impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Nobody watched Apocalypse Now Redux.

[Eastwood 4,394]

I'm calling it now: if the Senate actually votes to convict, the remaining Trump supporters will liken it to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

16 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

I'm calling it now: if the Senate actually votes to convict, the remaining Trump supporters will liken it to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Like they know anything about history.

[Eastwood 4,394]

8 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Like they know anything about history.

That's why they'll do it. The senate killed Caesar in an attempt to save the republic from his pending dictatorship. The irony is so good that only a Trump supporter would fall into it.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

31 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

I'm calling it now: if the Senate actually votes to convict, the remaining Trump supporters will liken it to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

I am trying to picture OANN using that analogy and I'm just not getting it. I figure they're more likely to compare it to Unforgiven and are upset that the sheriff got 'kilt.'

[sheeeit 129]

12 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

The whistleblower's complaint also says there was a "word-for-word transcript" that was locked away. The whistleblower draws a distinction between the word-for-word transcript and contemporaneous hand-written notes of the conversation. 

Lulz.  Where does he make that distinction?  I swear you guys have lost your brains.

The WH situation room made their transcript of the call.  Using the same exact process that they always use.  Apparently the lawyers here have a hard on for whether it was made from notes, or voice activated software or some other method but everyone seems to acknowledge that the transcript was made in "real time" as the call was happening.

That transcript was then classified (as all calls are initially) and, according to the whistle blower, placed in a more secure server than some other calls' transcripts.

The whistle blowers' report comes out and then, after that, the POTUS declassified the call and released the official transcript created by the WH situation room that was on the secure server.  The disclaimer on the situation room transcript is on every single one of them they do.  They have explained it multiple times.  The disclaimer exists because sometimes it is difficult to hear every word of the call.  It does not mean, at all, that there are parts of the call that were omitted.  I realize you dorks think there is some other secret transcript out there but there just isnt.

The attorney representing the whistle blower, Mark Zaid (who is an outspoken critic of Trump and openly advertised for whistle blowers to come forward- and I mention this not because I think the attorney is not being honest, I think he is, but to demonstrate that he would not hold anything back), also has a second blower that he says has direct knowledge of the call.  So for the latest crack pot conspiracy (that there exists a different transcript of the call that is more complete or has more info or whatever) to be true, then we must all believe that when POTUS said the entire transcript of the call from the WH situation room was released was lying.  That somehow, they altered/doctored the official transcript to hide something.  However, none of you have even tried to respond to the fact that if POTUS is lying about the transcript being the complete call, that this new 2nd whistle blower who is represented by the attorney who hates Trump and who was listening to the call in real time, is just letting the lie by POTUS go unchecked.  That is simply preposterous.  If Trump did lie about the transcript being complete and it comes out that there is, in fact, a longer transcript then that is better grounds for impeachment than the context of the call.  Schiff and  Zaid and the rest would be all over it. 

I would love for one of you to actually say that you truly think a second more complete copy of the transcript exists.  Lets go on record.  

[Foosters 17,856]

Ok, you win. White House admitted today that it was quid pro quo.

So now what's your position?

[Ted Lange 16,085]

Lemme guess, But Hillary 

[kevwun 15,788]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ok, you win. White House admitted today that it was quid pro quo.

So now what's your position?

He's going to need a couple of days until the revised talking points get released.

[Foosters 17,856]

1 minute ago, Ted Lange said:

Lemme guess, But Hillary 

Actually, I checked Texags bc that's the place you look for unabashed Trump support.  Their take is that its within presidential powers to root out illegality and corruption in the 2016 election, no matter what.

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

[Loch Ness Monster 3,533]

I'm sure if Obama asked foreign leaders to help take out Trump texags would think that's fine.

[Texas Jeff 1,945]

1 hour ago, Eastwood said:

I'm calling it now: if the Senate actually votes to convict, the remaining Trump supporters will liken it to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Et tu, Lindsey?

 

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

what do we need an investigation for? Let’s just go ahead and vote on the articles of impeachment. 
 

