"Try our new Very Presidential TM Diet Coke Bacon Sauce. Comes with Bigly Fries and an Extra Large Purell.
*At participating locations only. Offer void where prohibited. Not available to Chris Christies."
5 Likes
15 Likes
A recently declassified CIA report confirmed that all known al-Qaeda-affiliated organizations—from Pakistan to Yemen, and from Somalia to Algeria—have been instructed to kick back and enjoy the show as the United States’ federal government, energy grid, and industrial sector are rendered impotent by internal dissent, decay, and mismanagement. According to statements made by top-level informants and corroborated by leading Western terrorism experts, if seen through to its conclusion, al-Qaeda’s current plot could wreak far more damage than the events of 9/11.
13 Likes
I could be wrong, but I don’t think any of the Dem representatives from districts carried by Trump in '16 are in that list.
It took a full two years for Watergate to bring down Richard Nixon in August 1974. He was plotting it way before that. The actual break in of the DNC office in the Watergate Hotel was in June of 1972.
https://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1961-1974/6-nixon/3-watergate/timeline/
3 Likes
My sister has been trying to kill her alcoholic husband for years by buying him more wine than he can drink, and it has yet to make a dent. Evil purges the body’s systems.
2 Likes
5 Likes
There’s at least one: Katie Porter in CA-45
Edit: Correction, she flipped the seat, which was heavily Republican in 2016, but the district went for Clinton in the presidential race.
1 Like
Fuck calling Pelosi. CALL YOUR FUCKING REPRESENTATIVE. She’s not going to move because a buncha assholes who don’t vote in her district called up her office to yell into the phone, but she’ll move if she has the house votes behind her. You’re literally yelling at a woman for doing her job, because unless you live in a particular 80 of 200+ districts, it’s your fucking representative who isn’t doing their job, and they’re a hell of a lot more likely to listen to you, a voter in their district, than Pelosi is to listen to another twit shouting at her.
And if your rep is in favor? Call them anyway! Ask them why they’re not doing more to push their colleagues towards impeachment. Ask them why they’re not putting the screws into other reps, and hell, if your weird need to scream at pelosi isn’t satisfied, ask them why they’re not going apeshit on Pelosi.
To every single person here, and across America: If you are calling Pelosi, screaming at her on twitter, whatever, and not your representative, You are doing literally nothing. You are being worse than useless, you’re just working on your own smug self-satisfaction because you yelled at a woman’s office answering machine and/or office staff, or threw out another irrelevant twitter dunk that was already done first and better by basically every other leftist alive.
3 Likes
This is not about constitutional anything - it’s all about gaining and maintaining power.
Whereas the Speaker is trying to play a successful long game, we may loose the next number of rounds… and the constitution!
Allowing the current regime to continue, under any circumstance, is madness.
1 Like
Diude chill out.
Calling your rep is part of the process. Calling Pelosi takes literarily 30 seconds with plenty of time left over in the day to call any other rep. you choose.
Carry on citizen.
8 Likes
6 Likes
Disclaimer: I’m not a US citizen, I don’t live there and, given a choice, wouldn’t want to.
I can’t be arsed enough to look it up, but I’m a bit curious: very clearly, most of the people (if not all) writing here are of the opinion that the Mueller report gives clear evidence Trump is illegitimate. What’s somewhat bewildering is that I’ve read elsewhere that, to the contrary, the report states that despite his best effort, Mueller couldn’t find such evidence (which would tend to prove there none to be found).
Could anyone who has actually read said report give their opinion about that ?
How exactly can someone call ‘doing nothing’ a plot ?
I have read it.
The report does not say Trump would have lost without Russia. (Nobody can say that for sure unless we find evidence of rigged ballots)
The report says there is (basically) reasonable doubt that the President colluded with Russia to win the election. He also notes that further investigation may find more evidence of an underlying crime of that nature.
On the second count, basically, there is enough to bring obstruction charges if Trump was not a sitting president.
5 Likes
That is not what the investigation or report was even meant to cover. And isn’t really something that we even have a process to look into. Had that been the question then Trump would likely be correct in his characterization of the investigation.
The investigation was meant to look into two main things. Russia’s manipulation/misinfo campaign surrounding our election. And the Trump campaign/administrations potential involvement in that campaign and any crimes that may have been commited ancillary to that. Especially obstruction of justice.
