DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Impeachment 2.0

You should have put the word patriots in quotes.

Would you say the same things about those claiming fraud?

If yes, why do you not hold 'peen and the others to this standard
f no, why not?

Technically, yes.

I didn't see any earlier request.

I have a vague recollection. I don't remember the total context. Many times context isn't evident in 1 or 2 posts, as I illustrated a few comments back.

I guess the answer would be yes and no. It would depend on how deeply one wants to read into the words and take those words as a serious statement.

I think I said something along the lines of "I have something she can suck on". How that came in to the conversation, I don't recall, but it wasn't a request for lip service. lol....more along the lines of she can kiss my ass.

So if you or others want to use those words as me requesting her to literally kiss my ass, go ahead.

Words matter. Trump supporters still don’t get that. Like this fool......

I agree that districts have been bodgered up for years. Sometimes to add more or less or one party or to add more or less minorities.

Every group wants to tinker with districts when their party is able to change the district lines.

One group notoriously isn’t just tinkering they do total restorations in those districts and you know it. You probably approve. Wouldn’t shock me at all.

You're referencing those people who stormed the Capital building again aren't you?

So it is kind of a Bill Clinton response then?

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

And BTW, we all know that "I something she can suck on" has nothing to do with your ass. Maury has determined that is a lie.

No...I explained what was said and the meaning behind what was said.

I don't care if you like it or not.

This is a problem, congressional districts should not be drawn by legislative bodies. California moved to an independent commission.

There should be logic, like you cannot split a county into more than 1 district unless there it is necessary to do so to accommodate the representation. Counties with more than one representative should be filled as completely as possible.

Computer models allow gerrymandering down to the precinct level. Let's say we have an ideal 50/50 division between the parties. The ideal split is to set your party up at 60/40 and the other party up at 10/90. That way you get more representatives and control of the legislature.

It has nothing to do with liking it or not liking it. It's simply the fact that it's not believable in any way, shape or form.

j/c...

I appreciate that you took the time to answer.

That makes no sense to have a district like that.

Actually, that’s not what happened at all. I remember because Peen always tries to tell me he’s my friend, yet disparages women over and over. He even apologized to the women on the board. I rolled my eyes and moved on, as fighting misogyny on this board is a losing situation.

He called her a bar maid. And said he could see himself getting a blow job from her way before talking politics with her.

I don’t forget posts like that. Ever.

I took screenshots for awhile but that was one I forgot to screenshot after I reported it. This is the exact post I remember.

please take note that I only thanked him for his time.

that distinction is important.

I have to admire total recall.

Thanks for this, Jules.

Bits and pieces of this are starting to sound somewhat familiar. I can't remember an exact time stamp, but I do remember this conversation stringing out over a few days. I may have missed the 'bar maid' remarks, but I'm pretty sure I was there for the general discussion.


This was started a couple years ago, wasn't it?

Oh boohoo. The left on this forum made plenty of derogatory comments about Melania.

The left on this forum made/continues to make derogatory slurs about women. (Karens)

There's also the left here who made sexual comments about AOC.

Its kind of laughable that you all are on some witch hunt when you do the same thing.

I think it's awful to sexualize her, but the calling her a barmaid as an insult frosts my nads. First, she's a congress woman representing New York in congress... I'd bet peen and all the other hoity toity GOPers that try to job shame her with that have NEVER held a position that esteemed... As a woman, I think she is fairly hot, but I listen to her too and she has a much more beautiful mind, IMHO. She's far from dumb, sometimes a little naive, but never dumb. And she is also very young. It must burn holes in their souls to see such a successful and influential Latina woman with power over them.

Hope that didn't cross any lines. If so, sorry.

You have made sexual comments about her in the past.

Also, she was in fact a bar maid.

She is an idiot in office based on her looks.

Melania, karen slurs(?), and witch hunts... deprogramming is down the hall to the LEFT Ms. Thang.

Denial and delusional meds are in the psych office to the right.

I have not made a derogative sexual comment about her at all, get the receipts! I've never disagreed with her being hot, or good looking... that is not derogative, it's using my eyes. I have also defended her and others including you from those that treat women like that on here several times. I know you can take care of yourself in the melees on here, but she's not in here to do that. Probably wouldn't if she was, but her twitter feed is full of zingers for her detractors. She'd educate you in about two seconds if she even noticed you to begin with.

The right is exactly where they belong, along with lots of deprogramming.

