October 21st – 2019 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1005

In an effort to keep the Daily Open Thread a little more open topic we are going to start a new daily thread for “Presidential Politics”. Please use this thread to post anything relating to the Donald Trump Administration and Presidency.


This thread will refresh daily and appear above the Open Discussion Thread.

President Trump Twitter @POTUS / Vice President Pence Twitter @VP

Stephanie Grisham Twitter @StephGrisham45

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

769 Responses to October 21st – 2019 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1005

  1. nwtex says:

    Greta calls out Chris Wallace.

    Gov. Mike Huckabee@GovMikeHuckabee

    Amen, @greta
    ! What the heck does “well-connected” even mean? That is an absolutely subjective statement. Connected to what? The media? Some big donors? Bitter old guard GOP Never-Trumpers? Away from the bubbles of DC, NY, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, who is saying it?

    Liked by 18 people

  2. lawrencepaul1 says:


    Yes, William Barr is going to bust the ‘Deep State’ soon

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Lisa in TN says:

    Declass needs to happen soon and Barr needs to hurry up with his busting of the Deep State. Nancy is racing against the clock to get it into the Senate and she made way for simple majority and for Senate to change things. Nobody thought we’d currently be this far without House vote to investigate impeachment, or that R’s would be banned from depositions. Time to start thinking the unthinkable.

    Nancy’s document on impeachment (last paragraph)
    The 19-century impeachment trial rules seemingly require a series of actions by the Senate upon the receipt of articles of impeachment from the House. The Senate, however, just like the House, can set aside its rules by, for example, agreeing to a simple resolution. Under the regular rules of the Senate that govern consideration of legislation, such a resolution would not be subject to any debate restrictions. As a result, in that circumstance, a cloture process, requiring the support of three-fifths of the Senate, would be necessary to reach a vote on the resolution. But an impeachment trial does not occur under the regular rules of the Senate. In fact, the Senate impeachment trial rules and related precedents restrict debate on many resolutions and motions. The debate restrictions could allow a simple majority to determine procedures for responding to article of impeachment sent from the House.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Medicine Man says:

      What are you saying? A simple majority to remove? If so, let’s not get so carried away.
      Remember Mitch is up for re-election. His political life depends on 45 survival..along with so many of the GOP senators ( short and long term…Collins..Gardner..short to Rubio and Cruz .long).
      Don’t forget Dem Senators..Jones (short term) and Manchin (long term). They vote for removal and they will face removal themselves.
      This is all part of psych ops. I agree don’t take it lightly, but these folks understand long term ramifications when they know an election is coming up. Can easily punt to the election.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Somebody says:

        No Lisa is talking about the mechanics of a senate trial and response to articles technically fall to a simple majority. As for a vote for removal that is spelled out in the constitution and can’t be changed nor is it up to interpretation.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Lisa in TN says:

          Yes, Sundance, I believe (can’t find it now) brought up possibility of something like not officially impeached but majority could make it so wouldn’t be eligible for office again. Nancy has planted a seed for some type of mischief. Whether republicans will bite or not? But I don’t think we know the depth of their corruptness, the extent of vulnerability exposure will bring, and if lesser of evils for them might be to face voter wrath.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Lisa in TN says:

            If they do remove Trump…I think they will say they didn’t have choice, wish it were otherwise, Trump’s own actions…yada, yada, yada

            Liked by 1 person

            • Chip Doctor says:

              Lisa, while I agree with medicine man that going down this rat hole can be unproductive, it is also dangerous and unproductive to not consider your fears.

              My guess is that at least 75% of Congress critters are guilty of sedition or graft. Faced with the possibility of a long prison sentence, these people would rather deal with the consequences of a smoldering America than being locked up.

              It would be foolish to think that the vast majority of “safe” Republican Senators are not guilty of at least graft. Does anyone really believe that Mitch McConnell is clean? Lindsay Graham? I don’t. They believe that they are in a protected class, and that even in a post armed civil war, they will remain in power and thus protected and rich.

              It scares me to see the confidence of many conservatives that there is no way that the Senate would convict and remove PT. Relying on a tally based on a senator’s upcoming election is foolhardy. It’s not about staying in office as much as it’s about staying OUT of prison. When faced with hard time…..all bets are off. No one can predict what a man will do under those circumstances.

              Lisa, your concerns are shared by many. With guilty “safe” Senators and a compromised John Roberts we will regret it if we wait too long to act. Once PT is removed, there is no reinstating him. We are SEEING the swamp break every norm that has existed since our republic was founded. They will stop at nothing to save their skin.

              As for the rat hole……I agree it is a double edged sword. To act too soon is equally dangerous. I believe that President Trump has control of this. Thus the obvious panic. We need to be ever vigilant for his call to action. He will call on us if he thinks the republic will be lost forever. He will not allow the United States to be destroyed. It’s for all the marbles. I trust President Trump and I along with many of us will be there when he calls.

