Jeffries accusals

Jeffries stood there and spewed things that Trump has not done and no hint of thinking of doing. Half were future wrongdoings that have not even happened or in the articles.

The kicker though is most everything he listed the Dems have done or have tried or setting up to do. I'm starting to think this whole sham was simply to accuse the president and the right of everything they know they're guilty of. I can't think of any other explanation. I'll try to upload the video when it's posted.

Was I the only one that thought I would go cross-eyed watching that?

Zoe Lofgrens initial open was fair at first.

Hakeem Jeffries is perhaps one of the phoniest Democrats on that "Manager" Team 😆

He's great for cultivating the Democrat supporters !! 😆

a reply to: xuenchen
I shouldn't be surprised but I was super stunned when he said Trump could deny aid to cities and states in the US if they didn't endorse Trump. Basically saying if he wasn't in peace he would go on a rampage of abuse of power.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Trump said this in 2016, referring to just that.

"We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.”

politifact

a reply to: sunkuong

That does not say Trump, rather Federal Authorities, meaning agencies such as ICE and the DOJ. Let's not mince words.

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: randomthoughts12

Trump said this in 2016, referring to just that.

"We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.”

politifact

I wonder if someone whispered in his ear just after he said it, and said "Um, sir, you can't do that, please don't repeat that."
Whomever that guy is, he doesn't get paid enough.

a reply to: sunkuong
Yeah if you break federal law and not using the funding accurately and so forth is completely different than holding aid unless you endorse Trump are drastically different. Key phrase draft legislation. Also federal authorities not Trump himself.

Not to mention trust in fighting for funding for things like the wall and infrastructure and weird the Dems or doing everything in their power to deny the aid.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Not to mention we have a treaty with ukraine to fight corruption. And what takes legal precedence? The congressional funding or treaty?

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Have to be honest here, I like Jeffries. He is a good orator and he doesn't seem to need notes so often when he is speaking.

Same goes for Schiff. Like the guy, hate him, he does know his stuff.

Nadler just seems to be angry and stumbles a lot.

Demings is driving me nuts with her shouting

The rest...kind of invisble.

Sekulow...oh boy...wouldn't want to argue with that guy. He is exactly what I would imagine a top laywer would look like...very impressive professional.

Phibin is also vey impressive. He knows what he is talkin about. His reasoning is factual and he doesn't try to play on the emotions.

Dershowitz....don't like the guy. Just a gut feeling and he probably has strong arguments but I get the creeps when he speaks.

Kind of where I am at this point....

Peace

a reply to: randomthoughts12

I didnt take the implication that Trump does anything himself...but he did say it. He may even have meant it. And it would be his administration directed by him that would do so. Semantics much?

a reply to: drewlander

The departments that funtion that treaty take precedence. Certainly not the cronies who are in the middle of this #show

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Democrats keep repeating "no one is above the law!". But then they stand there and commit perjury in front of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the American People who elected them.

Is there no law to hold Congressmen and Senators accountable? Or, are all of them "above the law?".

a reply to: xuenchen
Jeffries reminds me of a more refined version of Maxine Waters.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: randomthoughts12

Democrats keep repeating "no one is above the law!". But then they stand there and commit perjury in front of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the American People who elected them.

Is there no law to hold Congressmen and Senators accountable? Or, are all of them "above the law?".

That's what I'm beginning to believe. When are we going to see some of these criminals in suits put away?

Something I wrote down from a seminar I attended once...

You're either a leader or a follower.

The difference between a leader and a follower is the willingness to be wrong. When you're a follower, you ask the leader what to do. When you do this, you will never be “wrong.” If the leader's decision turns out to be wrong, your hands are washed of any responsibility.

There’s a significant difference between leading and controlling.

You lead by advocating.

You control by demanding.

The House did not advocate, they have demanded. They are not fit to be leaders, and I do not view them as such after listening to them on the House and Senate floors. Every action they have taken has been about demand and the power they presume to possess and attempt to wield. I have not heard the House advocate anything to the Senators, they have only demanded. It is because they believe they lead the American People, and forget that they are public servants, trusted to FOLLOW the People's Will. That is what the Constitution is abundantly clear on, and all I have seen from them is the attempt to control, demand, shift blame and bully... not to advocate, admit they were wrong, admit to missteps in their process, or their rush to impeach and judgment.

In the early days of our Republic, Schiff, Nadler and Jeffries would have been challenged by their peers to a duel to the death, or hung for treason and sedition for their actions thus far.

Anyone who can't see the bigger picture of this being purely partisan and political, and all of the underhanded ploys and manipulation of the facts and people, is playing right into the hands of those same types of people you most despise and come to this forum to make fun of.

~Namaste

a reply to: xuenchen

He's great for cultivating the Democrat supporters !!

Interesting choice of words.
Interesting.
(Bold by me for subject matter)

a reply to: operation mindcrime

I would have to absolutely agree they both make great politicians. And even for me seem to be pretty damn good at digging something out of nothing. I just wish they were utilizing those talents with better tactics.

I feel like if this was about winning 2020 they would have changed their tactics by now. Given the fact I do give them a lot of credit for actually being pretty smart and clever individuals just fighting for the wrong side of the argument to put it lightly. So I often assume they know they are wrong and this is a much bigger picture thing.

For example I noticed the other day shift was one of the first ones to mention Russian bots and bots in more of a mainstream sense. Recently I realized it definitely seems that he has more bots than anybody else I can tell of. I'll mess as if they had a good idea and then needed to beat them to the punch or throw it out there so they can't use it against them.

Another good example is how often cheaters go on the offensive and call the accuser a cheater. It's actually the thing that seems to work or do the most damage compared to denial or apology. I sometimes think this is all these investigations have been but I just feel it's got to be a bigger picture than that or these people aren't as bright as I give them credit for.

a reply to: sunkuong

You're still projecting what you think he meant not what he actually said. In comparison. Now I guess I would have to check Jeffrey's transcript to be for sure.....o wait.....

That's well spoken and a perfect way of putting it. I've been struggling to project some of the exact same things you're saying. I may need and use some of those words in the near future. Some of what you said filled in a few final puzzles two more than one thing but my journey to understand as much as I can.