She is an ignorant puppet with handlers who spews a bunch on nonsense. She was picked to be a puppet based on her looks so people like you will fall in line.

I see you are trying to get your pic in the dictionary under clueless now too! Keep up the good work, you'll get there.

That cannot be since I'm not a member of the radical socialist fringe.

Oh the irony of white women acting like they’re super oppressed on MLK Jr. day.

The irony of a SJW calling white women karens.

...or any conservative woman, past or present including Candace Owens...and board members ignore the 'treatment of women and black lives matter' when the woman is a "conservative" ...

That does come back...thanks..if I offended you, I am sorry, but no, I don't apologize for what was said.

If it makes you or any of the others feel any better, I don't have a desire to do either one of those things with her.

Yeah, that's the same thing.



Making excuses for terrible behavior is the Trumpian way though. You know it's not the same thing and there has been no actual comparison. It's like a child who threw a rock and broke the window. "But Bobby was throwing rocks in the river so I thought I could throw rocks at a window."

Lame.

Who on the left in this forum made sexual comments about AOC? As usual you're writing checks your ass can't cash.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/really-quite-shocking-inside-ugly-180054170.html


‘Really quite shocking’: Inside the ugly transition at the Pentagon
Lara Seligman and Bryan Bender
Wed, January 20, 2021, 1:00 PM


Too long to post the whole thing but worth the read.

Not that long. And not that shocking. It deserves space here.

The Pentagon blocked members of President Joe Biden’s incoming administration from gaining access to critical information about current operations, including the troop drawdown in Afghanistan, upcoming special operations missions in Africa and the Covid-19 vaccine distribution program, according to new details provided by transition and defense officials.

The effort to obstruct the Biden team, led by senior White House appointees at the Pentagon, is unprecedented in modern presidential transitions and will hobble the new administration on key national security matters as it takes over positions in the Defense Department on Wednesday, the officials said.

Biden openly decried the treatment his aides were receiving at the Pentagon in December, calling it “nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility” after meetings were canceled ahead of Christmas. He said his people were denied information on the SolarWinds hack, and said his team “needs a clear picture of our force posture around the world and our operations to deter our enemies.”

But people involved with the transition, both on the Biden team and the Pentagon side, gave POLITICO a more detailed picture of what was denied, saying briefings on pressing defense matters never happened, were delayed to the last minute, or were controlled by overbearing minders from the Trump administration's side.

“Defense has traditionally been a bipartisan business between and among professionals, and this is terrible optics for those who want to copy this pettiness in the future,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The effort to block the transition from key national security information is “useless, poor form, and horrible precedent.”

Pennsylvania Lawmaker Played Key Role in Trump’s Plot to Oust Acting Attorney General

The congressman’s involvement underlined how far the former president was willing to go to overturn the election, and Democratic lawmakers have begun calling for investigations into those efforts.

WASHINGTON — When Representative Scott Perry joined his colleagues in a monthslong campaign to undermine the results of the presidential election, promoting “Stop the Steal” events and supporting an attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes, he often took a back seat to higher-profile loyalists in President Donald J. Trump’s orbit.

But Mr. Perry, an outspoken Pennsylvania Republican, played a significant role in the crisis that played out at the top of the Justice Department this month, when Mr. Trump considered firing the acting attorney general and backed down only after top department officials threatened to resign en masse.

It was Mr. Perry, a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, who first made Mr. Trump aware that a relatively obscure Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, the acting chief of the civil division, was sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s view that the election had been stolen, according to former administration officials who spoke with Mr. Clark and Mr. Trump.

Mr. Perry introduced the president to Mr. Clark, whose openness to conspiracy theories about election fraud presented Mr. Trump with a welcome change from the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who stood by the results of the election and had repeatedly resisted the president’s efforts to undo them.

Mr. Perry’s previously unreported role, and the quiet discussions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark that followed, underlined how much the former president was willing to use the government to subvert the election, turning to more junior and relatively unknown figures for help as ranking Republicans and cabinet members rebuffed him.

Mr. Perry’s involvement is also likely to heighten scrutiny of House Republicans who continue to advance Mr. Trump’s false and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, even after President Biden’s inauguration this week and as Congress prepares for an impeachment trial that will examine whether such talk incited the Capitol riot.

It is unclear when Mr. Perry, who represents the Harrisburg area, met Mr. Clark, a Philadelphia native, or how well they knew each another before the introduction to Mr. Trump. Former Trump administration officials said that it was only in late December that Mr. Clark told Mr. Rosen about the introduction brokered by Mr. Perry, who was among the scores of people feeding Mr. Trump false hope that he had won the election.

