Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

Another Fact filled response from the Republickasses .... note the constitutional lawyers called it a bribe .... not a negotiation (nice try but as usual erroneous).

Christmas is almost here .... Merry Xmas and Happy Impeachment :)

My money would be on the Ham Sandwich... more articulate than the present incumbent:)

lmao!!!so when is impeachment? will it be by new years? again...lmao!!!

[Unregistered]

Can one of you Trumpkin patriots explain to me how it is that the president is defending Saudi Arabia about its own military officer's killing of 3 U.S. soldiers?

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

Another Fact filled response from the Republickasses .... note the constitutional lawyers called it a bribe .... not a negotiation (nice try but as usual erroneous).

Christmas is almost here .... Merry Xmas and Happy Impeachment :)

My money would be on the Ham Sandwich... more articulate than the present incumbent:)

so what is it? impeachment by CHRISTMAS? or a Ham Sandwich by next November?
Please let us know what you are trying to say.

[Unregistered]

Can one of you Trumpkin patriots explain to me how it is that the president is defending Saudi Arabia about its own military officer's killing of 3 U.S. soldiers?

You are mindles follower of the democrats. Now that the impeachment is failing the dems and schiff are switching to another trump scandal: trump is an agent of saudi arabia.

Don't you get tired of being a mindless slave? Why don't you demand the dems follow through on 1 of their allegations against trump before moving on?

Wake up slave!!

[Unregistered]

You are mindles follower of the democrats. Now that the impeachment is failing the dems and schiff are switching to another trump scandal: trump is an agent of saudi arabia.

Don't you get tired of being a mindless slave? Why don't you demand the dems follow through on 1 of their allegations against trump before moving on?

Wake up slave!!

Can you just answer the question? You think it's ok to defend Saudi Arabia over this incident?

[Unregistered]

You are mindles follower of the democrats. Now that the impeachment is failing the dems and schiff are switching to another trump scandal: trump is an agent of saudi arabia.

Don't you get tired of being a mindless slave? Why don't you demand the dems follow through on 1 of their allegations against trump before moving on?

Wake up slave!!

Im demanding we look further into Nunes, i know you agree?

Wake up CULT follower!!!

[Unregistered]

Can you just answer the question? You think it's ok to defend Saudi Arabia over this incident?

I don't think it is ok. I didn't think it was ok when obama, bush, clinton and every other president defended SA. But that doesn't make him an agent of SA. And your condemnation of him is justified if you also condemn obama and all the other democrats for sucking up to SA. And further do you condemn obama for sucking up to the terrorist state of Iran?

If you don't look in the mirror and say I am a slave to the dems and have no independent thought.

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

Can you just answer the question? You think it's ok to defend Saudi Arabia over this incident?

There is no defending anything...The alleged shooter was a guest and student of the military base. (its unfortunate that the shooter was a psychopath). It is quite common for foreign military personal to come to the US for training (and for US soldiers to go oversees for training as well).

All news media is reporting that the Saudi government is fully cooperating with the FBI.

Typical of a misinformed hateful knucklehead like you would instantly start typing any BS to try and stir sh_t.

[Unregistered]

Do you condemn obama as an agent of bahrain? Do you call him out for sucking up to them? Are you capable of having any independent thought or is it just "I hate trump?".

Again, I don't agree with statements made by trump on a lot of issues but holy cow, dems go crazy over everything. The dem who cried wolf one too many times

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/27...-human-rights/

[Unregistered]

Obama quickly moved to patch things up with the Saudi leadership. He made entreaties to the king via phone, while Vice President Joe Biden and Obama’s national security adviser made several trips to the country. After excoriating various countries’ human rights records at the UN, Obama made sure to keep his comments on Bahrain as anodyne as possible. Most importantly, he fed them more arms, this deal worth $30 billion.

“When you look at the size of this package, what does it tell you about U.S.-Saudi relations?” an anonymous “senior Saudi official” asked the New York Times. “It says it’s very strong and very solid. Any disagreements from time to time don’t affect the core relationship.” Of course, this was when bragging about a strong relationship with the Saudis wasn’t viewed as a political liability.

