Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/

Thanks, PP, for pointing out the article. Here is a statement that I find interesting. I think we could substitute the current whistleblower for "Winner."


"Few individuals other than the president have the legal right to decide unilaterally what constitutes the national security interests of the United States, and Winner was certainly not one of them"

Bingo.

If Trump didn’t want to give aid to Ukraine, he should have vetoed the bill.

Exactly what kind of aid did Democrats want to give Ukraine?

If this is y’all’s new talking point, it totally sucks.

“Between 2014 and 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine. Under Obama, the federal government started the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which sent other kinds of U.S. military equipment to the country. From 2016 to 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million. In the last year of the Obama administration, Congress authorized lethal aid, but it didn’t include the Javelins."
https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/

Thanks, PP, for pointing out the article. Here is a statement that I find interesting. I think we could substitute the current whistleblower for "Winner."


"Few individuals other than the president have the legal right to decide unilaterally what constitutes the national security interests of the United States, and Winner was certainly not one of them"

Bingo.

If Trump didn’t want to give aid to Ukraine, he should have vetoed the bill.

Exactly what kind of aid did Democrats want to give Ukraine?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scheme, of alllllll e schemes, is so poorly hatched, I wish I could award violations.

I expect a couple new books to arrive and will re-read one of my favorites as you all make the history books with this idiocy.

Bless your hearts.

Can you give an example of an impeachment "scheme" that you would support? Can you name a crime that Trump could commit which would cause you to support his removal from office?

DP. Don't bother. You will not get rational answers to your rational questions from a PP like that.

Anonymous wrote:This scheme, of alllllll e schemes, is so poorly hatched, I wish I could award violations.

I expect a couple new books to arrive and will re-read one of my favorites as you all make the history books with this idiocy.

Bless your hearts.

Please do go read your Harlequin romances and refrain from incoherent posts. The grown ups are talking.

Anonymous wrote:This scheme, of alllllll e schemes, is so poorly hatched, I wish I could award violations.

I expect a couple new books to arrive and will re-read one of my favorites as you all make the history books with this idiocy.

Bless your hearts.

Can you give an example of an impeachment "scheme" that you would support? Can you name a crime that Trump could commit which would cause you to support his removal from office?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/

Thanks, PP, for pointing out the article. Here is a statement that I find interesting. I think we could substitute the current whistleblower for "Winner."


"Few individuals other than the president have the legal right to decide unilaterally what constitutes the national security interests of the United States, and Winner was certainly not one of them"

Bingo.

If Trump didn’t want to give aid to Ukraine, he should have vetoed the bill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/

Thanks, PP, for pointing out the article. Here is a statement that I find interesting. I think we could substitute the current whistleblower for "Winner."


"Few individuals other than the president have the legal right to decide unilaterally what constitutes the national security interests of the United States, and Winner was certainly not one of them"

Bingo.

Goodness, if the Trump supporters believe this crap our country is truly lost. Our National Security, our foreign policy, is not solely in the hands of one person. It is not a one person job. It absolutely is possible for the POTUS to commit treason and other impeachable offenses.

Thanks for this archive, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/

Thanks, PP, for pointing out the article. Here is a statement that I find interesting. I think we could substitute the current whistleblower for "Winner."


"Few individuals other than the president have the legal right to decide unilaterally what constitutes the national security interests of the United States, and Winner was certainly not one of them"

Bingo.

No. The whistleblower followed the rules. And multiple people including trump himself have verified what the whistleblower reported.

Anonymous wrote:This scheme, of alllllll e schemes, is so poorly hatched, I wish I could award violations.

I expect a couple new books to arrive and will re-read one of my favorites as you all make the history books with this idiocy.

Bless your hearts.

Lol! Keep telling yourself that. Have you forgotten how many people have already gone to prison or are facing charges because of trump? Do you want him to bring down the whole party?

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/

Thanks, PP, for pointing out the article. Here is a statement that I find interesting. I think we could substitute the current whistleblower for "Winner."


"Few individuals other than the president have the legal right to decide unilaterally what constitutes the national security interests of the United States, and Winner was certainly not one of them"

Bingo.