cares about impeachment and minds are not being changed, watch this and understand.

    “The Beginning of the End”

  16. FelixKruell

    Later under questioning, however – in the biggest testamentary turn-around in a congressional hearing since Frankie Five Angels changed his tune – Sondland clarified what he had meant. What he meant was Donald Trump had explicitly ruled out any quid pro quo but only wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do the right thing.” Sondland said he had merely presumed there was a link between the Bidens and aid. In a long and idiotic series of hoaxes, this cruel disappointment for Democrats was no different to any of the other letdowns but may as well be considered the fat songstress of the era. In the words of Harry Reid, this war is lost.

    Well I guess that’s one interpretation of the testimony…not a very honest one though.

    He confirmed a quid pro quo, direct from Trump, of a meeting/call with the White House in return for investigating Biden.

    He confirmed a quid pro quo, from Trump (indirectly only via Guiliani), of the military aid being released in return for investigating Biden. And confirmed that this was well understood up and down the chain, despite Trump’s occasional moment of denying a tawdry direct quid pro quo.

    Then we had other testimony consistent with all of the above.

  17. C.L.

    The transcript:

    I finally called the President, I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can’t find the records and they won’t provide them to me. But I believe I just asked him an open ended question. Mr. Chairman: “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?” And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood and he just said, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.”

    Game over.

  18. C.L.

    Further …

    From EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland:
    President Trump never told me directly the aid was conditioned…The aid was my own personal guess, to use the analogy, two-plus-two..I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on investigations..I never heard those words.

  19. Sean

    Next, the media will write about how scandal laden Trump is but he always seems to come out unscathed…
    No shit, they are making most of the scandals up and people know it

    They just can’t seem to work out why it’s not popular to go to the electorate promising to raise taxes lol

  20. Bruce of Newcastle

    He confirmed a quid pro quo, direct from Trump, of a meeting/call with the White House in return for investigating Biden.

    In his imagination. Literally.

    Sondland’s ‘bombshell’ turns out to be merely his ‘presumption’

    Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

    The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

    Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

    I especially loved Schiff’s presumption of what Trump “actually said” during the phone call. Also known as fantasy. These guys should bid to do a followup series of Game of Thrones.

  21. Tom

    Well I guess that’s one interpretation of the testimony…not a very honest one though.

    He confirmed a quid pro quo, direct from Trump, of a meeting/call with the White House in return for investigating Biden.

    As a result of their constant lying to subvert the dominant paradigm, leftards are incapable of rational thought. Sondland is a Deep State Democratic Party creep, who surrounds himself with Democratic Party donors and Democratic Party NeverTrump yes-men.

    Which is evidently beyond your swamp brain, Felix. The American public, who are switching off this circus is droves, can see it. But leftards, with their particular brand of mental illness, can’t.

  22. Bruce of Newcastle

    Naseem bowls his blisteringly fast first over in test cricket at age 16.
    Last ball goes through the wicket keeper who is shaking his hand in pain.
    Naseem looks about 25 and is built like a brick dunny.
    You grow up early in Pakistan!

  23. Arky

    What we have discovered is that the diplomatic corps is a bunch of unprofessional nattering old woman engaged in circuitous chinese whispers and moralising outrage at their own ludicrous inventions.
    Pathetic.
    Trump, sack the lot of them.

  24. Oh come on

    m0nty was on the OT last night, banging on about how the end is nigh and making the same old dog-eared Nixon comparisons, so that’s always a good sign.

    I don’t know why m0nty keeps doing this to himself. He had an apparent breakdown in 2016, and another early this year when Mueller was finally put out of his misery. He’s setting himself up to fail again.

  25. Seco

    Bela Bartok
    #3241893, posted on November 22, 2019 at 10:28 am
    What is quite amazing, given the immense scrutiny Donald Trump has been under, with his tax, his business dealings, his phone calls, his personal life, they have found *NOTHING* to get him on.

    Is this guy a saint?

    Not only that but Trump didn’t exactly pop out of nowhere, he’s had one of the most public of public lives in American history and they can’t lay a glove on him.

  26. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops that was on the wrong thread. Pays not to comment between overs. 😀

  27. Iampeter

    Game over.

    What game?
    These hearings aren’t determining whether Trump engaged in quid-pro-quo. That hasn’t been in dispute since team Trump released the “transcript” which corroborated the whistle-blower complaint. These hearings are just fleshing out the details of how extensive the corruption is behind the scenes.
    More importantly, these hearings are a way for Congress to test the waters with the voting public and see what appetite they have for impeaching a sitting President.
    This is mostly political theater, not a court case where Trump can prove his innocence or something.

    Either way, like everything else they’ve tried since Donald Trump won in 2016, impeachment is not working out as expected.

    This is more of the same and not reflective of reality. Democrats haven’t tried anything, nor do they want to impeach Trump. He might leave them no choice though.
    Trump is an incredibly left wing president so smart Democrats love him, while posturing as his opponents in public for those people that buy into a very superficial view of politics.

  28. anonandon

    Democrats haven’t tried anything, nor do they want to impeach Trump

    Lol

  29. Knuckle Dragger

    ‘Trump is an incredibly left wing president’

    Larps! Spergs!

    The monument speaketh!

  30. Tom

    Meanwhile, on Planet Goebbels:

    Quid-pro-quo … hasn’t been in dispute since team Trump released the “transcript” which corroborated the whistle-blower complaint. … Democrats haven’t tried anything, nor do they want to impeach Trump. … Trump is an incredibly left wing president …

    But all is not lost, you loon:

    …these hearings are a way for Congress to test the waters with the voting public and see what appetite they have for impeaching a sitting President.

    If you weren’t such fruitcake, you’d know that the American public — even though they’re assailed 24/7 by the TV networks with anti-Trump hysteria — have no appetite for impeaching a president when he has committed no impeachable offence.

  31. Bruce of Newcastle

    These hearings aren’t determining whether Trump engaged in quid-pro-quo. That hasn’t been in dispute since team Trump released the “transcript” which corroborated the whistle-blower complaint.

    Que? The transcript blows away the entire Democrat premise. Read it! Since then every witness with their cock on the actual legally engaged block has confirmed there was nothing irregular about it. Zero, zilch, game over. I really don’t understand why the Dems are persisting with this phony fantasy other than they have nothing else and the FISA report is about to drop.

  32. BorisG

    Polls show the public is hostile to the proceedings

    Well Americans are deeply divided. Trumps base is hostile to the proceedings. Trumps opponents are enthused. The rest do not care either way.

  33. Zatara

    I really don’t understand why the Dems are persisting with this phony fantasy other than they have nothing else and the FISA report is about to drop.

    Pure inertia at this point. A runaway train in which they forgot to install brakes.