What does McCarthy or Jordan have to say about “no quid pro quo” talking point now? Will Tucker or Hannity run a segment tonight called “International bribery and abuse of office to personally benefit the President, SO WHAT?”

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

what do we need an investigation for? Let’s just go ahead and vote on the articles of impeachment. 
 

What does McCarthy or Jordan have to say about “no quid pro quo” talking point now? Will Tucker or Hannity run a segment tonight called “International bribery and abuse of office to personally benefit the President, SO WHAT?”

Talking point has officially shifted to the "so what" phase. 

[Mdhorn 5,949]

36 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ok, you win. White House admitted today that it was quid pro quo.

So now what's your position?

They all do it.  That's their new/old position.  They never do anything until they did and then it's that everybody does it all the time.  I can say this without reading anything about what has happened this afternoon. 

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

12 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Talking point has officially shifted to the "so what" phase. 

Yep.  It's all very predictable.  And apparently it fucking works.

[deech 2,275]

42 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ok, you win. White House admitted today that it was quid pro quo.

So now what's your position?

Just like last time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited October 17, 2019 by deech

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610]

40 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Lulz.  Where does he make that distinction?  I swear you guys have lost your brains.

The WH situation room made their transcript of the call.  Using the same exact process that they always use.  Apparently the lawyers here have a hard on for whether it was made from notes, or voice activated software or some other method but everyone seems to acknowledge that the transcript was made in "real time" as the call was happening.

That transcript was then classified (as all calls are initially) and, according to the whistle blower, placed in a more secure server than some other calls' transcripts.

The whistle blowers' report comes out and then, after that, the POTUS declassified the call and released the official transcript created by the WH situation room that was on the secure server.  The disclaimer on the situation room transcript is on every single one of them they do.  They have explained it multiple times.  The disclaimer exists because sometimes it is difficult to hear every word of the call.  It does not mean, at all, that there are parts of the call that were omitted.  I realize you dorks think there is some other secret transcript out there but there just isnt.

The attorney representing the whistle blower, Mark Zaid (who is an outspoken critic of Trump and openly advertised for whistle blowers to come forward- and I mention this not because I think the attorney is not being honest, I think he is, but to demonstrate that he would not hold anything back), also has a second blower that he says has direct knowledge of the call.  So for the latest crack pot conspiracy (that there exists a different transcript of the call that is more complete or has more info or whatever) to be true, then we must all believe that when POTUS said the entire transcript of the call from the WH situation room was released was lying.  That somehow, they altered/doctored the official transcript to hide something.  However, none of you have even tried to respond to the fact that if POTUS is lying about the transcript being the complete call, that this new 2nd whistle blower who is represented by the attorney who hates Trump and who was listening to the call in real time, is just letting the lie by POTUS go unchecked.  That is simply preposterous.  If Trump did lie about the transcript being complete and it comes out that there is, in fact, a longer transcript then that is better grounds for impeachment than the context of the call.  Schiff and  Zaid and the rest would be all over it. 

I would love for one of you to actually say that you truly think a second more complete copy of the transcript exists.  Lets go on record.  

How about this, instead of worrying about transcripts or contemporaneous notes about the call, the executive branch retrieve the recording of the call from the clandestine server its stored in - which is in itself against the purpose of said server - and let it stand on it's own with the legislature. That way, whatever couldn't be "transcribed" due to technical issues or anything else. That is really the best way to get to the bottom of the issue regarding the call.

[Steamboat1874 4,063]

50 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Lulz.  Where does he make that distinction?  I swear you guys have lost your brains.

The WH situation room made their transcript of the call.  Using the same exact process that they always use.  Apparently the lawyers here have a hard on for whether it was made from notes, or voice activated software or some other method but everyone seems to acknowledge that the transcript was made in "real time" as the call was happening.

That transcript was then classified (as all calls are initially) and, according to the whistle blower, placed in a more secure server than some other calls' transcripts.

The whistle blowers' report comes out and then, after that, the POTUS declassified the call and released the official transcript created by the WH situation room that was on the secure server.  The disclaimer on the situation room transcript is on every single one of them they do.  They have explained it multiple times.  The disclaimer exists because sometimes it is difficult to hear every word of the call.  It does not mean, at all, that there are parts of the call that were omitted.  I realize you dorks think there is some other secret transcript out there but there just isnt.