But it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump would have known Mr. Clark otherwise. Department officials were startled to learn that the president had called Mr. Clark directly on multiple occasions and that the two had met in person without alerting Mr. Rosen, those officials said. Justice Department policy stipulates that the president initially communicates with the attorney general or the deputy attorney general on all matters, and then a lower-level official if authorized.

As the date for Congress to affirm Mr. Biden’s victory neared, Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark discussed a plan to have the Justice Department send a letter to Georgia state lawmakers informing them of an investigation into voter fraud that could invalidate the state’s Electoral College results. Former officials who were briefed on the plan said that the department’s dozens of voter fraud investigations nationwide had not turned up enough instances of fraud to alter the outcome of the election.

Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark also discussed the plan with Mr. Trump, setting off a chain of events that nearly led to the ouster of Mr. Rosen, who had refused to send the letter.

After The New York Times disclosed the details of the scheme on Friday, the political fallout was swift. Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent the Justice Department a letter on Saturday that said he was investigating efforts by Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark “to use the Department of Justice to further Trump’s efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said that it was “unconscionable that a Trump Justice Department leader would conspire to subvert the people’s will.” He called on the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, to investigate “this attempted sedition.”

Mr. Horowitz has already opened an investigation into whether Trump administration officials improperly pressured Byung J. Pak, who abruptly resigned this month as the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after being pressed to take actions related to the election, according to a person briefed on the inquiry. Mr. Durbin is investigating that matter as well.

Mr. Trump also tried to force Justice Department officials, including Mr. Rosen and the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, to file a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that would challenge Mr. Biden’s victory, according to a person briefed on the request.

One of Mr. Trump’s outside lawyers even drafted a brief for the department to file to the court. Department officials and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, told Mr. Trump that the plan would fail for several reasons, including the fact that the department did not have the grounds to challenge the outcome, the person said.

The fight between Mr. Trump and Justice Department officials over the Supreme Court filing was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The episode with Mr. Clark and Mr. Perry is yet another example at impeachment managers’ disposal as they put together their case that Mr. Trump should be disqualified from holding office again.

Mr. Clark declined to comment on his relationship with Mr. Perry, and he categorically denied devising any plan to oust Mr. Rosen. He said that there had been “a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president” that had been inaccurately described by The Times, but he declined to provide details. He declined to say anything more about his conversations with Mr. Trump or Justice Department lawyers because of “the strictures of legal privilege.”

Asked whether his conversations with the president had violated the department policy governing contact with the president, he said that senior lawyers at the agency provided legal advice to the White House as part of their duties. “All my official communications were consistent with law,” he said.

Mr. Clark, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, had been appointed the acting head of the civil division in September. He also oversaw the department’s environmental and natural resources division, where he had worked under President George W. Bush.

Neither Mr. Perry nor his top aides responded to repeated requests for comment.

Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have grown increasingly worried that if they do not intervene and distance themselves from Mr. Trump, the havoc wreaked by the former president could hurt Republicans’ political fortunes for years to come. The episode amounts to an unwelcome reminder that damaging information around his presidency could continue to emerge even though Mr. Trump is no longer in office.

And Mr. Perry’s role in the discussions could further escalate tensions in the House, where Democratic lawmakers were already livid at Republicans for fanning the flames before the Capitol riot, with some rank-and-file members calling for the expulsion of lawmakers who led efforts to overturn the election.

The pressure that Mr. Trump placed on the Justice Department, including any plan that he may have considered to remove Mr. Rosen, also raises legal questions for him.

Mr. Trump’s duty as president was to ensure that “laws be faithfully executed for the benefit of the country,” and efforts to interfere in the election could be considered a violation of his constitutional duty, said Neil Eggleston, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis and a White House counsel under President Barack Obama.

There is little chance that a Justice Department letter sent to Georgia lawmakers would have resulted in the state’s invalidating its Electoral College votes.

But the plan was consistent with the posture Mr. Perry had taken since November, when he began to falsely claim that there had been rampant fraud in the election, and throughout it all, Mr. Perry has remained defiant. Facing calls to resign over his role in the efforts to overturn the election, Mr. Perry issued a one-word response: “No.”