    Which of course leads to slow motion train wrecks.

  34. Dr Fred Lenin

    These prats are socialist hypocrites ,socialists try the same fascist agenda and every time it fails. So they try it again,the russia lies failed but being socialists they try again shifting the venue to Ukraine .
    Thats why there are never socialist comedians they lack the originality comedians need ,every comrade fits in the aparat s;ot system .
    The latest socialist crap here is that Pommy fauxberiginal Pascoe lying about aboriginal “agriculture “ pre first fleet ,aboriginal towns with domesticated animals in stables ,tame emus for eggs ,tame wombats for bacon ,tame kamgaroos for steak and eggs with stringy bark chips , come off it Pommy , you are like the rest of the self appointed elites ,you think we are all stupid ,and as for the highly educated alpbc and academia believing your shit ,yeah right ,they are usuing you stupid .

  35. C.L.

    This broke today:

    An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

    The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.

    Yes, CNN. It will tend to “fuel” that idea.

  36. Rococo Liberal

    Iampeter and the Des remind me of the good old Black Knight in Moty Python and the Holy Grail

  37. Chester Draws

    Not only that but Trump didn’t exactly pop out of nowhere, he’s had one of the most public of public lives in American history and they can’t lay a glove on him.

    There is plenty of scandal about his relationships with women. The rape charge by his wife. Calling people who mention his harassment “liar”. That might sink another politician.

    The Democrat’s problem is:

    1) Voters long ago factored that in. No-one ever thought Trump was a saint.

    2) The Democrat support of Bill Clinton’s similar behaviour leaves them unable to adequately use this line.

    What there isn’t is evidence of political scandal. Trump hasn’t been a politician long enough to have any back issues.

    And he’s wealthy enough not to need to take bribes.

  38. Tom

    Hating the Trump Doctrine — ending foreign wars, stopping US allies from freeloading on the US military’s global presence — is a policy disagreement, not an impeachable “offence”. The impeachment circus is about the Washington establishment’s desperate search for an excuse to oust the outsider in the White House.

    It’s hilarious watching the US establishment’s Australian useful idiots defending the American military industrial complex’s war-mongering sausage machine at the Cat.

  39. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    This one’s for agricultural Cats.

    The Aborigines had a larger area under grain cultivation then Australian farmers manage now.….The huge areas of grasses and rice and the extensive yam daisy fields were deliberately destroyed by the early settlers or taken over and ruined by their sheep.”

    From the promotional sheet, supplied with review copies of “Dark Emu,” quoted in “Bitter Harvest”, Page 2.

    I didn’t know the Indigenous had invented broadacre cropping?

    I

  40. Leigh Lowe

    2) The Democrat support of Bill Clinton’s similar behaviour leaves them unable to adequately use this line.

    But still they do.
    Two possibilities occur to me:-
    1. This is really a plot by some Dimocrats to nobble Biden. He and Biden Jnr are coming out of this looking like out-and-out crooks. Maybe they take a bit of skin off Trump but Biden is the main target;
    2. They genuinely believe they are on a PR winner. I think back to the “Tampa election”. Any dispassionate observer saw this as a winner for Howard, but the rabid left thought it would consolidate the lead the held over Howard into a landslide.
    Delusional.

  41. OldOzzie

    Tom
    #3242015, posted on November 22, 2019 at 12:57 pm
    Hating the Trump Doctrine — ending foreign wars, stopping US allies from freeloading on the US military’s global presence — is a policy disagreement, not an impeachable “offence”. The impeachment circus is about the Washington establishment’s desperate search for an excuse to oust the outsider in the White House.

    Tom,

    it is not about the outsider, it is the outsider stopping their Financial Washington Gravy Train

    President Trump Disrupted DC’s Ability to Monetize Government…

    Listening to the pearl-clutching from State Department foreign service officers; and looking at the circular laundry operation where DC politicians send taxpayer funds overseas and then use networks, friends and families to capture those same funds for their own personal financial benefit; while overlaying how much Hillary Clinton corruption the U.S. Justice Department, State Department and intelligence community hid in the 2016 election; the big picture emerges.

    When politicians in Mexico or Afghanistan accept bribes we call it corruption, but when DC politicians participate in the exact same process we call it “lobbying”. It is no wonder the Clinton Foundation starts losing money as soon as the political influence over policy no longer exists. It is also no surprise why those same donors hate President Trump.

    How much did Julia Gillard (and Julie Bishop) give to Australian Taxpayers money to The Clinton Foundation

    Cheque Mates: Gillard, Bishop & Hillary

  42. OldOzzie

    Zulu Kilo Two Alpha
    #3242022, posted on November 22, 2019 at 1:03 pm
    This one’s for agricultural Cats.

    “The Aborigines had a larger area under grain cultivation then Australian farmers manage now.….The huge areas of grasses and rice and the extensive yam daisy fields were deliberately destroyed by the early settlers or taken over and ruined by their sheep.”

    From the promotional sheet, supplied with review copies of “Dark Emu,” quoted in “Bitter Harvest”, Page 2.

    I didn’t know the Indigenous had invented broadacre cropping?

    Nope

    yet again I refer to

    The Native Tribes of Central Australia
    Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillen 1899

    and

    Visual knowledge: Spencer and Gillen’s
    use of photography in The native tribes of
    Central Australia

    or

    Native tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia
    Baldwin Spencer – https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/spencer/baldwin/s74na/complete.html

  43. BorisG

    What we have discovered is that the diplomatic corps is a bunch of unprofessional nattering old woman engaged in circuitous chinese whispers and moralising outrage at their own ludicrous inventions.

    Except of course that Sondland is not really from diplomatic corps. He is a hotel magnate like Trump, known to have donated to Trumps inauguration and rewarded with a diplomatic posting. He is neither a deep stater nor can be described as never Trumper.

  44. BorisG

    Voters long ago factored that in. No-one ever thought Trump was a saint.

    This is the key. No matter what horrible or criminal behavior is revealed, trumps supporters don’t really care, especially as long as the economy is doing well.

    It is interesting if it affects democrats vote. Obviously all democrats oppose Trump but whether the impeachment investigation can affect their turnout is yet unclear. Voters being human it will depend on who is their candidate. Rationally of course they should all turn up to vote just to defeat trump, but this is not how it works.

  45. Dr Fred Lenin

    Leigh lowe , I would say the Bidens are looking like Clintons says it all . Perhaps the owners of the decromats are clearing the field for a re run of Hilarity ,after all she claims she won the last time .
    Socialism again ,if at first you dont succeed ,keep doing the same thing till it works .

  46. candy

    criminal behavior
    Like what?