The attorney representing the whistle blower, Mark Zaid (who is an outspoken critic of Trump and openly advertised for whistle blowers to come forward- and I mention this not because I think the attorney is not being honest, I think he is, but to demonstrate that he would not hold anything back), also has a second blower that he says has direct knowledge of the call.  So for the latest crack pot conspiracy (that there exists a different transcript of the call that is more complete or has more info or whatever) to be true, then we must all believe that when POTUS said the entire transcript of the call from the WH situation room was released was lying.  That somehow, they altered/doctored the official transcript to hide something.  However, none of you have even tried to respond to the fact that if POTUS is lying about the transcript being the complete call, that this new 2nd whistle blower who is represented by the attorney who hates Trump and who was listening to the call in real time, is just letting the lie by POTUS go unchecked.  That is simply preposterous.  If Trump did lie about the transcript being complete and it comes out that there is, in fact, a longer transcript then that is better grounds for impeachment than the context of the call.  Schiff and  Zaid and the rest would be all over it. 

I would love for one of you to actually say that you truly think a second more complete copy of the transcript exists.  Lets go on record.  

So I guess this will be your last post. 

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

7 minutes ago, deech said:

Just like last time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is very different. A majority of the country supports impeachment and removal of office. This admission will make those numbers worse. Politically, on the same day they announced the G7 to be hosted at Doral, will be the political death of the GOP in 2020. 

[henrygandorf 29,191]

24 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Talking point has officially shifted to the "so what" phase. 

a lateral move from the "he was just joking" phase.

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This is very different. A majority of the country supports impeachment and removal of office. This admission will make those numbers worse. Politically, on the same day they announced the G7 to be hosted at Doral, will be the political death of the GOP in 2020. 

We'll save a space for you on the lanai.

[BrickHorn 18,234]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

We'll save a space for you on the lanai.

If this keeps up, I’m gonna need more limes.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

55 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

So for the latest crack pot conspiracy (that there exists a different transcript of the call that is more complete or has more info or whatever) to be true, then we must all believe that when POTUS said the entire transcript of the call from the WH situation room was released was lying. 

well, you got us there.  definitely no one here will conclude that potus could be lying.

excellent point.

[triplehorn 2,664]

26 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

what do we need an investigation for? Let’s just go ahead and vote on the articles of impeachment. 
 

What does McCarthy or Jordan have to say about “no quid pro quo” talking point now? Will Tucker or Hannity run a segment tonight called “International bribery and abuse of office to personally benefit the President, SO WHAT?”

It's good that we're getting a refresher on Russian guilt for attacking our 2016 election and witnessing WH confessions about attempts to extort and fabricate an alibi for Russia right before the Roger Stone Wikileaks trial starts in 3 weeks, Nov. 5th.  

That's another reason Moscow Mitch would like to have impeachment done by Thanksgiving.  It's too soon, Mitch, too soon.

[sheeeit 129]

25 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

How about this, instead of worrying about transcripts or contemporaneous notes about the call, the executive branch retrieve the recording of the call from the clandestine server its stored in - which is in itself against the purpose of said server - and let it stand on it's own with the legislature. That way, whatever couldn't be "transcribed" due to technical issues or anything else. That is really the best way to get to the bottom of the issue regarding the call.

Um..there isnt a recording of the call.  What is/was stored on the server is what was released.

[triplehorn 2,664]

VVV yep

Quote

 

 

[sheeeit 129]

16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

well, you got us there.  definitely no one here will conclude that potus could be lying.

excellent point.

I guess you missed my point.  Of course Trump could be lying.  The point is that there were lots of people that heard the call that are unsympathetic to Trump that would/could very easily catch him in the lie.  The fact that none of those people have said he is lying about the call makes me believe that the transcript released is legit.