              Liked by 5 people

              • Ken Maritch says:

                “My guess is that at least 75% of Congress critters are guilty of sedition or graft.”
                Exactly, people come to congress with good intentions, they are quickly presented with some of the ‘dirt” the DS has collected on them (and encouraged to vote “the right way.”)
                Once they are voting “the right way”, they are now in the club, and will get the perks… gifts, vacations, cash.
                From that point forward, they are compromised.

                Liked by 2 people

          • Medicine Man says:

            Do you mean 51 votes means he isn’t eligible to run for office again? After the trial?

            Politically they could use that against 45, but nothing in the constitution regarding that.

            I’m no lawyer or Constitutional expert, (And I hate to go down this rat hole since I don’t see anything positive in it) but is there anything stated in the Constitution if someone who resigns/removal can’t run again?


          • CM-TX says:

            Yep. That is their overall objective… Make PDJT ineligible to seek reelection.


            • Medicine Man says:

              Link please?


              • Lisa In TN says:

                I think It depends upon the articles of impeachment they write. Not written or public yet. Once we see them we may understand what they are planning. I think Trump is smart and in control. But I think our politicians and media aren’t exposing D’s trickery.


      • Victor Laszlo says:

        Medicine Man, I don’t think these weasels have stayed in office so long because of legitimate votes. They won’t be voted out, for the same reason

        Liked by 1 person

        • Medicine Man says:

          Oh, I get that, but let’s not get too far into the “the sky is falling” in that 45 is somehow automatically ineligible for re-election with 51 votes to remove if there is a trial.
          I mean that is similar as the popular vote “winner” of the election.
          It’s more a perception than anything constitutional unless someone can provide a link here.
          Just trying to reel in the “sky is falling” crowd.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Ray Runge says:

            Medi Man, So true. BS against the wall is the entire Democrat, Deep State and MSM agenda at the current time. At the very least \, there are the documented Dimms and Rinos that will be swept away for an anti-Trump vote that does not accompany the final ouster.

            Any “symbolic” vote to register dislike for Trump that does not result in removal will render the vulnerable thrown out of the DC gravy train. Shaky knees is the reason San Fran Nan has not put any impeachment related votes on the House floor.


          • Jim in TN says:

            Sounds like dictator Pelosi is trying to rewrite the constitution.

            6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
            7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

            Basically, those punishments are judgements that happen when someone is convicted.

            She conducts impeachment enquiries even though the House has repeatedly voted no. And she recommends the Senate punish the innocent without convicting them.

            What she has done is degrade Congress into a crass, partisan, muckraking machine for political advantage.


            • Battleship Wisconsin says:

              Yes, Jim …. Nancy Pelosi and her crew of lawfare warriors are in fact trying to rewrite the constitution by making the threat of impeachment a useful political tool for influencing any decisions a future president makes about any important issue of the day.

              See my previous comment here:


              Pelosi needs 218 votes to push through a quick “slam-bam thanky ma’am” fast-track impeachment of the president. More likely than not, she will manipulate the process to do it with a single vote made directly from the House floor.

              Prior to the floor vote, a trade-this-favor-for-that-favor type of negotiation process will go on among House Democrats to determine who among them is allowed to vote against impeachment.

              For the remainder who are being pressured to vote ‘yes’ regardless of the consequences, those who are in vulnerable House districts will be promised substantial support for their upcoming fall campaigns.

              One way or another, impeachment will happen. The Democrats have gone too far down the road towards impeaching President Trump to turn back now.


      • Oldumb2 says:

        Don’t you think that Mitch and others will fall on the sword to get POTUS Trump out? What good is being a senator if your money line dries up and you are exposed? Be a hero, take down the orgre (Trump) and retire with honor and other NEW revenue streams.


      • Kintbury says:

        It takes 67 Senators to remove from office. Any less than that, I believe he can run again.
        Even politically damaged, he is 1000 times better than anyone we have in office now.


        • TheOtherSean says:

          Not necessarily 67 senators, but rather 2/3 of the senators present. If one senator is absent, it only takes 66 to convict, etc.


      • Bert Darrell says:

        Please, don’t include Mittens in your logic. He doesn’t care about reelection. All he wants is revenge against PDJT because the latter earned what he couldn’t and never will. He acts like a scorned woman, isn’t he?.


    • bessie2003 says:

      Thanks for highlighting this last paragraph.

      It looks like this is their, Nancy and Lawfare’s, strategy to control how the Senate can respond to their new ‘inquiry’ set up, phase two perhaps of her “wait until you see what we do next” comment as she was stomping out of the White House.

      I agree, the declassification needs to happen now. The longer it’s put off the longer this new set up, change of Constitutional powers, has a chance of succeeding.


    • Battleship Wisconsin says:

      Lisa in TN says: ” ….. Nancy is racing against the clock to get it into the Senate and she made way for simple majority and for Senate to change things. Nobody thought we’d currently be this far without House vote to investigate impeachment, or that R’s would be banned from depositions. Time to start thinking the unthinkable. …..”