    From what I can work out now, criminal behaviour to Trump haters means they don’t like his hairstyle, his complexion, his wife and family, his suit, his smile, his hands, his supporters, the MAGA cap, the rallies, his tweeting humour, his friends, his golfing style.

  47. herodotus

    The closed “off Broadway” hearings before they went public may have been a mixture of auditions (as Devin Nunes said) and arm twisting to get people to say something, anything, that might give the impression of wrongdoing. Tom is quite right – the vast majority of Australian media are in the Dem tank.

  48. Mother Lode

    Like what?

    In my experience leftists consider anything they don’t like as being illegal. This serves a few purposes:

    1) Hopefully people will believe it.

    2) Makes it sound like what is in fact just their frustration is really altruism.

    3) Gives the sensation that the words they wield have a more satisfying heft – the difference between swinging a butter knife and a club (no one with a butter knife even feels like swinging it). This is especially important when a leftist is talking to themselves.

    You will notice how often leftists claim their opponent’s actions are illegal. All it means is that they hate it.

  49. struth

    Old Aussie , Julia, Julie, and others have stolen money in such large amounts from the taxpayers of Australia for their own financial gain and promotion into the ranks of the high flying socialist elite jetsetters , yet no impeachment process, no police investigation, zilch.
    Australia, pay your taxes to the US democrat party and the global socialists.
    Sit in ya traffic jams waiting for infrastructure, die waiting for surgery, freeze with no power, be totally extorted with the highest price power and electricity, and housing in the world to fund Bill Clinton’s Island hopping PedoFEELYA and Clinton’s election etc etc.

    And to place criminals who stole our money so they could become part of a global jettsetting elite .

    The highest donations to Clinton orgs was from Australian government.
    More than all the other donors put together.

    If I remember correctly, Australia was just about the only “government” donor anyway.

  50. struth

    Can the left wing TDS sufferers here put up or shut up.
    Proof of wrong doing.
    Evidence or silence.
    Magical thinking does not make it fact.

  51. OldOzzie

    Struth

    as Cheque Mates: Gillard, Bishop & Hillary says:

    Juila Gillard, as PM, had already tipped in $22m to GPE in 2010-11 and followed up in late 2011 with a gargantuan $270m four-year pledge. This pledge dwarfed those from a host of comparable Western donors, combined. GPE’s grateful CEO Alice Albright, daughter of President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (1997-01), successfully lobbied for Gillard as honorary chair of GPE in late 2013.

    The GPE post has enabled Gillard to swan around the world in company with the elite mega-rich, exuding compassion for the unfortunate. Other high-class global virtue-signallers about girls’ education (a good cause per se) have also taken up Gillard as speaker and cheerleader.

    Last December Gillard starred again in a Hillary pro-election video bagging Trump over his Muslim policies, intoning,

    “If I was an American I would want to see the reputation of my country always getting stronger and stronger and never at risk because of cheap and easy statements being injected into complex foreign policy debates.”

    So let’s chart the action:

    . As Australian PM, she commits $A292m of our money into GPE, a hugely disproportionate amount, into what is supposedly a non-partisan US-based global charity
    . Ex-PM Gillard in early 2014 is installed by GPE as chair
    . While chair, and without any disclaimer re her GPE leadership, she takes further starring roles as Hillary Clinton backer for president and rubbisher of Hillary’s Republican opponent.
    . This compromises the GPE non-political brand as effectively as if the chair of the Australian Red Cross had fronted with Bill Shorten in Labor Mediscare election ads, bagging Malcolm Turnbull.
    . Gillard is enveloped in new status as global icon for the “progressive” charity set.

  52. OldOzzie

    Struth

    as Cheque Mates: Gillard, Bishop & Hillary says:

    Juila Gillard, as PM, had already tipped in $22m to GPE in 2010-11 and followed up in late 2011 with a gargantuan $270m four-year pledge. This pledge dwarfed those from a host of comparable Western donors, combined. GPE’s grateful CEO Alice Albright, daughter of President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (1997-01), successfully lobbied for Gillard as honorary chair of GPE in late 2013.

    The GPE post has enabled Gillard to swan around the world in company with the elite mega-rich, exuding compassion for the unfortunate. Other high-class global virtue-signallers about girls’ education (a good cause per se) have also taken up Gillard as speaker and cheerleader.

    Last December Gillard starred again in a Hillary pro-election video bagging Trump over his [email protected] policies, intoning,

    “If I was an American I would want to see the reputation of my country always getting stronger and stronger and never at risk because of cheap and easy statements being injected into complex foreign policy debates.”

    So let’s chart the action:

    . As Australian PM, she commits $A292m of our money into GPE, a hugely disproportionate amount, into what is supposedly a non-partisan US-based global charity
    . Ex-PM Gillard in early 2014 is installed by GPE as chair
    . While chair, and without any disclaimer re her GPE leadership, she takes further starring roles as Hillary Clinton backer for president and rubbisher of Hillary’s Republican opponent.
    . This compromises the GPE non-political brand as effectively as if the chair of the Australian Red Cross had fronted with Bill Shorten in Labor Mediscare election ads, bagging Malcolm Turnbull.
    . Gillard is enveloped in new status as global icon for the “progressive” charity set.

  53. Winston

    Can the left wing TDS sufferers here put up or shut up.
    Proof of wrong doing.
    Evidence or silence.
    Magical thinking does not make it fact.

    I think you’ll find it’s the whole ‘truthiness’ of the situation that’s more important there . . .

  54. struth

    Me thinks it’s torch and pitchfork time, and it’s been so for a while.

    Foreign aid.
    Hand millions of dollars of other people’s money ( taken at gunpoint), to political organisations overseas who will set you and your family up as jet setting billionaires and mingle you’ll with the Davos UN elites.
    You may even meet Bono.

    Where’s the crime in that?
    Think of the children.

  55. struth

    I think you’ll find it’s the whole ‘truthiness’ of the situation that’s more important there . . .

    The “feel” the “vibe”???

  56. struth

    I just want one piece of evidence which is not the uncorroborated bullshit from the lying left.
    I asked for this during Russia gate and there was silence as well.
    One of them will soon try a smarmy attempt but it will be bullshit.

    Please tell me what evidence there is for any wrong doing?
    EVIDENCE is not how you feel about it.

  57. Zatara

    Ruh Row. It seems Schiff and his henchmen didn’t complete their staff work. When they were writing their special rules to exclude the Republicans and make this an entirely Dem shif show they missed a loophole.

    In his letter Rep. McCarthy cites House Rule XI, Cause 2(j)(1) The Minority Rule on calling witnesses. This rule allows the Minority to call any witnesses they want on at least one day of a congressional hearing, upon notifying the Committee chairman, which the Republicans did this morning.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/mccarthy-letter.jpg

    It’s going to be interesting to see who they call… Schiff, the “Whistle Blower”, Biden, Biden Jr?

