Nancy Pelosi is about to do a big reveal. How much do you care and how much depends on who the hell the House managers are?
I find this a bit irritating, this political theater.
UPDATE: I watched the announcement, but all I remember is Nancy Pelosi going on about the Constitution and mentioning Abraham Lincoln, Paul Revere, and "These are the times that try men's souls." And somebody said that not only would Trump be on trial, but the Senate is on trial. And Nadler, looking disturbingly green, said Trump is on trial and also democracy is on trial. The frame of what's "on trial" is ever-expanding. What do you think is on trial? I'll just say it's trying my patience. And my patience pleads not guilty.
I'm adding some tags with this update, and I tried to add "Paul Revere," not that I wanted to create a new "Paul Revere" tag, but I'd add the tag if it already existed. Did it? Well... kind of...
AND: Is my use of the term "show trial" apt? It's not the normal show trial, where the predetermined outcome is that the accused will be found guilty and punished. From Wikipedia:
A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and they are also conducted for propagandistic purposes. The term was first recorded in 1928.In the case of Trump's impeachment trial, the show is of hearing the accusations and the predetermined outcome is that the accused will be vindicated and nothing will happen to him. But there is a propagandistic purpose to it, and it's some kind of effort to warn other would-be transgressors. And yet, it's not very scary, is it? Indeed, in the future, the threat of impeachment may lose its power. It's just political nonsense.
Posts
286 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 286 of 286The boys wore their hair as long as their parents would allow. The were pushing it, and some were just a couple of missed haircuts away from the hippie look. Many of them probably went for it after they moved out on their own.
Yup. Hair was a big source of conflict with my stepfather in the late 60's, early 70's, almost as bad as Viet Nam.
I grew long hair and a Fu Manchu in college. After a year with a ponytail I got tired of long hair. The Fu Manchu went the way of muttonchops, goatees and other facial hair styles. Now it is just a simple, well groomed gray beard and a haircut every six weeks.
clearly none of those matters concern him, that's why this schrodinger's peach mint,
"What makes Constitution legal?"
The Declaration of Independence
To answer your next question, it's turtles all the way down.
’the large handful of Trump Cult fuckheads here’
Ouch.
Trump is FOREVER impeached. It will ALWAYS HAVE HAPPENED. It's on his PERMANENT RECORD.
He's marked forevah!!!!!
At his next rally Trump should wear a tie with a large "Scarlet Letter (I)" on his tie. Then ask the crowd is it's flattering considering the source.
I gave him the off ramp to the good prosecutor, where there is a ongoing chimp circus, at least 4-1 against any opposite opinion,
Hey, Chuck.
Get bent!!!
Blogger Qwinn said...
“Trump produced the only document that matters: the transcript of his call with Zelenski.”
It is about the only thing that is admissible under the FRE. it is hearsay, of course, but intentionally falls into a specific hearsay exception. They had four people transcribing, then the four of them consulted, voted, and came up with a consensus transcript. Each of the four initial transcripts would be admissible as hearsay within that exception. And a consensus transcription, consolidated while the phone call was still fresh in each of their memories, just makes it that much more reliable, and therefore admissible.
Most of the rest of the testimony would not be admissible because it is hearsay that wouldn’t fall in any exceptions listed in the FRE. Moreover, they shouldn’t even be able to read it into the record, because the other side was never given a fair chance to challenge the persons making the statements because HSCI chair Schifty was heavy handed lay controlling what questions could be asked, and the President, the real defendant here, got no chance to challenge the witnesses. The testimony of these witnesses has very few indications of reliability.
So, if this were a real trial, the admissible evidence would essentially consist of the transcript of the call, and little else.
Nobody believes a racist fopdoodle.
Reputation in tatters.
"Fight me, bro" said the very serious lawyer.
And the anal fetish is weird.
You should quit threatening to shove things where people do not want them.
Your imbalance is showing.
Drago, please take it from here.
Well if it's any comfort my yellow dog, democrat relations back in the mid-west thinks impeachment is all a bunch of horseshit and have resigned themselves to a Trump-a-palooza
2021. Trump stickers and red hats fly in areas that used to have Clare McCaskill buildboards.
They originally thought Mueller had the goods on Trump but after that evaporated they stopped paying attention all together. Now no one wants to talk about it and only talk about the Chiefs!
