40 thoughts on “Gangster in the White House”

    1. There were more than enough Republicans in the quotes below the petition form to force McConnell to hold a trial with witnesses.

      With some evidence and a lot of shame it may be that the only Senator with real testosterone is Lisa Murkowski.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  2. Retweeting conspiracies from bots, extremists and other detritus is most disturbing. It fits Trump’s stated goal of purposefully confusing his fellow citizens so the don’t know what to believe.

    “And he [Trump] said: ‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.’”

    “No one” means all Americans. Supporters and critics alike.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  3. Tit-for-tat would dictate that we find out all the female’s names that the ‘piece-of-$#/Г’, faux prez has GRABBED since he slithered into the WH.

    He must go!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. A witness to a bank robbery goes across the street and anonymously calls the police. They arrive in time to catch the robbers red handed with lots of witnesses.

      No point in hearing the original caller. He is not the accuser. The prosecutor is. And all the witnesses in the bank will confront the accused.

      Trump has already put out a “contract” on the whistleblower by telling his supporters that he is a spy and should be executed like the good old days. He already has bodyguards.

      We expect that kind of intimidation from Mafia chieftains, but not the president.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. But IT DOES have bearing on the validity of the impeachment. If the “whistleblower’s” claims are based on what he was told by Schiff’s staff and not actual observations or testimony of others, the vote to launch the inquiry was taken in bad faith.

        Schiff and the “whistleblower” have a lot to answer for.

        Like

        Reply

          1. But it does not even come close to what Schiff reported the whistleblower claimed before Trump released the transcript.

            Schiff, and by extension, the whistleblower were caught in a lie by the release of the transcript.

            Like

        2. “ But it does not even come close to what Schiff reported the whistleblower claimed before Trump released the transcript.”

          Really. How did they differ?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          2. @Tabor
            THAT is what you are talking about? What a silly response. Schiff made it clear that he was not offering a quote. And, unless you are a complete moron, you understand that Schiff got it exactly right. It was a shakedown as ALL the evidence confirms.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Schiff made it clear AFTER he was caught in the lie by the release of the transcript. Prior to that he was passing it off as a true representation of the call.

            Like

          4. @Tabor

            Lying liars and their eager running dogs. Sad

            In that opening statement (the “parody”) Schiff began by saying that he was not offering the actual words used by the President but a condensed, non-rambling version to capture the essence of it. And, this “parody” came the day AFTER the White House released the memo of the phone call and was based on what was in it.

            Here is the full text which, of course, Fox News edited out the opening sentences that made it CLEAR that this was not verbatim. Speaking of the White House release he said . . .

            “It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.”

            ALL the evidence supports the fact that this “parody” was spot on.

            Liked by 3 people

        3. @Tabor
          With all due respect, this is beyond pitiful. What is particularly pitiful is how you style yourself as a man of reason and principle when you provide such evidence that you are neither. Either terminally stupid, wholly irrational and very gullible or simply a lying liar. No third choice. Maybe you really do not understand that the whistle blower is NOT the accuser – not even a witness – and an impeachment is not a trial. But that seems unlikely.

          Ironically the actual trial is supposed to happen now but our piece of shit President and the other GOP Russian collaborators are determined to keep that from happening because, you know, actual witnesses with first hand knowledge of what was done would surely exonerate the criminal-in-chief. Sure they would.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          2. “Then who is the witness that the inquiry was based upon? Schiff? His staff?”

            Stupid, stubborn question.

            The public record is very clear. The Whistle blower was reporting second hand information he picked up in conversations with people in the White House and intel community about both the inappropriate content of the phone call AND the non-normal efforts to seal information about it away. There is zero evidence of your silly parroting of lies about the role of the Intelligence Committee.

            More importantly, it matters NOT AT ALL the source of the initial allegations. The facts that it lead to are indisputable and damning. I would add that IF the White House had followed the law and turned the complaint over to Congress – as the law requires – it likely would not have gotten quite the level of response that it did. Common sense tells us that such suppression is evidence of “consciousness of guilt.”

            Liked by 1 person

      2. @Tabor

        “claims are based on what he was told by Schiff’s staff“

        What in the world are you smoking. It’s a hard to keep track, but which conspiracy theory are you talking about now??