    It’s going to be even more interesting to watch Schiff try to weasel out of giving them their day. Just how much more damage can he do to the public perception of the Dems?

  58. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    He’ll win because his enemies have become morally insane.

    pardon me? the left have always been insane

  59. the left have always been insane

    And lacked morals.

  60. pbw

    I’m with Ƶĩppʯ

    He’ll win because his enemies have become morally insane.

    What does

    morally insane

    mean?

    Take a look at the Art Laffer lecture.

    How many “genders” are there again?

    Tell me again why marriage had to be “queered.”

    Life on earth will become extinct in 10+x years unless we reduce the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide to that at which life on earth becomes extinct in the next glaciation.

    The SCIENCE is settled.

    This is common or garden insanity, and plenty of it.

  61. OldOzzie

    Rethinking National Security: CIA and FBI Are Corrupt, but What About Congress?

    Colonel Pat Lang, a colleague and friend who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency HUMINT (human intelligence) program after years spent on the ground in special ops and foreign liaison, thinks that strong medicine is needed and has initiated a discussion based on the premise that the FBI and CIA are dysfunctional relics that should be dismantled, as he puts it “burned to the ground,” so that the federal government can start over again and come up with something better.

    Lang cites numerous examples of “incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17 agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” to include the examples cited above plus the failure to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the domestic front, he cites his personal observation of efforts by the Department of Justice and the FBI to corruptly “frame” people tried in federal courts on national security issues as well as the intelligence/law enforcement community conspiracy to “get Trump.”

    Colonel Lang asks “Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay the leaders of these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work hard for whatever money they earn.” He then recommends stripping CIA of its responsibility for being the lead agency in spying as well as in covert action, which is a legacy of the Cold War and the area in which it has demonstrated a particular incompetence. As for the FBI, it was created by J. Edgar Hoover to maintain dossiers on politicians and it is time that it be replaced by a body that operates in a fashion “more reflective of our collective nation[al] values.”

  62. nb

    ‘He’ll win because his enemies have become morally insane.’
    The left dropped their guard after Nov 2016, revealing their true selves. The remarkable thing is that they can still muster a large proportion of the vote. It makes you wonder what they would have to do to really suffer electorally. Voting preferences are weirder than I ever imagined.

  63. BorisG

    I just want one piece of evidence which is not the uncorroborated bullshit from the lying left.

    This is logically impossible because if something is stated that you don’t like, you dismiss it as leftist bullshit, even if coming from right wingers and trump direct appointees like Rex tillerson, Jim Mattis or Gordon Sondland.

    Just compare their descriptions by Trump then and now.

  64. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Please realise that if you start dismissing the only source of information there is about this incident then you are not really seeking the truth about it. Eyewitness testimony is the main source of evidence in the hearing because so many relevant documents in the State department have not been released or declassified for the hearing.

    Start with Sondland’s testimony:

    Watch the first 1:28s of this clip.
    https://youtu.be/b-DbvapybVs?t=21
    It’s a fact that Sondland only presumed the aid and the announcement were linked and that nobody else ever said to him that they were linked.

    Watch for 1:30s in this other clip starting at timecode 2:23.
    https://youtu.be/u2j6kZ26mEQ?t=142
    It is a fact that Giuliani stated the proposed White House meeting (an official act) had become conditional upon an announcement by Zelinksy of an investigation into Burisma at minimum. Giuliani was only involved to act as Trump’s agent.

    Watch this clip (yes all 5 minutes).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB9aWZu5vBE
    * [0:20] It is a fact that the original White House meeting official invitation was unconditional.
    * [0:30] The condition of the investigation announcement was added later by the President.
    * [0:40] The investigation into Burisma is now in hindsight understood to have implied investigation into the Bidens’ role in that company.

    There is not much point in trying interpret what any of this means morally or what it implies for an impeachment unless you first admit what in fact happened.

  65. Frank Walker from National Tiles
    #3242047, posted on November 22, 2019 at 1:42 pm

    criminal behavior

    Like what?

    …pretty poor Boris. You shuffled off and said nothing after this.

  66. Jo Smyth

    As long as the Globalist, Socialist media are in charge of the narrative and the Republicans are happy to go along with it, nothing will change.

  67. FelixKruell

    Tom:

    Sondland is a Deep State Democratic Party creep,

    Why on earth did Trump appoint him as ambassador to the EU then?

  68. FelixKruell

    Bruce:

    He confirmed a quid pro quo, direct from Trump, of a meeting/call with the White House in return for investigating Biden.

    In his imagination. Literally.

    You’re confusing the meeting for the aid. Details matter Bruce.

  69. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    I just want one piece of evidence which is not the uncorroborated bullshit from the lying left.

    I’m not doing your homework for you Struth…

  70. BorisG

    pretty poor Boris. You shuffled off and said nothing after this

    Not sure what you do, but I have to do some work on weekdays.

    I never said that what trump did was criminal. I said no matter what he does, no matter how horrible or criminal, his supporters do not care.

    I am sure if tomorrow a tape emerges where trump demands investigation in exchange for aid, Trump supporters will find some other excuses and will say that this is a perfect request.

    Of course witness testimony does not count because any witness who disagrees with Trumps narrative is Automatically branded a leftist or never Trumper.

    For me, Trumps request to a foreign leader to investigate a domestic political rival is a gross abuse of power. I am sure of obama did this trumpists would be outraged. If it is not criminal it ought to be.

  71. BorisG

    Sondland is a Deep State Democratic Party creep, who surrounds himself with Democratic Party donors and Democratic Party NeverTrump yes-men.

    Proves my above point. Sondland is a hotel magnate and Trump donor who contributed million dollars to trumps inauguration and was rewarded with a nice diplomatic posting.

  72. BorisG

    Trumps statement from Oct 8, 2019

    As recently as Oct. 8, Trump had tweeted that Sondland was a “really good man and great American.”

  73. (CL at 11.16 for Sondoland’s statement about what Trump said.) The statement ‘I want nothing from Zelenski’ is clearly inconsistent with ‘I just want him to do the right thing:. In context the right thing was to announce investigation into the Bidens.

  74. The ban on the release of State dept and other documents must count heavily against Trump. Where the documents might throw light on the facts, this ban makes it easier to come to conclusions adverse to Trump’s story. Trump may be able to claim executive privilege in respect of documents and potential witnesses, but this does not undermine this reasoning. (And hands up sll here who think that executive privilege to hide relevant information is a worthy doctrine.)

  75. JC

    Details matter Bruce

    They sure do Bobbsey. They sure do.
    Sondland is referring to a discussion with Giuliani, where he (Sondland) said the following:

    Sondland: (08:58)
    Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States and we knew these investigations were important to the president.