Mr. Perry, a retired brigadier general in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard and an Iraq War veteran, has previously been scrutinized for his openness to the conspiratorial. He baselessly suggested that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas by a lone gunman could have been influenced by “terrorist infiltration through the southern border.” and refused to support a resolution that condemned QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy movement. (Mr. Perry said he believed that the resolution infringed on individuals’ right to free speech and that he did not personally subscribe to the movement.)

An early supporter of the “Stop the Steal” movement, Mr. Perry was one of 126 House Republicans who joined a legal brief in December supporting an extraordinary lawsuit seeking to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory. And he joined over two dozen of his colleagues who urged Mr. Trump to direct William P. Barr, the attorney general, to “investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.”

He objected on behalf of 79 other House Republicans to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral results, even though he later acknowledged Mr. Biden as the president-elect.

The plan that Mr. Perry devised with Mr. Clark set off a crisis at the Justice Department. When Mr. Clark approached Mr. Rosen with the Georgia letter at the end of December, Mr. Rosen refused to send it, according to four former administration officials. On Jan. 3, Mr. Clark notified Mr. Rosen that he would be taking his job at Mr. Trump’s behest.

As Mr. Rosen prepared to meet Mr. Trump later that day and fight for his job, his top deputies, including the acting deputy attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, and his outgoing chief of staff, Patrick Hovakimian, convened the department’s senior leaders on a conference call, according to five former officials with knowledge of the call.

They told the department leaders that Mr. Rosen’s job was in jeopardy because of Mr. Clark’s machinations and said they would resign if Mr. Rosen was removed. They ended the call by asking their colleagues to privately consider what they would do if that happened. Over the next 15 minutes, all of them emailed or texted Mr. Hovakimian, saying that they would quit.

While Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue and other top department and White House lawyers spent nearly three hours with Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark, debating the merits of sending the letter to Georgia lawmakers, Mr. Hovakimian drafted an email to the department’s senior leaders, including those who were not aware of what was transpiring at the White House, in anticipation of Mr. Rosen’s removal, according to two people briefed on the letter.

In it, he explained that Mr. Rosen had resisted Mr. Trump’s repeated calls to use the department’s law enforcement powers for improper ends and that the president had removed him, according to a person who reviewed the email. He wrote that he and Mr. Donoghue were resigning immediately and encouraged his colleagues to think hard about what they would do and to always act in the interests of the United States.

When Mr. Hovakimian received word that Mr. Rosen had been allowed to stay, he drafted a new email that he sent to the anxiously awaiting officials: Mr. Rosen and the cause of justice had won.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/politics/scott-perry-trump-justice-department-election.html

Sedition might be a foregone conclusion after this evidence gets introduced at impeachment. There may be a lot of Republicans trying to avoid jail soon.

“When the soul of America was at stake”

We will all soon find out, how blind the scales of justice are. What standard we allow.

Romney says that Trump impeachment trial is 'constitutional' and needed 'for accountability, truth, and justice'
John L. Dorman
Sun, January 24, 2021, 2:39 PM

Sen. Mitt Romney says that a Senate impeachment trial held after Trump's departure is constitutional.

The House impeached Trump for "incitement of insurrection" for his role in the Capitol riots.

Romney voted to convict Trump of abuse of power in the former president's first impeachment trial.

Sen. Mitt Romney did not reveal if he would vote to convict former President Donald Trump for "incitement of insurrection" in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial, but he feels as though the proceedings are constitutional.

On "Fox News Sunday," the Utah Republican and 2012 GOP presidential nominee said that the current article "suggests impeachable conduct" as it pertains to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

"I think there will be a trial and I hope it goes as quickly as possible but that's up to the counsel on both sides," he said. "There's no question that the article of impeachment that was sent over by the House suggests impeachable conduct, but we have not yet heard either from the prosecution or the defense."

Romney added: "I'll get a chance to hear from them, and I'll do my best as a Senate juror to apply justice as well as I can understand it."

In February 2020, Romney was the only Republican senator who voted to convict the president of abuse of power in the Senate trial of his first impeachment over the Ukraine scandal.

Host Chris Wallace asked Romney if the current article of impeachment should be tossed as a matter of procedure, since Trump is no longer is office.

"The Democrats have the majority in the Senate and I doubt they're going to go along with that move," he replied. "At the same time, if you look at the preponderance of the legal opinion by scholars over the years … the preponderance of opinion is that yes, an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office."

He then added: "If we're going to have unity in our country, I think it's important to recognize the need for accountability, for truth and justice."


https://www.yahoo.com/news/romney-says-trump-impeachment-trial-193925982.html