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. @tabor

          The fact that you’re referring to Schiff’s “parody” of the call summary is beyond embarrassing.

          THAT is your best defense of the criminal activities of the Lyin King??

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          3. It was transcript enough for Schiff to claim it made the whistleblower’s testimony unnecessary.

            However, the whistleblower’s testimony is material as to how his complaint came about. If he was actually concerned over what he was told by first hand sources, then he meets the qualifications for whistleblower status, which means he can’t be penalized, not that he can’t be identified.

            But if his complaint originated with Schiff and/or his staff and he just acted as their mouthpiece, then a fraud was perpetrated against the Congress and the people and Schiff must answer for it. .

            Like

          4. Seeing as the whistle blowers complaint has been verified by open and closed door testimony by others, there is no reason whatsoever for the whistle blower to testify openly.
            Your conspiracy theory is just another smoke screen trying to obscure the facts. Schiff’s self proclaimed parody of the summary was accurate. Facts don’t seem to matter and the deflection and distraction you, the GOP, and the rest of the Trump supporters does nothing to change the fact that Mr. Trump used to power of his office in a manner not keeping with constitutional guidelines nor that of treaties and other diplomatic standards. Hands on is good. Being engaged is fine. Trying to shakedown the leader of a foreign country to ANNOUNCE an investigation of a political rival is the epitome of abuse of office.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. You speak of the timing when it supports you, but when it is pointed out that timing that doesn’t support your bs, all you have to say is “so”? (Don’t type the ‘h’ word….don’t type the ‘h’ word…don’t type the ‘h’ word)

            Like

          9. @Tabor

            “So?”

            Really?

            Well, since you are so lacking in common sense let’s use this analogy. Trump IMMEDIATELY releasing the illegally blocked funds when he heard that a whistle blower had complained is like you recklessly speeding in your car and stepping on the brake when you see a police car coming up behind you. Now do you understand?

            Liked by 2 people

  5. Perhaps Mr Murphy should take a serious look at Pelosi and Biden and their Ukraine corruption when throwing the S word around. Heck just about every Democrat in Congress deserves the S award especially Upchuck Schumer.

    Like

    Reply

      2. No, you and he brought you down long ago. There is no reasonable conversation with lefties at this point so might as well have fun with it. Sorry you buy into political garbage drama and then claim to be on the high road. Very telling of the radical extremist left wing. Very telling….

        Like

        Reply

    2. @Bobr
      So now Pelosi also needs to be investigated for Ukraine corruption. And where did you get THAT information? Pull it from your derriere? Did you read the streaks in your drawers like some demented fortune teller reading tea leaves? If not there, where?

      By the way, what is the S word you are NOW so delicate about? Wouldn’t be “Schitt” would it? Never mind, it was a trick question to highlight your childish and obvious hypocrisy. I know you were referring to our piece of shit President.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. After that extremist rant and the basis of this thread, you are actually referring to someone else as childish? Please come back to earth my friend. You and your lefty friends are out of control, not able to be remotely rational and to be honest its not healthy physically or mentally.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I grant you that the language I used to characterize the President (“a piece of shit”) is vulgar and I do not ordinarily use vulgar language. However, profanity does serve a purpose in real life – if it is not overused – and that purpose is to convey a depth of feeling beyond what more polite words can convey.

          That “extremist rant” is from a well-established conservative commentator and it is not dissimilar to similar opinions expressed by numerous similar conservative thought leaders.

          As for me and my “lefty friends” we are a significant and growing majority of the American people who recognize a piece of shit when we see one. Get used to it.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

  6. Here’s my wish. A second impeachment based on the Mueller obstruction of justice evidence and then for Pelosi to table both sets of impeachments until January 2021, or so long as McConnell doesn’t recuse himself from anything to do with the Senate trial.

    If Trump doesn’t win reelection, at least he cannot then pardon ANYONE even tangentially associated with either of the two impeachment articles. This would include himself, Manafort, Stone, Guilliani, Ivanka, and DJTjr, Kushner, etc.

    Then in 2021, let a new AG sort it out.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

Leave a comment