A mint peach ice cream would probably be enough to get Jerry Nadler to vote for anything.
But only Trump gets two scoops.
Chuck once again proving who he is.
I skim Althouse every day, and read a few of the posts and comments all the way through. So what I have gathered over the few years I have done that, is that Chuck says he is a lawyer and a life long Repbulican, who votes Republican, but hates Donald Trump and wants him to be convicted of the Dem House Sham Impeachment Articles voted and sent to the Senate this week.
However, some seem to think he is not what he says he is and call him on it on a fairly frequent basis, to which Chuck generally replies with some form of profanity laden lable directed at those commenters who have irked his ire.
I am not sure what to think, though I try and not read Chuck's diatribes and equally I try and not read the responses to said by various and sundry others.
Maybe Chuck is just lonely and does not know how to reach out and ask for camradery? Maybe he is really stuck in a basement someplace and only has minimal internet available to interact with others? Maybe he is a bot, or just a troll?
Who knows for sure. I don't think we will ever find out. Maybe we could get a governmetn grant to research the situation and file a muli-page report on it at some point? Maybe he will get better when Donald Trump gets re-elected? Maybe he will finally just go away, as has been asked by our bloghost?
I do know that the snow we got in the Seattle area should melt tomorrow. Yay!
Turley crushed Pelosi like a bug
he'll melt like toh in raiders when they opened the ark,
Chuck was probably a failed lawyer, if he was a lawyer
Birkel: "Drago, please take it from here."
There is absolutely nothing I could write that could undermine Banned Racist Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOU!) more than what this dip has written himself.
With each passing day LLR-lefty Chuck's posts become more and more unhinged and far to the left of even the typical democrat.
It's astonishing really. LLR-lefty Chuck has come out in full support of the mad mullahs, open borders, abortion on demand, etc. There is not a single issue of the far left that LLR-lefty Chuck has not embraced.
All to "own" Donald Trump. Yet Donald Trump remains quite un-owned, hence the amazing rage-filled violent postings by and downward spiral of Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck.
again
NANCY, YOU HAVEN’T DEVALUED TRUMP. YOU’VE DEVALUED IMPEACHMENT.
How much truth would a mookchuck chuck
If a mookchuck could chuck truth?
"tcrosse said...
Looking at that American Bandstand clip, I'm struck by how many of the boys still had pretty short hair in 1966.
The demographic of the guys on American Bandstand was South Philly working class, not Hippie material. "
By 1966, ABS was broadcast from LA. 1967 was the Summer of Love. In 1966 I had much longer hair than any of these boys, but all these ABS kids were still in high school - I had been out for two years. Look at my pic - this was 65. Went into the Army in Oct 66 - they gave me a free haircut.
What I most fervently hope for is that when this Sham-Wow-Peachment ends in failure that there are no women or children anywhere physically near Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck.
For obvious reasons.
There was an old loser named Chuck
The shyster could not make a buck
A mook of the Left
Opinions no heft
A truly unlucky old fuck
Went into the Army in Oct 66 - they gave me a free haircut.
No matter how short, you always got a free hair cut.
I examined a kid going into the Army when I was still doing that. He had dreadlocks to his shoulders. I teased him about the haircut he was going to get. He said he was donating his dreadlocks.
NANCY, YOU HAVEN’T DEVALUED TRUMP. YOU’VE DEVALUED IMPEACHMENT.
I suspect that Impeachment will be par for the course when a Republican occupies the White House. As the Democrats march towards coercive socialism and their masks fall, they have to resort to increasingly authoritarian means.
The Democrats are increasingly taking their cues from leftwing college campuses.
...
It's astonishing really. LLR-lefty Chuck has come out in full support of the mad mullahs, open borders, abortion on demand, etc. There is not a single issue of the far left that LLR-lefty Chuck has not embraced.
...
See, this is what I’m talking about. What sort of commenting moderation allows this? Nothing to do with the subject matter of the blog post. Nothing to do with me. Drago can’t quote me subscribing to any of that phantasmagoric shit. Somebody other than me; demand that Drago prove it and quote me and link to the quote(s).
