Yeah I remember how the GOP and right wing radio got behind Bill Clinton during the booming 90s, and how Mitch and Fox News totally respected Obama’s economic turnaround.
President Shitposter is having some extended executive time these last couple days. Usually this precipitates something else dropping.
“Hard for people to sign on” is fucking hilarious. A bunch of geriatric racists constantly having to reset their passwords and call their grandkids to get them to explain why email doesn’t go through the post office again.
I wake up at 5:30 west coast time and hop on twitter before getting ready for work. It’s littered with Trump tweets and responses, I think, ‘how many times did he tweet already today? It’s only. 8:30 on east coast.’ 12 fucking times. Since the release of the report and ‘total exoneration’ he has been even more batshit crazy.
I hope his immaturity on twitter finally wears on some people. I still think people prefer a president who actually works
Just a matter of time, IMO before they try to shut down the SDNY investigations through some Barr trick.
Dems wanting to impeach trump now need to hold the media accountable. Those sounding unsure of beginning impeachment now are citing the fear of drowning out their own policies with proceedings. That real concern is predicated on the media’s behavior in 2015-16. The media was irresponsible and and unsuccessful at seriously covering trump and holding him accountable without falling into the click bait/pop corn coverage of things related to Hillary.
Also, it’s good to know that a reliable fallback for life is becoming a shitty conspiracy writer like Corsi, if all else fails.
Trump is gonna try to pardon/commute his sentence. Even if it’s the last thing that putrid slug does in January 2021 when he takes the last chopper out of DC.
The depth of this grift and conspiracy is seemingly endless. Not that these crooks would’ve necessarily stopped being crooks, but this is precisely why divesting from private business is important. This is why the emoluments clause exists. This is why nepotism laws exist. Jesus Christ republican scum, this is all of your worst alleged Clinton fears.
So once Trump is gone does Putin release a bunch of info showing how he owned our President to create even more chaos?
I think the number of people is small but I'd have to think it turns off some dumb centrist somewhere 72 percent of all voters agreed that the president uses Twitter too much "And asked whether it was mainly a good thing or a bad thing in the way he used Twitter, 62 percent said it was mainly a bad thing. Now, Republicans were a little bit more lenient on that front — they were split 38 percent for or against whether it was a good or a bad thing. https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...gree-trump-uses-twitter-too-much-says-polling
it’s important to remember, forgetting all the contacts with the campaign for a moment, that both nominees receive intel reports after their conventions. To say they didn’t know is the biggest fucking lie.
'I realized enough was enough': A law professor and former Trump transition staffer says Congress should impeach Trump Grace Panetta 17m U.S. President Trump departs on travel to the Texas from the White House in Washington Reuters George Mason University Law Professor J.W. Verret went viral on Twitter for stating that he supports impeachment after reading the Mueller report. Verret, who briefly advised the Trump pre-transition team in 2016, said he viewed the Mueller report as a "tipping point" and the Republican party's current standing by Trump as verging into "a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct." Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Spoiler Democrats are facing heightened pressure to take a stand on whether to impeach President in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller's report, with Senators and 2020 presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris voicing support for the move. And now, a longtime Republican lawyer is also voicing support for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. This past weekend, George Mason University Law Professor J.W. Verret — who's advised every Republican presidential pre-transition team for the last 10 years and served as counsel for Republicans on the House Financial Services committee — went viral on Twitter for stating that he supports impeachment after reading the Mueller report. "Finished a second read through the Mueller Report. I don't say this lightly, as a lifelong Republican, former [Republican] Hill staffer, and someone who has worked on every [Republican] campaign and pre-transition team for the last ten years. There is enough here to begin impeachment proceedings," he wrote. Read more:Elizabeth Warren says 'there's no political-convenience exception to the US constitution' when it comes to impeaching Trump In a follow-up piece for The Atlantic, Verret, who teaches corporate and securities law, said he joined Trump's pre-transition team (each major party presidential candidate sets up a team before the election to get a head start on the transition) despite misgivings about the then-Republican nominee. Verret explained that even after leaving his post as an economic policy advisor on the Trump pre-transition effort in October 2016 over "awkward" policy disagreements, he didn't join the so-called "Never Trump" movement. He wrote that while "politics is a team sport" where people can be reasonably expected to follow their leader even if they sometimes disagree with them, he viewed the Mueller report as a "tipping point" and the Republican party's current standing by Trump as verging into "a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct." While the report documented extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump or anyone associated with his campaign with criminal conspiracy related to Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. On the question of obstruction, the Mueller report laid out 11 different areas of Trump's conduct they examined for potential obstruction but said the office could not come to a "traditional prosecutorial decision" as to whether Trump obstructed justice. Read more:Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice The report said that while they could not indict the president on charges of obstruction of justice, they were also unable to "reach a judgment" that "the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice" — leaving the next steps up to Congress to determine whether Trump's actions warrant impeachment. Some have questioned the political feasibility of impeachment, given that Trump would need to be not only impeached by the House but convicted by a two-thirds majority of the currently Republican-controlled Senate. But Verret argued that the House opening up impeachment hearings, which he compared to a grand jury hearing, could bring more information to light and the resulting shift in popular opinion could result in congressional Republicans feeling "emboldened" to convict. "Republicans who stand up to Trump today may face some friendly fire," Verret said. "Yet, in time, we can help rebuild the Republican Party, enabling it to rise from the ashes of the post-Trump apocalypse into a party with renewed commitment to principles of liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law." Read the full op-ed at the Atlantic»
I use Safari with zero issues, but thank you for this strong opinion on mobile browsers with mostly negligible differences.