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

Quote

You can play ball or you can get dragged down into the muck. We know what you and your wife have been up to. You’re as corrupt as your chins are endless. You’ll be begging for a deal, #MoscowMitch. You’ll be *begging* for it.

lulz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Homercles 10,205]

Goddamn right, sheeeeit, it’s the children who are wrong.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

No shit, Jay?  Is that the Rudy and Michael Cohen team, the other White House legal team, or the DOJ guys, the other other White House legal team?  Who's on first?  

[henrygandorf 29,191]

13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I guess you missed my point.  Of course Trump could be lying.  The point is that there were lots of people that heard the call that are unsympathetic to Trump that would/could very easily catch him in the lie.  The fact that none of those people have said he is lying about the call makes me believe that the transcript released is legit.

who heard the call that is unsympathetic to trump?

trump lies every day and people rarely call him on it, especially in cases where it's quibbling over details and the big picture is way worse.  it's become normalized, which is a real shame.

in the case of the released transcript, it's been pretty well documented that there is an actual (non-corrupt) process these go through before full release.  whether things need to be cleaned up, redacted, there is actually an honest intended protocol in place to release these summaries.  that said, trump is gonna say what he wants.  if he says word-for-word, he could be lying, or he could not know, or he could think it's the "cleaned up" version. 

most likely, he just doesn't give a shit and says what he thinks will help him personally in that particular moment.  like that one time where....he became president.  that whole time.  consistent behavior.

[TwiceHorn 31,471]

As far as election law violations go, I see no necessity for "quid pro quo."  Trump solicited, end of story.  It was a thing of value, but was it an election contribution?  I dunno. Nothing in the code requires quid pro quo.  The solicitation doesn't have to succeed even.

It's nasty shit and should be impeachable regardless.

Somewhere else in our vast federal criminal code, there has to be another statute that this would violate.  Certainly if it were Trump leaning on a domestic official to investigate a poltiical opponent/enemy. 

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

As far as election law violations go, I see no necessity for "quid pro quo."  Trump solicited, end of story.  It was a thing of value, but was it an election contribution?  I dunno. Nothing in the code requires quid pro quo.  The solicitation doesn't have to succeed even.

It's nasty shit and should be impeachable regardless.

Somewhere else in our vast federal criminal code, there has to be another statute that this would violate.  Certainly if it were Trump leaning on a domestic official to investigate a poltiical opponent/enemy. 

This should never be forgotten:  The ask itself is the crime.

The only reason "NO quid pro quo" came out was as a right wing red herring talking point.  

But since we now have quid pro quo admitted by both the President and the Chief of Staff, it just bolsters the point that the illegal ask was made.  

 

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Ok, you win. White House admitted today that it was quid pro quo.

So now what's your position?

First, what you dorks can never seem to understand is that I dont care what happens to Trump.  If he is guilty he should go down.  My initial post was simply about how ridiculous it was for all of you and all of the dems calling this some unprecedented obstruction of justice and that our country was turning into some lawless banana republic because the WH was refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.  I merely pointed out that the WH under Obama did the exact same thing.  I made no judgement on whether it was the right thing to do or not.  Just that the hypocrisy from the left was amusing.  And I thought the topic of whether or not executive privilege or congressional subpoena power held more weight was interesting (I still do).

I have always said I think Bloomberg would be the best candidate.  If Bloomberg gets into it, I would support him fully.  In a dream scenario for me, Trump stirs up enough trouble to get Biden to drop out because Bloomberg has said he will not run if Biden is running.  Bloomberg then agrees to run.  And Trump gets impeached for the Biden stuff and Bloomberg gets elected.

As for Mulvaney's comments, I do not think it is the slam dunk that you guys will think it is.  I think there will be a distinction between a legal case and a political case.  

From a political prospective, I think the dems will pounce and proceed with impeachment.  I think the Trump and co response will be that there was not really a quid pro quo.  Their reasoning will likely be that the decision to withhold aid  was for many reasons.  Trump will say there was not any quid pro quo because, for one thing, the aid was, in fact, released before anything even happened.  Zelensky will say he never felt pressured.  Personally, I think that is a specious argument.  I think Trump withheld aid so that Zelensky would continue investigations into the 2016 election stuff and Hunter' role in Ukraine.  I do not think it will be enough to move the Senate but we will see.