Meade: If I am lying and if in fact I have posted comments equivalent to what Drago alleged, about supporting the mullahs, open borders and abortion on demand, you should ban me forever. But if no such quotes exist you should ban Drago forevermore, and make it stick.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "See, this is what I’m talking about. What sort of commenting moderation allows this?"
The kind that allows racist commenters like you to post even though you've been banned.
Chuckles, without evidence, calls a block of commenters ‘Trump Cult fuckheads’ and then wants other people banned!! Such a pussy...
No need to call Schiff as a witness.
In his capacity as a prosecutor he is subject to being questioned by the court (the Senate) and asked to explain and justify himself, just as any other court can demand that a prosecutor answer the court's concerns.
How tone deaf does a FakeCon like LLR-lefty Chuck have to be to get banned for dishonest hackery yet demand other truthful posters be banned for accurately characterizing his political policy preferences?
I remember a certain racist fopdoodle typing all those things.
It happened.
As Nancy is my witness.
LLR-lefty Chuck seems to believe that 4 straight years of passionate defense of far left dems while simultaneously attacking every conservative in sight is not dispositive.
It most certainly is.
Definitely.
Absolutely.
I like to think of myself as the Althouse Blog "Whistleblower", identifying those posters that are not what they purport to be.
I long ago noticed there was one particularly dishonest poster who was quite disruptive (even when in Full Eddie Haskell Suckup Mode with Althouse).
Naturally I took this information directly to the appropriate blog parties who agreed wholeheartedly with the slam dunk evidence.
I take no joy in this role.
On the contrary I am both Sad and Somber to have discovered what I did.
Even worse, when this particularly dishonest poster was confronted with the slam dunk evidence he committed Obstruction Of Blog and was banned.
Despite the banning this FakeCon returned again and again, thus committing Abuse Of Blog.
I would love to be able to say that I could exonerate this violent poster, but I cannot. (Exoneration being the new Blog standard now)
Again, I am Sad and Somber.
So very very Somber.
And Sad.
But mostly Somber.....and sad.
Blogger Drago said...
How tone deaf does a FakeCon like LLR-lefty Chuck have to be to get banned for dishonest hackery yet demand other truthful posters be banned for accurately characterizing his political policy preferences?
Quote me.
Quote me, or shut the fuck up.
To the other, good faith readers of these pages; he can’t quote me. In fact, I am an immigration “hawk,” objecting only to Donald Trump’s stupid boorish language on the subject, and his dumbass idea of a “wall.”
And I think that Roe v. Wade was decided wrongly and I’d be happy to see it reversed with the issue returning to state legislatures.
And I honestly cannot think of any American who supports “the mad mullahs.” I don’t even know what that means.
It was your allegation Drago. Back it up. Put up or shut up.
Oh; and again I want to be the first to acknowledge — because none of you detractors have as yet — that this is the sort of personal back and forth that Althouse hates to see. Started, as usual, by Drago.
I too was sad on the day that I discovered the deep and heartfelt racial hatred that a certain fopdoodle carries deep in Xis heart. Once I put together the evidence of planned assaults on old ladies, up to and including titty twisting, and small children, it was simply too much. I could no longer be politically associated with any more LLRs.
Fortunately, I am not. All LLRs are Democratics lying about their political affiliations. And I am a conservative who believes strongly in the US Constitution. So I have no similarities to any racist fopdoodles.
An inability to control Xis emotions is offputting. The bitter rage is both amusing and sad.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOU!F): "Quote me, or shut the fuck up."
What a strange creature LLR-lefty Chuck happens to be.
I fear I must persist in my duty to call out LLR-lefty Chuck for his serial misrepresentations, lies and smears which he himself loudly and proudly admitted openly form the foundation of his 2 primary purposes at Althouse blog:
1) Lie about and smear Donald Trump, Defeater of Democrats
2) Drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers
I am greatly comforted by the fact that thus far, even at his far left greasy smear-y best, LLR-lefty Chuck has failed in his 2 explicitly defined tasks here at Althouseblog.