    However in a direct contact with Trump, this is what Sondland said:

    Well, words to the effect. I decided to ask the President the question in an open ended fashion because there were so many different scenarios floating around as to what was going on with Ukraine. So rather than ask the President nine different questions, is it this? Is it this? Is it that? I just said, what do you want from Ukraine? I may have even used a four letter word and he said, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on” or words to that effect. And that gave me the impetus to respond to Ambassador Taylor with the texts that I sent. As I said to Mr. Goldman, it was not an artfully written text. I should’ve been more specific, put it in quotes, something like that. But basically I wanted Mr. Taylor, Ambassador Taylor to pick up the ball and take it from there. I had gone as far as I could go.

    The conclusion has to be drawn that the Sondland gained the impression the president was tying up the money with the investigation, but when there was direct contact with the president, the president actually set him straight.

    Felix Bobbsey concludes there was a quid pro quo. Details sure do matter.

    https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies

  76. In terms of the articles of impeachment, there are deficiencies in the Democrats case. But as a question whether Trump undermined sound foreign policy, and/or whether his mode of decision-making is dangerous, adverse conclusions are obvioud. This is something that John Bolton perceived.

  77. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Can’t see the wood for the trees…

    Sondland said that “Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election,” and that he “expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians.”
    Giuliani also expressed those requests to Sondland and others working for the U.S. “We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements,” he said.
    “Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said of the quid pro quo. “It was no secret.”

    Are they all deep state operatives?

  78. But as a question whether Trump undermined sound foreign policy, and/or whether his mode of decision-making is dangerous, adverse conclusions are obvioud.

    That’s what elections are for.

  79. I never said that what trump did was criminal. I said no matter what he does, no matter how horrible or criminal, his supporters do not care.

    The fuck outta here. This is like asking if someone has stopped beating their wife and claiming that you’re arguing in good faith.

  80. candy

    If Trump wins in 2020 the Dems are going to be mighty annoyed with themselves for not developing more policies.

    Their two policies seem to be destroying Trump ( if impeachment fails, assassination would be good as long as it was not done by a registered Democrat), and climate change where the earth will be burnt up and we will die in 12 years’ time and scaring kids to death about that.

  81. Frank, “high crimes and misdemeaours” might embrace some of Trump’s behaviour. (My little research suggests that it is a real question). Whatever, I accept that this is an issue for the electorate and did not imply that it was not.

  82. Catfeesh?

    As Bemused points above, there is NOT ONE credible source of news about American politics on Australian TV, which simply parrots the day’s Democratic Party/CNN talking points.

    The Australian media are going to by mystified when the impeachment charade falls over.

  83. There is non-hearsay evidence that Guiliani said that Trump said things that amount to admissions. Lawyers act on instructions, and this may be a basis to apply US doctrine that an admission can be made (by Trump) through agency of another (Guiliani). A fascinating legal question. Hope you so find it JC.

  84. Disagreeing with policy and ordering people to act with propriety at all times is not a crime.

    If Donald Trump has committed a crime, it should be easy to:

    1. Say what crime.
    2. Produce some evidence, perhaps even proof regarding both a fault element and a physical element of the crime.
    3. Not be easily debunked with a few minutes of looking on twitter for full, not taken out of context quotes.

  85. The Australian media are going to by mystified when the impeachment charade falls over.

    It will because Donald Trump is a dictator.

    Woe to those who upset the apple cart for the anointed ones like Hillary.

  86. Tel

    I never said that what trump did was criminal. I said no matter what he does, no matter how horrible or criminal, his supporters do not care.

    I’m not saying that the sky is bright green. I never said it was.

    I am saying, that no matter what colour the sky is, Trump supporters do not care … because, I have great insight into the way people react, in hypothetical situations that I never said were happening.

  87. cohenite

    S

    noopy
    #3241866, posted on November 22, 2019 at 9:55 am
    When the impeachment process ultimately fails it will be promoted as evidence by the Democrats and MSM (BIRM) that Trump has dangerously corrupted Congress and only a Democrat-controlled Congress and President can restore decency.

    Yes, because there are no rules anymore; for the left/demorats it’s just about power by any means. When all this bullshit fails the demorats will simply rig the 2020 election. The GOP discovered their balls during this Schiff shit show but don’t realise the next step will be more violent.

  88. cohenite

    I never said that what trump did was criminal. I said no matter what he does, no matter how horrible or criminal, his supporters do not care.

    What a creep you are.

  89. jupes

    In terms of the articles of impeachment, there are deficiencies in the Democrats case.

    You think? Fuck you legal types are on the ball.

    But as a question whether Trump undermined sound foreign policy, and/or whether his mode of decision-making is dangerous, adverse conclusions are obvioud.

    It is Trumps job to make foreign policy. He cannot undermine it. That’s what we have the deep state for.

    There is non-hearsay evidence that Guiliani said that Trump said things that amount to admissions.

    So, “Guiliani said that Trump said …” is not hearsay. Right. Hang the bastard.

  90. Leigh Lowe

    Sondland is a Deep State Democratic Party creep,

    Why on earth did Trump appoint him as ambassador to the EU then?

    As an insult?
    As you might appoint Miley Cyrus Ambassador to Canada whilst Trudeau is PM.

  91. BorisG

    The crime is abuse of power for personal political gain. I am not a lawyer but for me witness testimony is very compelling. legal experts will soon compile articles of impeachment and all the evidence.

    For a normal person this would then be tested in a court of law. But in case of POTUS it will be tested in a senate trial. And the senate, which needs 2/3 majority, will in all likelihood acquit him, no matter the evidence.

  92. BorisG

    So, “Guiliani said that Trump said …” is not hearsay.

    Let’s not forget that Trump is blocking many key players with more direct knowledge from testifying.

  93. BorisG

    In a phone call trump asks a foreign leader to investigate his political rival. This sounds prima facie an abuse of power. Hearsay?

  94. cohenite

    legal experts will soon compile articles of impeachment and all the evidence.

    There is no fucking evidence you dope.

  95. RobK

    This sounds prima facie an abuse of power.
    Not if the senate decides it isn’t. That’s the law.

  96. mh

    Paul Krugman
    ‏@paulkrugman
    One side lesson from this inquiry is that the Deep State contains some really impressive, principled people. Which is why Trump hates it so much

    7:27 AM – 21 Nov 2019

  97. Snoopy

    I remember when Boris went all in on Mueller. Good times.

