Not too late to get 20% off your Trump/Rocky Christmas sweater!

Support our President and piss off lefties at the same time, win/win.

quote:

"Help the homeless in your district Nancy. USMCA?"

Putting that in right after mentioning his own accomplishments was great. I chuckled.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
After the announcement by Pelosi this morning, Fox News asked Judge Napolitano who he thought the Republicans would call as witnesses. He said "President Trump". When asked if he thought the President would do it, he said "Yes" and that it would be a real eye-opener.

(Mind you, I don't put much stock in anything the Judge says, but he may have a point here.)

flashguy

I put exactly ZERO stock in what that idiot says. His whole anti-Trump BS is based solely on his disappointment/anger that Trump did not choose him for some higher office/position.

Were I to make the decision, I would assign him to pick up the windblown trash at our local landfill.

Kelleyanne goes off on the skank Karlan

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
She went babbling for a minute about random shit, while making a flourish of showing her watch and invoking her “Catholicism”....she is losing it.

She is losing it.
And she puts on her “Catholicism” like she puts on her watch. It's just a flashy accessory.
I'm a Catholic, and I agree with Trump:
"She says she ‘prays for the President.’ I don’t believe her, not even close."

I was taught that pointing your finger at someone is very disrespectful. I saw her do it to the President and now a reporter, someone need to give the bitch an earful and an education.

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
I was taught that pointing your finger at someone is very disrespectful. I saw her do it to the President and now a reporter, someone need to give the bitch an earful and an education.

Yep, just saw a witty remark from Crowder that said something like:

“ Yes, I also point and shake my fist when talking about how much I don't hate someone.”

She's annoying to watch and hear. She reminds me of a puppet. If her hands were tied down, she'd only move her lips.

Kellyanne is a firecracker! Thankful she's on the President's team!

Some more history of the dems' "expert witness" Noah Feldman, douchebag extraordinaire.

His NYT op-ed from 2008 is sophistry in its purest form...

Dem Witness Noah Feldman Penned Fawning Defense of Islamic Shariah Law
Greg Manz Greg Manz
1 day ago

Feldman wrote in a New York Times op-ed published on March 16, 2008 that “Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world.”

He also juxtaposed Sharia with English common law, and claimed the West “needs Shariah and Islam”.

Some of the key paragraphs of Noah Feldman’s op-ed are as follows:

… the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.

In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries.
…

How is it that what so many Westerners see as the most unappealing and premodern aspect of Islam is, to many Muslims, the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Islamic revival? The explanation surely must go beyond the oversimplified assumption that Muslims want to use Shariah to reverse feminism and control women — especially since large numbers of women support the Islamists in general and the ideal of Shariah in particular.

Noah Feldman isn’t the only questionable Democrat witness today.

Other witnesses have showed clear political biases against President Trump and one, Pamela Karlan, even donated to Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign on July 29, 2019.

....

Feldman’s support for Sharia Law, however, should probably alarm all Americans as he lectures the nation on constitutional law.

by Greg Manz and Raheem Kassam

Link

“Donald Trump on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep his financial records out of the hands of a Democratic-led congressional panel, setting up a major clash between branches of government.

Trump turned to the justices after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on Nov. 13 that it would not revisit its October decision backing the House of Representatives Oversight Committee's authority to subpoena the records from Mazars LLP, Trump's longtime accounting firm.

The Supreme Court on Nov. 25 put that ruling on hold, giving Trump until Thursday to file his appeal.

The case represents an important showdown at the top U.S. court over the powers of the presidency versus those of Congress…”

https://mol.im/a/7760799

Judge Nap new name the 5'5" zoot suit

'Flaming bag of dog shit': Trump aides say impeachment outlook boosted by 'demeaning’ professor panel

https://www.washingtonexaminer...ning-professor-panel



Inside the White House, President Trump’s aides could not believe their luck as three exceedingly self-assured law professors insisted that Trump deserved to be impeached.

Trump allies are considering how to weaponize footage of what they saw as cloying smugness from Harvard scholar Noah Feldman and Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, backed by University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt. They say it was a pivotal moment in an investigation where the outcome seemed inevitable.

“I’m not sure who in the majority thought that Americans wanted to be lectured by three biased law professors,” said a White House official. “The Democrats are out of touch and have never understood what the American people see in President Trump, and that was on full display.”

“[White House] staff watching thought it was a win for the White House and that Republicans on the committee did a fantastic job, particularly selecting [Jonathan] Turley as their witness,” the White House official said.

How best to splice and broadcast the footage to pressure House Democrats is under discussion by Republican operatives.

Pundit's reaction to the hearing has featured widespread praise for Turley, a George Washington University law professor who said he does not support Trump, but that Democrats have not assembled the evidence needed to impeach him.

Karlan and Feldman were widely derided among Trump allies for their tone. Karlan's joke about the name of Trump’s son Barron, in a swipe at Trump’s alleged sense of power, elicited a quick denunciation from first lady Melania Trump and an apology from the professor.

“The fact Democrats even had this hearing is a loss,” said a senior administration official. “They are scrambling on impeachment, and this hearing shouldn’t have even happened.”

One Republican involved in fighting against impeachment called Democrats’ proceedings a “flaming bag of dog shit,” describing the Democratic-requested law professors as long-winded, dull, and off-putting.

“The one guy with the hair, Feldman. How is that guy with that look not wearing a bowtie?” he joked.

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said in a TV appearance Thursday, "If you went to work today to manicure nails, to manicure lawns, if you went to work with a jackhammer or a welding machine ... that woman yesterday looks her nose down on you."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, offered a positive appraisal of the hearing, saying Thursday, “When the professors talked about it, they taught about it.”