And yet, I fear we have not yet reached the end of LLR-lefty Chuck's lefty shenanigans on this blog. Nor perhaps have we even reached the beginning of the end of LLR-lefty Chuck's lefty shenanigans. We have, however, definitely reached the the end of the beginning!!
Take heart Althousians!! We will fight LLR-lefty Chuck on CNN's land, MSNBC's Beaches and in Media Matters air!!
We will never surrender to the lefty Hun! NEVER!
BTW, does anyone know if Michigan has a "red flag" law?
I'm thinking it might be necessary for someone to make a call soon....if you know what I mean.....
Seems like only yesterday when Brave Brave Sir Chuck loudly announced that he couldn’t care less about the thoughts and opinions of his detractors, yet here he is - again - frothing at the mouth about some imagined slight to his vaunted reputation as a ‘real Republican’. 🍿
that this is the sort of personal back and forth that Althouse hates to see. Started, as usual, by Chuck.
FIFY
And Nadler, looking disturbingly green, said Trump is on trial and also democracy is on trial.
Well, of course!
Those damn voters picked Trump over the anointed one, Hillary.
The main purpose here is to rebuke the voters for their thought crime and bad choice
Mark said...
No need to call Schiff as a witness.
Wrong. There is every need to call Schiff as a witness:
1: Who was the whistleblower?
2: When did you first communicate with him?
3: When did any current or former member of your staff communicate with him about President Trump's Ukraine call?
4: Have you and / or any current or former member of your staff had any communications with the IC IG since President Trump's Ukraine phone call?
That's a start
"And I honestly cannot think of any American who supports “the mad mullahs.” I don’t even know what that means."
Here's a hint: When the mad mullahs lob a bunch of missiles at our bases with clear intent to miss, and yet you falsely claim that they killed a bunch of our Iraqi allies, and you tell this lie not to blame the mullahs but to explicitly blame Trump AND all his supporters for those deaths, that would be supporting the mad mullahs.
New lib talking point:
Trump wasn't denied any witnesses. He refused to let them testify.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOU!): "To the other, good faith readers of these pages; he can’t quote me. In fact, I am an immigration “hawk,”..."
Chuck is an immigration "hawk" (wink wink)
He just doesn't like the idea of walls, enforcing immigration laws, holding illegals for very long, etc etc etc.
I recall LLR-lefty Chuck claimed to be for Stong Border enforcement. Super Strong border enforcement!!.......just not anything that would actually hinder illegal immigration.
For obvious (wink wink "democrat") reasons......
It is unfortunate that LLR-lefty Chuck chose this particular topic to revisit as it is the one I recall Meade jumping all over him for given LLR-lefty Chuck's clear dishonesty.
Still, that was one funny thread!
LLR-lefty Chuck never disappoints....in precisely the same way any far left democrat in office does not "disappoint".
Browndog: "New lib talking point:
Trump wasn't denied any witnesses. He refused to let them testify."
Indeed.
And in a completely "unexpected" development, this lefty/lib talking point was being pushed on this very blog today by.....(wait for it).......(wait for it!)........yeah. You guessed it: LLR-lefty Chuck!
So unpredictable that boy Chuck is, eh?
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "And I think that Roe v. Wade was decided wrongly and I’d be happy to see it reversed with the issue returning to state legislatures."
LOLOLOLOLOL
wink wink....
And still no one can quote me to validate Drago’s phony stupid attack on me.
If I was wrong on this, it would be easy to prove it and be done with it.
But there is nothing to support Drago. I’m right about that.
You assclowns. This one is so easy. Did I ever write anything like what Drago derailed this page to allege about me? Nope. None of you can prove me wrong.
Lawyer joke.
Who here would like to see LLR-lefty Chuck try and defend Mitch McConnell against Chucky's beloved Pelosi's slurs against McConnell?
Isn't it strange that the entire left leadership is ginning up brand new russian hoaxes for 2020 and claiming republicans whom Chuck pretended to support before are russian assets and LLR-lefty Chuck has suddenly gone radio silent on defending those republicans?
In fact, now that I think about, the ONLY time Chuck "defends" GOPe-ers is when they are in conflict with Trump admin desires. Then LLR-lefty Chuck is all about how great these GOPe-ers are.