From a legal standpoint, I do not think Trump broke the law.  If, and it is a big if, Trump had asked for or wanted some new, undisclosed investigation into the Hunter situation then I could see a case possibly being made.  But even then, it would be a technicality.  Hunter is not running for president.  Even the most ardent of you would have to agree that his role looks incredibly suspicious with Burisma, especially taking into account his role with China.  There is no law against investigating or prosecuting someone that happens to be related to someone running for president.  Any investigation into Hunter is fair game.  If Joe gets caught up in it then too bad for Joe.   But he didnt ask for a new investigation.  The investigation preceded Joe even announcing he was going to run.  

So you asked what I think.  I think this will get Trump impeached in the house but not convicted in the Senate.  I think he skates on the legal side.  I pray Bloomberg runs.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

It's also a Suing talking point.  Crime != impeachable.  Violation of "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors" = impeachable.  Political quid pro quo definitely qualifies.  

[jimmyjazz 45,954]

Apparently Putin has hacked surly's layout, which means sheeeit should be impeached.

[sheeeit 129]

41 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

who heard the call that is unsympathetic to trump?

Well for starters the whistle blowers that started this whole thing??  The ones that have come forward and are working with Zaid and have already talked to the IG?  The 2nd one being the one that Zaid said has "first hand" knowledge of the call?  Obviously whoever it was that told the 1st whistle blower about the call?  They would be good starters.

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as election law violations go, I see no necessity for "quid pro quo."  Trump solicited, end of story.  It was a thing of value, but was it an election contribution?  I dunno. Nothing in the code requires quid pro quo.  The solicitation doesn't have to succeed even.

It's nasty shit and should be impeachable regardless.

Somewhere else in our vast federal criminal code, there has to be another statute that this would violate.  Certainly if it were Trump leaning on a domestic official to investigate a poltiical opponent/enemy. 

Of course this is correct. But now we have the WH chief of staff admitting to bribery and not just a federal election felony. We already let the president get away with one of those involving hush money to a porn star to cover up an adulterous affair, so the admission seems significant

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

Let's see if he unresigns again.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Well for starters the whistle blowers that started this whole thing??  The ones that have come forward and are working with Zaid and have already talked to the IG?  The 2nd one being the one that Zaid said has "first hand" knowledge of the call?  Obviously whoever it was that told the 1st whistle blower about the call?  They would be good starters.

the first whistleblower didn't hear it directly.  and we don't have any proof that the first whistleblower (or the 2nd really) is anti-trump.  we don't have anything showing zaid is either, just that he's interested in whistleblower process and protection.  i know this is how trump talks and what he wants everyone to believe, so you should try harder not to fall for it.  just because you're concerned about what trump is doing doesn't make you (1) a traitor, (2) a socialist, (3) a never-trumper, (4) anti-american.

you said "lots of people who heard the call were unsympathetic to trump".  so far you've listed one person (the 2nd whistleblower) who may or may not be unsympathetic to trump.  you also listed people who spoke to the 1st whistleblower?  uh, sure man.

after 3 years, most of the trump-haters left govt work because of shit like this.  i highly doubt there are a bunch of secret anti-trump spooks wandering the west wing.

[sheeeit 129]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as election law violations go, I see no necessity for "quid pro quo."  Trump solicited, end of story.  It was a thing of value, but was it an election contribution?  I dunno. Nothing in the code requires quid pro quo.  The solicitation doesn't have to succeed even.

It's nasty shit and should be impeachable regardless.

Somewhere else in our vast federal criminal code, there has to be another statute that this would violate.  Certainly if it were Trump leaning on a domestic official to investigate a poltiical opponent/enemy. 

I am curious about your take here.  From a purely legal standpoint (we can agree Trump is an idiot) but do you not see a distinction between asking for dirt on a direct political opponent versus asking for help in an existing/ongoing investigation of corruption that involves the son of a political opponent?  Should all relatives of people running for office get some type of immunity from investigation?  Keep in mind, there exists a treaty/understanding between the two countries already.  Again, I am not saying it is not sleazy or potentially impeachable, I am saying I dont think it technically broke election law.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!