In any case, the US-Saudi relationship never got bad enough to stop the US from operating a secret drone base from the country, whose existence was only revealed two years in, in 2013. Although a number of newspapers knew it existed, the Obama administration had asked them to keep it quiet for fear of “potentially damag[ing] counterterrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia” — in other words, embarrassing the kingdom, which had already faced blowback for letting US troops sit tight in the country during the first Gulf War.


All the while, Obama continued to dutifully ignore the country’s copious human rights abuses. Amnesty International reported a “new wave of repression” in the country since 2011, including 160 people arrested for protesting that very repression. When an activist was sentenced to four years in jail and 300 lashes over calling for a constitutional monarchy, Obama held his tongue. The Saudi government had beheaded eight people the same month he teamed up with the Saudis to take on ISIS, including four members of a single family for “receiving drugs.” Fifty-two members of Congress and a more than a dozen NGOs signed a letter demanding Obama confront the Saudis over such abuses on his next trip, which he of course did not do.

Indeed, the relationship only got closer. Obama personally met with the interior chief who had orchestrated the wave of repression, because he was also “a key ally in counterterrorism efforts against al Qaeda,” according to the Washington Post. The NSA expanded its work with his ministry, providing support for their “internal security.” In 2014, Obama made another emergency flight to Riyadh after they grumbled at his insufficient hawkishness (Ben Rhodes himself had said on that occasion: “I think our relationship with the Saudis is in a stronger place today than it was in the fall”). Two weeks after failing to send a top official to a post-terrorist attack peace rally in Paris, Obama cut short his trip to India to travel to Saudi Arabia and pay tribute to the just-deceased King Abdullah, who was lavished with glowing eulogies from him and other high-ranking officials.

“We are much closer now,” an anonymous official told the New York Times about the Saudi-US relationship. Obama’s press secretary expressed the hope that the “strong relationship” between them “will endure under the leadership of the new king.”

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

Obama quickly moved to patch things up with the Saudi leadership. He made entreaties to the king via phone, while Vice President Joe Biden and Obama’s national security adviser made several trips to the country. After excoriating various countries’ human rights records at the UN, Obama made sure to keep his comments on Bahrain as anodyne as possible. Most importantly, he fed them more arms, this deal worth $30 billion.

“When you look at the size of this package, what does it tell you about U.S.-Saudi relations?” an anonymous “senior Saudi official” asked the New York Times. “It says it’s very strong and very solid. Any disagreements from time to time don’t affect the core relationship.” Of course, this was when bragging about a strong relationship with the Saudis wasn’t viewed as a political liability.

In any case, the US-Saudi relationship never got bad enough to stop the US from operating a secret drone base from the country, whose existence was only revealed two years in, in 2013. Although a number of newspapers knew it existed, the Obama administration had asked them to keep it quiet for fear of “potentially damag[ing] counterterrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia” — in other words, embarrassing the kingdom, which had already faced blowback for letting US troops sit tight in the country during the first Gulf War.


All the while, Obama continued to dutifully ignore the country’s copious human rights abuses. Amnesty International reported a “new wave of repression” in the country since 2011, including 160 people arrested for protesting that very repression. When an activist was sentenced to four years in jail and 300 lashes over calling for a constitutional monarchy, Obama held his tongue. The Saudi government had beheaded eight people the same month he teamed up with the Saudis to take on ISIS, including four members of a single family for “receiving drugs.” Fifty-two members of Congress and a more than a dozen NGOs signed a letter demanding Obama confront the Saudis over such abuses on his next trip, which he of course did not do.

Indeed, the relationship only got closer. Obama personally met with the interior chief who had orchestrated the wave of repression, because he was also “a key ally in counterterrorism efforts against al Qaeda,” according to the Washington Post. The NSA expanded its work with his ministry, providing support for their “internal security.” In 2014, Obama made another emergency flight to Riyadh after they grumbled at his insufficient hawkishness (Ben Rhodes himself had said on that occasion: “I think our relationship with the Saudis is in a stronger place today than it was in the fall”). Two weeks after failing to send a top official to a post-terrorist attack peace rally in Paris, Obama cut short his trip to India to travel to Saudi Arabia and pay tribute to the just-deceased King Abdullah, who was lavished with glowing eulogies from him and other high-ranking officials.