But when the dems are launching literally insane attacks against these GOPe-ers LLR-lefty Chuck...........disappears!
I'm sure its all coincidental.
Purely coincidental.
Happenstance, as it were.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "None of you can prove me wrong."
Filed under: Things Pelosi said about how "good" her impeachment strategy was.......
So, now more from Drago with claims about my views on immigration..:
QUOTE ME!
ALL CAPS is a sign of good mental health.
If you think the idea of a wall is "dumbass", you're not an immigration hawk. It's ridiculous to deny the efficacy of walls. Walls have worked since the dawn of man. They worked in East Berlin for 50 years to keep people in. Why would *anyone* think they don't work to keep people out?
Someone who really doesn't want immigration to stop, that's who.
And yes, I'm quoting you, "dumbass".
Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Alec Baldwin and Rosie O'Donnell use ALL CAPS alot too just like Chuck.
Coincidence?
Can we quote the part where a certain racist fopdoodle
1) was racist
2) threatened old ladies
3) made fun of children
4) made fun of learning disabilities
5) took every Democratic talking point
6) wanted to FIGHT!
We could find those quotes. But why bother? You amuse us because you're useless. Go play in traffic.
Please pronounce useless as "useluss" in order to affect my intended effect.
If Hitler were alive today he would undoubtedly use ALL CAPS alot too I'd bet...
ALL CAPS can often be considered a cry for help. Perhaps we can get an internet psychiatrist to examine Chuck's posts and render a clinical judgement. I hear that sort of thing is all the rage now on the left and LLR-left.
Time to impose "The Silence". And then move on. There are more important matters to review and discuss.
Mark said...
No need to call Schiff as a witness.
Wrong. There is every need to call Schiff as a witness: . . .
That's a start
No. A start would be you bothering to read (and quote) the entirety of what I said.
Sorry! The Berlin wall only "stopped all such emigration" (quote from the Wiki) for 28 years, not 50 (my bad).
A mistake like that doesn't actually make any meaningful difference to the point I was trying to make. That a specific wall was torn down after working flawlessly for 28 years wouldn't have proved the efficacy of walls any better if it had been allowed to continue to work flawlessly another 22 years. At all.
But I have no doubt that Chuck will make a huge deal about it in order to call me a hypocrite for when I called him out for rounding "less than 2 and a half monrhs" up to "4 months". Difference being that his mistake WAS completely and utterly germane to his point, his entire criticism depended on making that period of time as long as possible, and therefore the bullshit in his case was, in fact, meaningful, and based on poster history, quite intentional.
I went on at length about the difference between a meaningful error and an irrelevant one because Chuck himself can be counted on to harp endlessly about any error Trump makes, even if it is utterly trivial and completely irrelevant to the point Trump was making. It is, in fact, Chuck's favorite pastime. Chuck is utterly incapable of distinguishing a relevant error from an irrelevant one, but one thing is for sure, when Chuck makes a relevant "error", it always goes in one direction, to falsely make Trump look worse than the facts would allow. One hundred percent of the time.
Blogger Qwinn said...
If you think the idea of a wall is "dumbass", you're not an immigration hawk. It's ridiculous to deny the efficacy of walls. Walls have worked since the dawn of man. They worked in East Berlin for 50 years to keep people in. Why would *anyone* think they don't work to keep people out?
Someone who really doesn't want immigration to stop, that's who.
And yes, I'm quoting you, "dumbass".
Here’s the thing, you piece of shit. If you had taken the intellectually honest approach and asked me about it, or if you didn’t trust me and instead searched my past comments, you would have seen me writing that I would support a variety of measures to increase border security. It could be walls in some places; fencing in other places; electronic surveillance; increased Border Patrol staffing in other places:
I have also written that I would like to see the end of birthright citizenships for children born to anyone who did not have permanent legal status in the U.S.
And I have written that a much more conservative package of border security and immigration measures could be advanced with the efforts of a more skilled and credible advocate than Trump. And if I were a member of Congress I’d be happy to vote for it. But since Trump is such a prick, I’d have a hard time supporting anything that he would claim as a personal victory.