[Brisketexan 105,139]

14 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Well for starters the whistle blowers that started this whole thing??  The ones that have come forward and are working with Zaid and have already talked to the IG?  The 2nd one being the one that Zaid said has "first hand" knowledge of the call?  Obviously whoever it was that told the 1st whistle blower about the call?  They would be good starters.

Here's a quick thought to ponder.

These folks who are unsympathetic to Trump.....were they always super-skilled deep-state moles, who put themselves in place just waiting to pounce as part of some elaborate scheme (likely run out of the basement of a pizza parlor) or.....are they just regular folks, who have worked for this country for some time, and believe in some pretty elementary norms and standards, and upon seeing those casually and frequently violated by someone to serve his own personal interest, then CONCLUDED that "hey, I'm not sympathetic to this guy?"

That's the fucking amazing thing.  It's the amazing defense a raging asshole asserts.  After being a blatant asshole to everyone in sight, when someone calls him an asshole, says "see, that person hates me!  You can't listen to what they have to say about me being an asshole, they're biased!"  You fuckstick, YOUR ASSHOLERY IS WHAT MADE THEM BIASED.  It's an amazing world -- the fact that he's an asshole who makes people loathe him means that he is immune from all criticism for being an asshole.

The GOP has sold their soul to a course of conduct that, if a Democrat embarked upon it, would actually BE the end of the Republic -- I mean, maybe....he'd probably already have been assassinated by now by those good "second amendment people."  Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.  I'm honestly looking forward - in a schadenfreude way - to the future "AOC, but after she decides to be totally unethical" administration.  Y'all's heads will explode.  Every thing that you've insisted is "very legal, very cool" will come back to bite your asses clean off.  Sure, the Republic will be in even further shambles, but shit, that ship has SAILED.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Brisketexan

[henrygandorf 29,191]

Just now, sheeeit said:

I am curious about your take here.  From a purely legal standpoint (we can agree Trump is an idiot) but do you not see a distinction between asking for dirt on a direct political opponent versus asking for help in an existing/ongoing investigation of corruption that involves the son of a political opponent?  Should all relatives of people running for office get some type of immunity from investigation?  Keep in mind, there exists a treaty/understanding between the two countries already.  Again, I am not saying it is not sleazy or potentially impeachable, I am saying I dont think it technically broke election law.

so you're saying if trump knew for a concrete fact that hunter biden was up to something shady, that he could withhold approved foreign aid until that country opened an investigation into that specific person and his family, who just coincidentally happens to be one of his main political rivals?  you see no problem with that?

it's the textbook definition of abuse of power.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

so you're saying if trump knew for a concrete fact that hunter biden was up to something shady, that he could withhold approved foreign aid until that country opened an investigation into that specific person and his family, who just coincidentally happens to be one of his main political rivals?  you see no problem with that?

it's the textbook definition of abuse of power.

No, no.... I mean.....OTHER than that.

Neverfucking mind the irony of an administration with deep personal business ties and lucrative deals with corrupt foreign countries, including substantial involvement by his son....and daughter.....and son-in-law.....being "deeply concerned about the business ties of the child of a member of the executive branch with a corrupt foreign power."

It's as if Trump was the new crusader for investigating politicians who paid off porn stars they fucked with their mushroom dick.  Irony is fucking dead.

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, no.... I mean.....OTHER than that.

Neverfucking mind the irony of an administration with deep personal business ties and lucrative deals with corrupt foreign countries, including substantial involvement by his son....and daughter.....and son-in-law.....being "deeply concerned about the business ties of the child of a member of the executive branch with a corrupt foreign power."

It's as if Trump was the new crusader for investigating politicians who paid off porn stars they fucked with their mushroom dick.  Irony is fucking dead.

The best response I saw was to tell Trump he can shut up about corruption until he releases his tax returns. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Trump was secretly working on a real estate deal directly with the Kremlin while running for President of the United States. 

This story still doesn’t get enough attention.