So the report outlines that plenty of evidence was found that Russia did interfere, and as to how. It also summarizes evidence and details of the Trump campaigns contacts with Russia and attempts to gain information from them. But notes that they could not unequivocally prove criminal acts, or successful involvement. Though it also outlines that they were prevented from fully answering that question by lack of cooperation by witnesses, various bars to getting at documentary evidence, and potential obstruction.
The thing most people are pointing to in the report as clear proof of crimes by Trump and his associates is the section outlining that potential obstruction. The report summarizes evidence relating to multiple instances where Trump or his administration sought to hamper or stop the investigation, or to prevent investigators from accessing witnesses or evidence. It stops short of calling this a crime or making a determination as to whether it is actionable or obstruction. Mostly down to rules around indicting a sitting president, and an interpretation of that claiming that the special council was not really allowed or supposed to make a determination on that front. And basically refers the issue to Congress calling for them to take it up.
Anyone saying the report has any bearing on Trumps legitimacy is stating an opinion about what the report means for Trump. Legitimacy is not something that the special council could (or should) investigate. And any impact Russia’s campaign had on the outcome was outside the scope of of what they were looking at. So the report does not make any reference to that angle.
But mostly what people are saying is that the report represents clear evidence that Trump committed multiple crimes, including obstruction and “collusion” (not a legal term or a crime in itself but a catch all Trump decided to focus on). But that isn’t neccisarily true. For one the report itself stops short of making those specific determinations, even as it outlines the case for them. It leaves wiggle room. For another the report itself is not evidence of any kind (legally). It is a summary, it references and mentions some of the evidence. But doesn’t really contain any sort of public release of the actual backing documents and testimony. All of that is still in DOJ files and the sealed Grand Jury court record. And will not come out until the DOJ releases its files, or the court record is unsealed by a judge.
So basically the report tells us that evidence exists, and roughly what that evidence means. But it does not give us the evidence.
Subpoenas for the full and un-redacted report, and the DOJ’s files have already been issued. And are pretty much waiting on the courts to clear enforcement of such subpoenas. Same deal with testimony from witnesses (and perpetrators). And the suit filed by the House Judiciary Committee yesterday is requesting a judge unseal the Grand Jury Record, effectively releasing the evidence without the involvement of the DOJ. So its coming, they just have to get at it.
I think you found the joke.
8 Likes
By all means, waste your time shouting into her answering machine and get ignored if it makes you feel better. After you call your representative, please.
Also, “calm down”, lol. What is it with extremely online chuds and assuming everyone who tells them to stop being dumb is just some emotional wreck? I’m sorry to tell you, you’re not exactly that effecting. Call your rep.
My rep is on board and working to see it happen.
In addition to calling I’ve been to his office.
I speak with my state rep almost weekly.
And you can bet your ass I’ll be voting and my reps know it.
Again, good day to you citizen.
Do all you can do.
7 Likes
The more I think about, the more I’m opposed to impeachment. In no particular order:
It places blame, as it were, on Donnie alone and not the entire GOP. The party’s the problem, not Donnie alone. Only one of these comparisons is a problem: Donnie with a reasonably focused blue Congress or the nation under GOP control — which we’ve had since at least the 1980s and the good it’s done is obvious.
And by focusing on Donnie, he gets made a martyr in his base’s eyes.
Donnie is clearly impeachable AF, if for nothing else his abuse of a system of law, leading a clique of extremists and not the nation, acting against the nation’s interests just for a start. You know, everything the establishment media gives him a pass on and thereby legitimatizes (weakening democracy in the process) and thereby enables. So without a supportive media, nothing’s going to happen anyway.
Meanwhile, Pelosi is playing Rope-A-Dope against a fucking moron. Donnie believes impeachment proceedings would help so he keeps doubling down, getting worse and worse, in order to push the dems to impeaching. He’s becoming, if he isn’t already, the candidate who better than every Dem POTUS wannabe will defeat him. He just gets more repulsive to people outside the GOP base every day. 2018 was a start, not an anomaly, not just the usual party of the POTUS doing worse in the midterm election. 2018 was serious rejection. Michigan and Wisconsin, for examples, were rejections of party, not POTUS. Too: Stable genius Donnie, with his actions, is destroying both his political and business brands. When he’s out of office, his brand will be shit.
Impeachment would not, cannot solve the problem of GOP control and the Founding Fathers’ empowerment of a tyranny of a minority (as the system was designed).
4 Likes
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems.
They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two.
Whatever is number three is far behind.
1 Like