  98. dover_beach

    Hunter Biden was under investigation when Joe Biden was VP. While VP, Joe lent on the Ukrainians to sack the prosecutor leading the investigation. That is clearly ‘an abuse of power for personal political gain’. He removes any prospect of embarrassment if his son is charged, as well as saving his son from facing criminal prosecution. Conversely, if we accept for argument’s sake, the claims of the Dems, what Trump did was merely green light the resumption of that investigation, removing any threat of retaliation if the Ukrainians did so. Where is the ‘abuse of power’ here? Trump is not attempting to conceal any wrongdoing done by anyone personally related to him or his staff, but rather to bring to light any wrongdoing which a previous administration wanted to conceal from public scrutiny because the perp was personally related to a senior member of the administration.

    Also, the claim that Trump’s actions undermined sound foreign policy is a matter of opinion. If that is the substance of their complaints, they are simply arguing that he should be impeached because they disagreed with him on matters of policy. This is frankly disgraceful.

  99. BorisG

    I remember when Boris went all in on Mueller. Good times.

    I said mueller has integrity and will find the truth one way or the other. Many of you said that he was determined to implicate the president by his sheer role. But he didn’t.

  100. Tel

    In a phone call trump asks a foreign leader to investigate his political rival.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

    There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son. That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

    Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

    If Joe Biden is going to openly brag about protecting his obviously guilty pocket-stuffing son … then hard to argue it’s an ABUSE of power to figure out where US taxpayer money is going and stop corruption. Seems like that would be the normal duty of any President. Heck, we could do with more of that kind of investigation here in Australia, I would love to know who trousers my money.

  101. BorisG

    This sounds prima facie an abuse of power.
    Not if the senate decides it isn’t. That’s the law.

    Sure, I am just expressing my opinion. There is no shortage of opinions on cat on all sorts of legal cases.

    and prima facie is not conclusive evidence anyway. But it is a compelling staring point for a through investigation.

  102. BorisG

    Insults towards Sondland is a case in point. Until two days ago he was considered trump loyalist through and through. He was clearly part of that circle that tried to push Ukraine to investigate Biden. But caught between his loyalty to the president and the need to save himself from future allegations of lying to Congress, he chose to save himself rather than the president and his allies.

    And from that moment on, he is now a deep stater, never Trumper etc.

    Sad.

  103. jupes

    I said mueller has integrity and will find the truth one way or the other. Many of you said that he was determined to implicate the president by his sheer role. But he didn’t.

    Yes he did you fucking numpty.

    He spent over two years investigating Trump for Russian Collusion and found NOTHING. So what did he do? He announced that he “could not exonerate Trump for obstruction of justice”.

    It wasn’t his job to exonerate anyone. He made that shit up. Or as you put it: “He was determined to implicate the president by his sheer role”.

    Integrity my arse.

  104. JC

    FelixKruell
    #3242372, posted on November 22, 2019 at 9:05 pm

    JC:

    Can’t see the wood for the trees…

    Sondland said that “Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election,” and that he “expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians.”
    Giuliani also expressed those requests to Sondland and others working for the U.S. “We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements,” he said.
    “Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said of the quid pro quo. “It was no secret.”

    Are they all deep state operatives?

    No, details matter and you’re a imbecile.

    Should Biden and his miserable loser son be investigated or not so much because in this case details don’t matter much, Bruce?

  105. Tel

    How to the Democrats deal with the precedent they are attempting to set: no one can be investigated in any way if they also happen to be a candidate (or if any relative happens to be a candidate).

    Does that sound like a good idea?

  106. JC

    Where’s the other Bobbsey twin, that human temple of enlightenment and reason. Our very own objectivist rational atheist. Plodes Bobbsey, come on down!

  107. BorisG

    If Joe Biden is going to openly brag about protecting his obviously guilty pocket-stuffing son …

    Didn’t you just say a moment ago that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

  108. JC

    I’ve a hunch that when the IG report comes out, this impeachment circus is going to be well and truly forgotten.

  109. BorisG
    #3242418, posted on November 22, 2019 at 10:50 pm

    The crime is abuse of power for personal political gain. I am not a lawyer but for me witness testimony is very compelling. legal experts will soon compile articles of impeachment and all the evidence.

    You are making crimes up like Saddam Hussein or Idi Amin would.

    Terrible, illiberal nonsense.

  110. cohenite

    Boris is a fucking idiot.

  111. FelixKruell

    Jc:

    Should Biden and his miserable loser son be investigated or not so much because in this case details don’t matter much, Bruce?

    Of course. By the DoJ. Not by Trumps personal lawyer.

  112. The President can seek the advice and counsel of whomever he pleases.

  113. JC

    The Bobbsey twins don’t seem to be able to get this factoid, Frank. They don’t seem to understand the head of the executive branch has the power to appoint whomever he wants, whenever he wants in a White House position.

    Where’s the other idiot, Plodes Bobbsey.. the resident temple of wisdom.

  114. dover_beach

    If Joe Biden is going to openly brag about protecting his obviously guilty pocket-stuffing son …

    Didn’t you just say a moment ago that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

    VP Biden admitted he pressured the Ukrainians to bury the investigation of his son, Hunter, and fire the prosecutor involved. In other words, he confessed.

  115. Iampeter

    They don’t seem to understand the head of the executive branch has the power to appoint whomever he wants, whenever he wants in a White House position.

    As usual this is the exact opposite of what is being said.
    Precisely because Trump could have appointed Guliani to some role and order him to conduct some investigation but did not is exactly why this is corrupt.
    Instead Trump had Guliani act in his capacity as his personal lawyer, likely because he mistakenly believed he would be protected by client-privileged, outside any official nomination or oversight, to conduct business for Trump’s self dealing.

    You know, like a “Deep State.”

  116. JC

    As usual this is the exact opposite of what is being said.

    Plodes, you temple of wisdom. You continue to show a lack of understanding what the word opposite means, you numbnut. Go see the orderly and return the iPad.

    Precisely because Trump could have appointed Guliani to some role and order him to conduct some investigation but did not is exactly why this is corrupt.

    What is corrupt is your drug addled brain. He DID appoint Giuliani to a role and in fact can do so to any role he wants. This has been repeated to you many times, but continue that show you don’t understand this very basic concept.

    Instead Trump had Guliani act in his capacity as his personal lawyer, likely because he mistakenly believed he would be protected by client-privileged, outside any official nomination or oversight, to conduct business for Trump’s self dealing.

    Trump refers to Giuliani as his personal lawyer, however that has no standing in a legal sense and is only a descriptive term Trump uses. Giuliani has an executive role reporting to the President. Call it anything you want, but that is what it is.

    You know, like a “Deep State.”

    Perhaps, but what’s good for the goose is also good for the retarded mongoose. Retribution has a very sweet flavoring and is liked b y a lot of people. I have no issue with payback and hitting back twice as hard after what has been done to him.