Ha ha ha! "Piece of shit" racist fopdoodle will fight you!
Sorry, I mean FIGHT YOU!
Racist fopdoodles support all of the border control measures that could be easily rolled back by a Democratic president.
Blogger Birkel said...
Racist fopdoodles support all of the border control measures that could be easily rolled back by a Democratic president.
So far, I think that the “great wall,” that Mexico would pay for, got “rolled back” by the President of...
... Mexico.
"Here’s the thing, you piece of shit. If you had taken the intellectually honest approach and asked me about it..."
Wait, what?
WTF?
Here's what you said:
"In fact, I am an immigration “hawk,” objecting only to Donald Trump’s stupid boorish language on the subject, and his dumbass idea of a “wall.”"
That's what you said. 'His dumbass idea of a "wall"'.
And now you declare it to be intellectually dishonest of me to address you calling a "wall" a dumb idea?
I have to give you the benefit of some ridiculously unreasonable doubt in your favor that forces me to question whether you really said something that idiotic?
No, Chuck. Fuck you, no. You say idiotic things all the time. If "intellectual honesty" required us to overlook your idiocy and ask you if you really meant to say that utterly idiotic thing you just said, we'd have to waste even more of our time calling out your insipid lies so that other folks without the time to invest don't get conned by them.
There's nothing about you, or about intellectual honesty, that requires us to waste even more time by extending some absurd benefit of the extreme doubt to you, even as you insult and berate everyone you can, for your endless idiocy.
Sorry. Hilarious though. Even your attacks on others for lacking "intellectual honesty" are in themselves utterly intellectually dishonest.
No, racist fopdoodle, you don't think.
The ineffectual wall has been replaced with effective wall.
Asylum applicants are held in Mexico, not released into the US mainland.
You're a fool.
If walls do not work, explain Hadrians Wall, the Great Wall of China, Zuckerbergs wall around his compound in Hawaii, the wall around the home of FPOTUS Obama in Chicago, gated and fenced communities all over the US, etc.
If none of them work, then why do rich people spend so much money having them built around their homes? They just want to employ the local wall building folks?
I am confused here. Please help a deplorable out and explain.
Federalist Co-Founder Shreds Democrats' New Trump Impeachment Evidence With One Tweet
Ritz Carlton note pimped by the hack press.
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
"An undated note from a guy indicted on multiple federal charges of fraud and conspiracy who's already fabricated evidence in a desperate attempt to get an immunity deal from Schiff and Pelosi so he can avoid prison? That's the new smoking gun? LOL."
And I have written that a much more conservative package of border security and immigration measures could be advanced with the efforts of a more skilled and credible advocate than Trump.
Liar.
TJM said...
Chuck was probably a failed lawyer, if he was a lawyer
Pity is he's gotten so crazy I mostly just skim over/past him.
Chuck, are you really just a paralegal or some kind of lawyer wannabe? You sound like a con man I know, doing an imitation of a lawyer.
Or-maybe this is it. Do we have the barrister vs solicitor distinction in the US? I'm thinking that if Chuck is actually a lawyer or former law student, he might either not have passed the bar, or might be so unfit for practice that he just sits in a room and does filing or some kind of paperwork. May have some legal knowledge, but no talent to practice in a courtroom, in front of lawyers, judges, or people.
Because, Chuck, and again I'm trying to be as kind to you as possible, you don't seem to have any people skills. You are so unpersuasive that it's as if you are secretly on the opposite side of whatever issue you are actually speaking on. If you are the kind of lawyer who argues cases at trial, you must be the worst lawyer in the world.
Qwinn, bipartisan majorities in Congress have been funding a variety of border walls, fences, barriers, etc. For decades. And rightly so. No “great border wall,” of course, because no one was so stupid or so arrogant as to propose such a thing. Along with a promise that Mexico would pay for it.
No; Congress paid for small incremental projects that fit specific border needs. Congress was never going to build s political monument to a certain president.
And now, because of who and what Trump is, Congress will never pay for any great wall, and probably not even any modest border wall projects. As reasonable as they might be. Because they want to give Trump nothing.
