Fox News often has liberal stuff, I don't think Breitbart does.
An opinion piece in Fox News that isn't pro-Trump is not automatically liberal. The only opinion pieces at Fox News that don't support Trump are written by Judge Andrew Napolitano, and he's a conservative with a penchant for conspiracy theories.
The people who say Will is a never Trumper consider Trump to be a conservative. Will may be for the most part but being a Never Trumper puts him on the enemy side.
Well, then you're a Trumper, not a conservative.
Trump is not a conservative. Politically he's more of a mutt and an opportunist. He has adopted some conservative positions, such as on the 2nd amendment, anti-abortion, low taxes and a strong military, but he also has some decidedly unconservative positions, such as very large deficits, buddying up to dictators, weakening alliances with allies, and antagonism toward free trade, instead advocating tariffs. Trump views trade as a weapon for beating other countries into submission.
Could you drop your continuous sniping about fake news? All one can ask of a news source is that its reporting be accurate, fair and balanced, and all the major outlets seem to do a pretty good job of that. Breitbart is not a major news outlet and does not do a good job of that. Radio and TV personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are not news reporters - they are opinion commentators, and often not very accurate or honest ones.
And yes I know he changed his mind. So what? Why does his opinion or anybody's opinion matter? It's all opinion, meaningless.
Sondland wasn't giving his opinion. He was detailing what he actually said to the Ukranian government, that US aid depended on them publicly announcing investigations of the Bidens. He was describing facts.
This further corroborates other testimony by other witnesses. Watching you try to avoid these facts only confirms just how guilty Trump really is. If Trump did nothing wrong, then you wouldn't have to try to ignore what the witnesses are saying.
And there's so much confusxion about the Biden comment it's hard to be sure what it's all about but nevertheless my sources understand Trrump committed no impropriety there either.
If Trump shot someone in the face on 5th Avenue your sources would say that Trump did nothing wrong. That's why this is so scary. The Cult of Trump has reached the point where their leader can do no wrong, no matter what he does.
Sorry, but there would have been a charge by now going into impeachment and there is NONE, nothing, nada, zip.
The Congressional Inquiry started on September 24, 2019. That's a month and a half ago.
How long did Ken Starr investigate Clinton?
quote:The Starr Report, officially the Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Conformity with the Requirement of Title 28, United States Code, Section 595(c), is a United States federal government report by Independent Counsel Ken Starr concerning his investigation of President Bill Clinton. Delivered to the United States Congress on September 9, 1998, the allegations in the report led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of Clinton's law license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
4 years for the impeachment investigation into Clinton. How about Nixon?
quote:An impeachment process against Richard Nixon began in the United States House of Representatives on October 30, 1973, following the "Saturday Night Massacre" episode of the Watergate scandal. The House Judiciary Committee set up an impeachment inquiry staff and began investigations into possible impeachable offenses by Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States. The process was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the House granted its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach President Nixon of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to Watergate. This investigation was undertaken one year after the United States Senate established a select committee to investigate the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon Administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement.
Following a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, in April 1974 edited transcripts of many Watergate-related conversations from the Nixon White House tapes were made public by Nixon, but the committee pressed for full tapes and additional conversations. Nixon refused, but on July 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to comply. On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, and reported those articles to the House of Representatives. Two other articles of impeachment were debated but not approved. At this point Congressional leaders believed that there were more than the necessary majority of votes to impeach Nixon in the House and that the number of who would vote to convict him in the Senate was approaching the necessary two-thirds mark. https://en.wikipedia.org/...nt_process_against_Richard_Nixon
2 years for the investigation into Nixon.
Now, can you please tell us why, after less than 2 months, the House should have brought charges against Trump when it took multiple years for the last two impeachment investigations?
And we do have to wonder just what charges Giuliani thought he was defending against. Trump is immune from prosecution, while President, and he has not been charged with anything relating to the Russian interference in the US elections.
O blithering nonsense. That kind of thing goes on every day against Trump and none of it ever amounts to anything. I certainly doubt that he ever "admitted" to "illegally" doing anything and of course it's just the usual unsupported claim. Mueller would have found any illegal intervention into the 2016 election on his own behalf and nothing of course was found, zip, nada. Hillary on the other hand was up to her eyeballs in such interference.
The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven.
My guess would be that he wasn't using the term "charges" in the legally exact sense, which is clear from the statement that they kept "changing," which doesn't happen to legal charges, so he was merely referring to the endless smear campaign of allegations against Trump, that HAVE kept changing as one after another proves to be invalid. Ukraine DID collude against Trump in that election, and that contradicts all those allegations. Trump did nothing, but there was certainly collusion against him, as there has been on a daily basis every moment since then.
As part of the settlement, Trump admitted to misusing Trump Foundation funds
misusing charitable funds is illegal.
course it's just the usual unsupported claim.
that was from the AG of New York Faith, the person who brought the case against the trump foundation. it's not an unsupported claim, there was an actual trial that Trump just agreed to settle.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
The usual twisted ideological ****** misapplied to the good guys
Happened to hear some of Sebastian Gorka's program tonight where he was describing the mistreatment of his own daughter at the school she had been attending, right up to her graduation. She's been called a white supremacist for simply being white, and a Nazi and so on, by the unconscionable ideologues on her campus. I think I'd have yanked her out of that school and put her somewhere safer myself and I don't know why Gorka didn't do something **** that but anyway the story continued. He was there for her graduation when another young woman came up to him and extended her hand to him asking if he was Sebastian Gorka, to which he said he was, at which point she denounced him as a vile Nazi because he'd worked in the Trump administration and is a conservative. Being a hothead myself I might have slapped her into the next millennium and found myself sitting in jail, but Gorka did nothing. He's used to such evil behavior on the part of Trump's ideological opponents. Such lovely people.
He decided nevertheless to walk over to her and denounce her in turn for calling someone a Nazi who had endured Nazi occupation in his native Hungary.
This country is well on its way to Hell in a handbasket and how dare you all accuse the right of that.