    There is also nothing corrupt about a president investigating potential corruption – even by a potential candidate.

    The Bidens very much appear crooked and you’re leftist twat pretending you’re not.
    Two days ago you promised not to respond to my comments. Follow your own self imposed dictum and fuck right off, you moron.

  117. FelixKruell

    JC:

    The Bobbsey twins don’t seem to be able to get this factoid, Frank. They don’t seem to understand the head of the executive branch has the power to appoint whomever he wants, whenever he wants in a White House position.

    And Congress has the power to impeach him. Whenever they want.

    Because they have a president, not a king.

    It all comes back to the fact you don’t think there’s anything Trump could do that merits impeachment.

  118. JC

    Felix Bobbsey

    You don’t appear to understand what impeachment means. Impeachment is an indictment and does not mean the president can be gotten rid of.

    Only the senate can do this through the equivalent of a court case brought on by the indictment from the house of reps.

    Stop talking , you monstrous retard.

  119. Iampeter

    It all comes back to the fact you don’t think there’s anything Trump could do that merits impeachment.

    It’s worse than that. He knows Trump SHOULD be impeached. “What’s good for the goose” and all that. They all do.
    They just don’t care and neither do most conservatives. Their great plan to fight the corrupt left is to out-left-wing and out corrupt them. This is also called, “no plan.”

    Stop talking , you monstrous retard.

    Every single post from this fool is both nonsense and insults. Strange how Arky hasn’t turned up to call for his moderation. He must be typing a long email to Sinclair to have this dealt with forthwith.

  120. FelixKruell

    Jc:

    Only the senate can do this through the equivalent of a court case brought on by the indictment from the house of reps.

    …and the senate is part of congress. Like I said. Congress can impeach him.

    I wouldn’t be throwing the r word around here…

  121. “Congress can impeach him, the Senate is part of Congress”

    Good lord, give it up. Tell your masters in Sussex St you have failed again.

  122. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Please don’t tell me you’re commenting on this issue and don’t even know that? Wow. Just wow.

  123. JC

    Plodes Bobbsey, you dickhead.

    I don’t really like to use the term to project, but if I ever did, it would and should be used against you, you temple of reason. You self described objectivist, rational atheist. FMD you’re a prime dickhead.

    We’re still waiting for the definition of capitalism. GO!

    Every single post from this fool is both nonsense and insults.

    It’s all you’ve ever done since you’ve been here, you numbnut. Also, I bet you’ve never had a girlfriend.

    ——————-

    Felix Bobbsey.

    Impeachment is the term used to describe an indictment brought on by the House. Removal from office occurs through machinations in the senate.

    Actually, I supported the impeachment and possibly Trump did as well. Each day of the hearings support goes down in punter land and will end disastrously for the D’rats.

    This is the second time the term has been defined for you and still you don’t appear to get it.

    Stop talking FFS.

  124. JC

    FelixKruell
    #3243116, posted on November 23, 2019 at 4:59 pm

    Frank:

    Please don’t tell me you’re commenting on this issue and don’t even know that? Wow. Just wow.

    Felix Bobbsey is the equivalent of the Cat’s rag doll. We just throw him.. kick him around whenever we feel like it. It’s fun.

  125. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Impeachment is the term used to describe an indictment brought on by the House. Removal from office occurs through machinations in the senate.

    And that’s inconsistent with what i said how exactly? Humour me with specifics.

  126. JC

    And that’s inconsistent with what i said how exactly? Humour me with specifics.

    No, other people can make that judgement. You’re here to be thrown and kicked around. You serve other purpose.

  127. Just fuck off Felix. Either you’re incredibly obtuse or you’re intentionally writing half truths to stir people up (e.g, the Senate impeaches officials, nope, the House does, the Senate holds the trial).

  128. Tel

    BorisG #3242515,

    Didn’t you just say a moment ago that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

    Unless you can find a reference where I said that … you appear to be making stuff up.

  129. FelixKruell

    JC and Frank:

    I didn’t say the senate impeaches anyone. I didn’t say the house does either.

    But together, they are called ‘congress’, and together they do have the power to impeach people.

    Now, is that clear enough for you?

  130. The House impeaches, the Senate runs the trial.

    Fuck off retard kid.

  131. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    The House impeaches, the Senate runs the trial.

    Sigh. You didn’t read or comprehend what I wrote, did you?

  132. JC

    Fuck you’re a mentally troubled retard, Bobbsey.

    Sigh. You didn’t read or comprehend what I wrote, did you?

    1. >And Congress has the power to impeach him. Whenever they want.

    2. Like I said. Congress can impeach him.

    3. But together, they are called ‘congress’, and together they do have the power to impeach people.
    Congress is both houses you imbecile. Both “houses” do not impeach the president. Only the House of reps does.

    Felix, in a just and fair world you would be beaten and then immediately executed for the constant display of mendacious lying, low IQ trolling and general retardation. Now fuck off and stop wasting our time.

  133. Iampeter

    You’re all wrong.
    The House impeaches the President.
    The Senate votes on weather the impeached President is to be removed or not.
    So you could say that Congress can remove a President, not merely impeach.

    Felix, in a just and fair world you would be beaten and then immediately executed for the constant display of mendacious lying, low IQ trolling and general retardation. Now fuck off and stop wasting our time.

    That’s some military grade projection. You have no business on any political blogs, JC.
    Seek help immediately.

  134. Zatara

    Most of what is being discussed here is totally off-topic minutia and is the result of the Democrat distraction campaign.

    Let’s start with two basic concepts.
    – The President of the US conducts foreign policy in accordance with federal law.
    – The President of the US has a constitutional duty to enforce the laws of the US.

    So the first test of any actual impeachment process was to prove that setting conditions on foreign aid was improper. Good luck with that as every law involving security assistance foreign aid since 1961 includes language requiring the executive branch to certify the receiving country meets certain standards involving human rights, corruption, etc. The President has the responsibility of ensuring those standards are reached and maintained prior to delivering the foreign aid.

    Congress can allot all the funding to country X they want, but it is discretionary not required spending. The President can spend it or not at his will and Presidents putting strings and conditions on foreign aid has a history as long as US foreign aid has existed. I would go so far as to suggest that there has never, ever, been foreign aid given without conditions.

    Shifting to the topic of investigations and enforcing the law, even disregarding the US constitutional requirements for the President to do so there is a comprehensive treaty between the US and the Ukraine regarding cooperation between them in the investigation of crimes and corruption. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999 and was approved by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations… of which Joe Biden was the ranking member. Trump was following this agreement to the letter when he pursued investigating the involvement of US citizens in the crime and corruption in the Ukraine…. including any involving Joe Biden.