And all of Trump’s pissing and moaning about wall funding; it just drove the political price that Trump and Trumpublicans would need to pay, as high as can be imagined. If I were Pelosi, I’d ask to have dinner at the White House. I’d go, and say, Mr. President, I’d like to propose two new bills in the House. The first is the Great Border Wall Funding Bill. In that bill, we will spend $250 billion on s massive southern border wall. And it will also grant amnesty citizenship to 15 million people in the DACA program, overstayed visas, and others.
The second bill will be the Trumpcare Health Reform Bill. In it, we will establish a single-payer National Health Care system. It will fulfill all of you campaign promises; lowered premiums, no more co pays or deductibles, coverage for everyone. All federal health care facilities will be named after a member of the Trump family, in gold lettering, with a large color portrait of President Donald J. Trump, and also centrally-located artwork dedicated to the namesake member of the Trump family.
At the signing ceremonies, Democratic leadership from the House and Senate would declare that it was only possible because of the incredible deal making prowess of President Donald J. Trump.
I think Chuck is a lawyer but a trial lawyer who are usually leftists.
He doesn't sound very sharp, I agree.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "If I were Pelosi, I’d ask to have dinner at the White House. I’d go, and say, Mr. President, I’d like to propose two new bills in the House. The first is the Great Border Wall Funding Bill."
LOLOLOLOL
Oh yeah. Now that Trump has won the court battles against LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved dem judges and has the cash needed for over 500 miles of new wall (in addition to refurbishing existing crap walls), NOW, LLR-lefty Chuck would like to see a "deal" where we retroactively let the dems "win" on their piece of this....all at the very time the dems are working with the deep state to kill off the Trump Presidency!!
It's difficult to come up with the words necessary to describe just how moronically stupid and self-defeating LLR-lefty Chuck's "advice" is.
If one were a partisan dem seeking to undermine Trump the advice would be identical to what LLR-lefty Chuck is offering......as always.
Isn't that interesting?....
Drago you still haven’t found any quotes from me about abortion, open borders or “mad mullahs”?
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "Drago you still haven’t found any quotes from me about abortion, open borders or “mad mullahs”?"
4 years worth of your passionate defense of every dem and attacks against every conservative provides a tsunami of evidence that any reader can see for themselves and make a judgement upon.
And they have.
Every lefty on this blog absolutely adores you and defends you.
Every single one.
Without exception.
For a reason......
So to be clear, Drago; you’ve got nothing to back yourself up with your nasty falsehoods about me, and you know it, and you’re not going to waste your time looking for what you’ll never find in any event.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck said it best when he said the following:
He was here to smear and lie about Trump
He was here to drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers.
Those 2 facts explain everything LLR-lefty Chuck has written for the last 4 years.
Blogger Drago said...
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck said it best when he said the following:
He was here to smear and lie about Trump
Drago you are lying when you suggest that I EVER wrote that I wished or planned to “lie” about Trump. I once wrote that I proposed to “smear” Trump. I never wrote or otherwise intimated that I wished to lie about him.
And since you do this same thing every few days, you already know that I have denied your allegation previously, and challenged you , as ever, to come up with a quote from me specifically about my plans to “lie” about Trump, and unsurprisingly you couldn’t.
As for my usage of the word “smear,” it is something that Althouse herself has done, and has discussed with me in comments. On reflection, I wish that I had not used the word “smear” because at least one connotation with that word is the use of a falsehood to injure another. And as you and I have been over and over previously, I have explained that I would like to see Trump’s presidency ended — and the sooner the better — through the exposure of damaging information that is incontrovertibly true. And definitely not as a result of any untruths.
You knew all of that, because I’ve explained it before, but here you are, like some sort of mentally retarded person, writing as if that history never existed.
Weird.
Let's all find the quotes where a certain racist fopdoodle has threatened to forcibly insert things into other commenters' orifices.
What a sick, twisted fetishist.
I will defend the racist fopdoodle.
He is correct that he only once admitted the truth about smearing President Trump.
All the other times he has lied.
Future Democratic and swamp Republican bribe-takers can rest assured than any future Republican President who tries to investigate their crimes will be herself impeached.
Post a Comment