But Republicans say it was clear that Turley won the day with a more nuanced presentation in which he allowed Democrats might proven impeachable conduct, if only they put effort into finding more evidence.

Democrats "picked three partisan liberal lawyers, who all came across very stiff and unlikable, to serve as the basis for their prosecution of the president,” said Andy Surabian, a Republican strategist and former Trump White House official.

My representative answered with the correct answer:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Trump. I always appreciate hearing from constituents back home as it helps me better serve you in the 116th Congress.



As you know, the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach the president for acts of high crimes and misdemeanors. Since 1789 only two presidents have been impeached by Congress; President Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William Jefferson Clinton in 1998, but neither were removed from office. As history illustrates, the use of impeachment is rarely used and should be only after careful consideration and in extreme cases.



Let me assure you that I hold the executive branch, and by extension the President, in the highest regard. The United Sates government cannot function without the three branches working together to ensure America remains steadfast and strong in upholding its values. After reading the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, it is clear that speculation and conjecture by House Democrats got ahead of the facts. The transcript clearly presented no quid pro quo.



It may interest you to know, that on October 31, 2019, I voted against H. Res. 660. I strongly believe that by any objective measure, the process that Democratic Leadership has been utilizing, and is now ratifying through this resolution, is an absolute violation of fairness, transparency, due process, and House precedent. As Hamilton said in federalist papers (#65) about the impeachment process, “… the greatest danger [is] that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Rest assured, as your Representative, I will continue to base myself on facts and the truth, and presently, the facts I have seen do not warrant impeachment.



Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future, should you have any other questions or concerns about this or any other issue. I encourage you to sign up for my e-newsletter by visiting my website at www.mariodiazbalart.house.gov to receive regular updates. You can also click on the links below to follow me on Twitter, visit my Facebook page or subscribe to my YouTube channel.

How does anyone defend against speculation and opinions, which is all the democrats have come up with. Even Allen Dershowitz has expressed disagreement with the process.

https://www.mediamatters.org/t...tional-impeach-trump

I had contacted mine and here is his response from a little over a week ago.

Dear xxxx,
Thank you for contacting me regarding President Donald Trump and his administration. As your Representative, it is important for me to understand your ideas and concerns so I may better represent you and the 8th Congressional District of Tennessee. I truly value your input, and I welcome this opportunity to respond.

As you may know, on October 31, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats passed H. Res. 660 by a party-line vote of 232-196. This resolution formally opened an impeachment inquiry to impeach President Donald Trump. While the passage of H. Res. 660 is indicative of Speaker Pelosi and Democratic leadership’s newfound support for impeachment, it does not change the course for the six House Committees that are currently conducting investigations. The committee I serve on, the House Financial Services Committee, has also conducted several oversight hearings with Administration officials this Congress.

This formal inquiry will be the Democrats’ fourth attempt to impeach President Trump since he took office in 2017. Unfortunately, Democrats and Speaker Pelosi will now be focusing all their attention and time on the impeachment of President Trump, instead of doing work to protect the American people, such as ratifying the U.S.M.C.A. trade agreement and securing our southern border.

As a member of Congress, one of my duties is providing proper checks and balances on the Executive Branch. According to Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the President, Vice President, and any civil officers of the federal government can be removed from office through impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole duty to bring and pass articles of impeachment, whereas the Senate has the power to hold impeachment trials. However, our constitutional duty as Members of Congress should not be abused in order to settle political scores. This call for impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. If this is the standard, then every future president will be on impeachment watch.

As a former United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, I believe in the importance of due process. Impeachment proceedings are reserved for when explicit evidence of impeachable offenses, namely “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” has been obtained. I have yet to see any evidence that indicate such offenses have transpired. As such, I look forward to working with the President and my Congressional colleagues to continue ensuring the safety and prosperity of the American people, while upholding my oath of office and advocating for truth and transparency in the House of Representatives.

Thank you again for letting me know your views on the impeachment process. If there is anything I can do for you, please do not hesitate to contact me in my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-4714 or visit my website, www.kustoff.house.gov.

Sincerely,

David Kustoff
Member of Congress

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Guys

Sorry Boss.

I just retired from academia, and I can tell you that Pamela Karlan is fairly typical. There are thousands like her out there. If your kids are in college, she is at the podium in at least one of their lecture halls every semester, you can be sure.

They are deeply unhappy people, filled with resentment and self-hatred. They turn their anger outward, into an attack on everything that our culture values, everything normative. Their favourite words, if you even just skim their writings, are "subversive" and "transgressive." You can see why, for example, they would make a hero of a transgender -- with a penis-- who tries to make an appointment with a gynaecologist. It's the ultimate in subversive and transgressive. Everything, according to them, is arbitrary, and settled ultimately by raw power. If they can get you to call a person with a vagina a male, and a person with a penis a female, they have turned biology on its head, and won the power struggle.

They are credentialists, like Karlan, whose sense of importance is anchored in their advanced degrees. But here's the dirty little secret: They are not very smart. I don't say this just to hurl an insult, I know them well. Mediocre minds can easily learn to play the games necessary to earn a Ph.D, or a J.D. And the most important of these games is learning to signal that you are one of them, that you march in step with the group think.

They began to poison higher education in the second half of the twentieth century, when Leninists and Stalinists took academic appointments in America. Anti-American leftists now dominate across the country, in big universities and small colleges.

White House Tree Lighting Ceremony

"But here's the dirty little secret: They are not very smart. I don't say this just to hurl an insult, I know them well. Mediocre minds can easily learn to play the games necessary to earn a Ph.D, or a J.D."

That is my experience as well. Often they are of mediocre intelligence, but fit in with their group, so they succeed.