    “Oh but Biden was a potential Presidential candidate” you say. So friggin what? The Dems have been investigating Trump, the presumptive 2020 Rep candidate for President, since before his election in 2016!

    But, to go down that road the Dems needed to prove was that when a Democrat declares candidacy for a political position he/she becomes immune to investigation and prosecution. Obviously that’s a crock of shit, which is why they never allowed it to be brought up publicly, they just skipped right past it and refused to let the Reps challenge it.

    All the rest of this crap about quid-pro-quo, etc. is meaningless minutia window dressing distraction created by the Dems and their MSM propaganda arm to make the most of their opportunity to to do damage to the voter perception of Trump. They know damned well Trump isn’t going to be impeached, nor removed from office, so they are trying to do any political damage possible to him while they hold congressional offices to abuse in the process.

    It’s not going to work and is in fact turning the voters against them more and more the longer it goes on.

  135. struth

    Trump is right wing, he is a capitalist, and he is very much a business man.
    You suffer severe TDS and have no understanding of politics at all if you think otherwise.
    It’s quite alarming to think people who believe otherwise get to vote in our country.

  136. Mark A

    Waste of time even reading let alone replying to iampeter.
    Nobody knows anything about anything spec. politics but him

    And we are all ultra left wing dimwits, According to him.

    So, don’t quote that back peter.

  137. JC

    Plodes

    Stick to your promise and stop responding to me.

    You temple of wisdom.

  138. Iampeter

    So the first test of any actual impeachment process was to prove that setting conditions on foreign aid was improper.

    That’s not the test because that is nothing but the very spin you’re accusing democrats of engaging in.
    Trump didn’t set any conditions on the foreign aid, he didn’t veto it, he signed off on it. Then he used the office of OMB to delay releasing the funds he himself approved. The legality of this action is one of the things being determined by this hearing and may constitute yet another article of impeachment.

    Trump was following this agreement to the letter when he pursued investigating the involvement of US citizens in the crime and corruption in the Ukraine…. including any involving Joe Biden.

    That’s not what Trump was doing either. He just wanted an investigation announced into his political opponent and didn’t seem to care if it was conducted or not. If he cared about investigating corruption he would order his own government agencies to engage in such an activity, not ask for a “favor” while withholding approved aid from a foreign government. That’s a misuse of his office on multiple levels.

    But, to go down that road the Dems needed to prove was that when a Democrat declares candidacy for a political position he/she becomes immune to investigation and prosecution.

    No one is saying he is. The Trump administration is not investigating or prosecuting Biden.

    All the rest of this crap about quid-pro-quo, etc. is meaningless minutia window dressing distraction created by the Dems and their MSM propaganda arm to make the most of their opportunity to to do damage to the voter perception of Trump.

    No it’s not. It’s the core of the issue as established by Trump’s own released “transcript” and now corroborated by several witnesses, on the record, that were on the call.

    The only people engaging in “meaningless minutia window dressing distraction” are conservatives.

    You guys have lost all credibility and will never be able to impeach a corrupt democrat in the future because you are as bad if not worse than they are.

  139. Snoopy

    Every US citizen over the age of 35 is a potential candidate for president against Trump in 2020.

  140. JC

    That’s very funny, zat.

    It’s funnier because it’s true.

  141. JC

    Plodes Bobbsey,

    Stop polluting the site with talking points you’ve picked up from your leftwing sites. At the very least you should offer attribution.

    Point to any federal criminal statute Trump can be cited for. Go! Purloining Elizabeth Drew’s argument that you don’t require a crime in order to impeach is magnificently stupid.

    Stop ranting and offer some proof instead of angry insulting assertions you render as proof.

    Next time, you temple of wisdom, attribute what you’ve picked up rather than resorting to plain vanilla plagiarism.

    More here:

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-11-13-impeachment-what-is-the-crime

    That’s an example of attribution, you angry, leftwing numbnuts.

  142. candy

    That’s not what Trump was doing either. He just wanted an investigation announced into his political opponent

    I find that very hard to believe, Iampeter. Biden touching up young girls and older girls seems to restrict his chances much much more than some Ukranian thing no-one understands anyway.

  143. Iampeter

    JC, you have no idea what impeachment is about.
    I’d say stop cluttering up every thread with your unhinged rants but we both know that is pointless.
    You’re insistent on embarrassing yourself no matter what.

    So keep ranting ya nut job.

  144. JC

    Plodes Bobbsey

    Don’t make us laugh. You stole Elizabeth Drew’s argument, then hurried over here pretending you know it all and then when the facts are presented including your plagiarism you accuse others of not understanding what impeachment means.
    Don’t argue against me. Make the case against the link. GO!
    Honest question, are you still a virgin?

  145. Iampeter

    JC, I’m not sure what you want me to argue against. Impeachment doesn’t require any crime.
    That link is written by someone who has no idea what he’s talking about. Just like you.

  146. JC

    JC, I’m not sure what you want me to argue against.

    You’re a Harvard law school graduate. Show us where these other Harvard LS grads got the whole thing wrong. Plodes, you’re great at this especially picking up story lines and then presenting them as your own.

    Show us how a senior litigation partner at a major NYC law firm and a Harvard law professor are heading in the wrong direction.

    You temple of wisdom. GO!

    Impeachment doesn’t require any crime.

    That’s Elizabeth Drew’s argument. We want to hear your own.

  147. Iampeter

    That’s Elizabeth Drew’s argument. We want to hear your own.

    That’s not an argument, it’s a fact.

    You don’t know anything and have no business on political blogs.

  148. JC

    Dickhead, it’s not a FACT, it’s an argument. A poor one. It’s also one you plagiarised.

    Fuck off.

    Serious question . Are you a virgin?

  149. Iampeter

    Even your attempts at insults are as hopeless as your attempts to discuss The Politics.

    You’re an absolute imbecile.

  150. JC

    Plodes

    Even your attempts at insults are as hopeless as your attempts to discuss The Politics.

    Sure, which is why you repackage and repeat every version of an insult leveled at you against me or others. You even plagiarize insults, even though its a peculiar form of flattery.

    Discuss da politics? FMD, you’re a moron.

    Here’s a discussion on da politics and the legals, dickhead. Two Harvard law grads argue (and give reasons why) this impeachment is wrong. One is a law professor (at Harvard) and one was/is a former high level litigator at the top NYC law firm.
    You, you gutter snipe are none of these.

    I’ll post the link again.

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-11-13-impeachment-what-is-the-crime

    Plodes, previous response..

    That link is written by someone who has no idea what he’s talking about.

    You temple of knowledge, you virgin imbecile.

    Either post a comment demonstrating why they are wrong with some detail, or just fuck off.

    As I keep saying, you’re done here, you pathetic troll.

Comments are closed.