“We are much closer now,” an anonymous official told the New York Times about the Saudi-US relationship. Obama’s press secretary expressed the hope that the “strong relationship” between them “will endure under the leadership of the new king.”

lmao...you cant bring this up because it does not go along with the "I hate TRUMP no matter what" motto of the liberal idiots out there....this will surely be ignored by all biased/hateful liberals.

[Unregistered]

1) You obviously did not watch the videos.... attempted bribery is bribery and that is in the constitution and impeachable. Did you not listen to the other 3 mainstream Constitutional experts? Or are you pinning your hopes exclusively on Turley, who completely contradicted what he previously said about impeachment.

2) You are simply in denial or lying or probably both --- UP is not DOWN

3) Here is the text
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors." Please indicate to us all where it says that bribery has a very high bar .... and note, in your reply, your answer to 1) contradicts your answer to 3)

1&3) Let's start with 3 this time because its not sinking in. Bribery in the constitution yes. It has a high bar yes. Turley gave clear examples of what the framers viewed Bribery as. The other so called scholars didn't. Turley gave the King of England acquiring large sums of money in return for signing a treaty as the framers example. This is a very high bar and similar to treason. Asking to announce potential corruption investigation in exchange for a white house meeting is not only not a crime, in fact, its a good thing but even if you think its a crime SCOTUS has already said its not a crime. McDonnell v United States

2) Your claim: "Withholding congressionally approved $ in exchange for meetings, investigations of named political opponents" I'm asking for the proof of this. Point to the concrete proof that someone from the administration said this to have first hand knowledge of this. This is the farce the democrats are hanging impeachment on but there is no proof of it and the MSM brainwashed are just repeating it.

[Unregistered]

1&3) Let's start with 3 this time because its not sinking in. Bribery in the constitution yes. It has a high bar yes. Turley gave clear examples of what the framers viewed Bribery as. The other so called scholars didn't. Turley gave the King of England acquiring large sums of money in return for signing a treaty as the framers example. This is a very high bar and similar to treason. Asking to announce potential corruption investigation in exchange for a white house meeting is not only not a crime, in fact, its a good thing but even if you think its a crime SCOTUS has already said its not a crime. McDonnell v United States

2) Your claim: "Withholding congressionally approved $ in exchange for meetings, investigations of named political opponents" I'm asking for the proof of this. Point to the concrete proof that someone from the administration said this to have first hand knowledge of this. This is the farce the democrats are hanging impeachment on but there is no proof of it and the MSM brainwashed are just repeating it.

See, you're just regurgitating the party line without actually reading the McDonnell decision. That decision addressed bribery, that's true. But you failed to cite to this portion of Robert's opinion which clearly illustrates that what has been testified to vis-a-vis a meeting is actually bribery: bribery as a criminal activity can be found under the following 3 circumstances, with Trump clearly falling in to (2) below: (1) the taking of “a decision or action on a qualifying step” toward an official action; (2) the using of an “official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an ‘official act,’”; and (3) the giving of “advice to another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an ‘official act’ by another official.”

You might say that this is referring to U.S. officials and not foreign ones. If that's the case then the McDonnell decision is completely useless to you, because you're holding it up as a defense to bribing foreign officials.

As to your point #2: in a trial you sometime don't have the actual proof of the bossman giving the directions that his henchmen follow, but it's not too difficult based on the circumstantial evidence and NO CONTRARY TESTIMONY that that is exactly what happened. But if you're going to fall back on the old lemmings party line of having no direct proof, then you may as well follow that up with the other party line: the dems aren't allowed to examine under oath Guiliani, Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney and the others with first hand knowledge of exactly what happened because this is a witch hunt and so you can't have any testimony from this with first-hand knowledge nor can you have any of the underlying documents that will prove your allegations, because it's a witch hunt. Get it? There is no direct evidence because those with direct evidence are purposefully not testifying or providing the evidence because . . . Trump doesn't want them to.

[Unregistered]

Obama didn't stand to benefit personally with improved Saudi relations. Trump desperately wants to build in SA - loads of money and no good taste. Same with Russia. Most likely he owes them a sh-it ton of money too. Once Trump has to hand over his financial documents we'll know for sure. Same with Russia.

[Unregistered]

Im demanding we look further into Nunes, i know you agree?

Wake up CULT follower!!!

i think Schiffforbrains did illegally- should be awesome when this gets to the senate and they put him under Oath