      Yes, it is indeed time to start thinking the unthinkable. Nancy Pelosi’s political warfare experts have good reasons for believing that a fast-track approach to impeachment makes good sense for their 2020 election strategy.

      More likely than not, the Democrats will vote articles of impeachment directly from the House floor in late 2019 or early 2020 and will then send the bill containing the articles to the Senate.

      In voting articles of impeachment without using the normally accepted processes and procedures, the House Democrats will claim that a Senate trial affords the president all the due process he is entitled to, thus sparking a major constitutional crisis.

      This action on the part of House Democrats puts the monkey on the back of the Republicans to make the next big move in dealing with the question of impeachment.

      If the Trump Administration challenges the constitutionality of the articles in the courts, because the normally accepted processes and procedures weren’t followed in the House, the Democrats and the media will paint that action as being another chapter in Trump’s ongoing obstruction of justice.

      If the Senate refuses to take action on the articles of impeachment while the constitutionality of the articles is being argued in the courts, the Democrats and the media will paint the Senate as being complicit in Trump’s obstruction of justice.

      What if the courts rule that the fast-track process used by the House in passing the articles of impeachment are constitutional, and that a trial must be held in the Senate?

      If the courts rule that the fast-track articles are constitutional, then the Democrats will have established the threat of impeachment as being a useful political tool for influencing, and perhaps even controlling, the decisions any president makes on any important issue of the day.

      That same outcome occurs if the Senate quickly takes up the fast-track articles for debate and action without waiting for the courts to decide on their constitutionality. Threat of Impeachment as a day-to-day political influence tool has been established.

      In any case, whichever way the drama plays itself out after fast-track articles of impeachment have been passed in the House, the Democrats expect that the megafrenzie anti-Trump media circus spawned in the aftermath of their vote will gain them big dividends in the 2020 elections.

      Voting fast-track articles of impeachment against President Trump is a political warfare strategy fraught with peril.

      But if you are Nancy Pelosi and are bent on retaining power as Speaker of the House in 2021, whatever it costs, then the exceptional rewards are worth the exceptional risks.

      Or if you are a committed Democrat with a seat in the House of Representatives and you want your party to win the Senate and the White House, then you will vote for impeachment even at the risk of losing your own House seat for the cause.

      This is why it is time to start thinking the unthinkable. Within their political frame of reference, the Democrats have good reasons for believing that a fast-track approach to impeachment makes good sense for their 2020 election strategy.


      • cheering4america says:

        Now throw into this well-thought out mix the prospect of trying to get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.


        • Battleship Wisconsin says:

          cheering4america says: “Now throw into this well-thought out mix the prospect of trying to get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.”

          That is yet another key point in understanding why House Democrats would take the risk of pursuing a fast-track impeachment process, and why they would deliberately provoke a constitutional crisis by voting those fast-track articles of impeachment.

          if Justice Ginsburg passes away before the 2020 election, then thwarting Senate confirmation of President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court is just as important to the Democrats, if not more important, as is any other reason for pursuing a quick impeachment, even with all the risks that strategy entails.

          The Democrats will be depending on Romney’s RINOs to help them keep a vote on confirmation from moving forward in the Senate; or even to help them win an outright victory over the Republican majority if some Republicans defect and the Senate votes no on Trump’s nominee.

          If the articles of impeachment are under review in the courts, the Romney RINO’s have an excuse either to delay the confirmation vote while the Senate awaits the outcome of the court’s review, or else to vote against the nominee if McConnell ignores their threats and forces the Senate confirmation process to go forward.

          Thwarting Senate confirmation of a Trump Supreme Court nominee just adds more attraction to what is now an almost overwhelming temptation on the part of the Democrats to pull the trigger on impeachment.


  4. Dora says:

    The man needs help.


    MITT IS DONE! — ‘Liked’ Tweets from Mitt Romney’s Secret “Pierre Delecto” Twitter Page Show Man Obsessed with Trump Hatred and Leading GOP Resistance


    Liked by 3 people

  5. TheWanderingStar says:

    Pierre Delecto – Sounds like a porn star’s name. Good choice Mittens you coward.

    Liked by 4 people

    • webgirlpdx says:

      Check out the comments on #pierredelecto. I’m laughing myself silly already so early this morning.

      The best part of my day…..morning coffee….knowing Donald Trump is my President and that Mittens is a perverted horn dog.


      Liked by 4 people

  6. Troublemaker10 says:

    I disagree with York on his last point. Corruption from the US towards Ukraine should definitely be investigated. It’s politically inconvenient that it is a political opponent, but to ignore it for that reason would be adding to the corruption.

    The media is quick to say that POTUS isn’t above the law, but seems to be saying Biden is off limits at the same time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike Robinson says:

      “Embezzlement” has been a very popular high crime throughout Congress for decades: first, authorize US Aid, then steal the money, laundering it through several other nations. In fact, this has been a stated focus of Ukrainian law enforcement!


    • snarkybeach says:

      Mark Levin’s Sunday show interviewed Sen. Ron Johnson who had a peripheral role in the Ukraine saga. Sen. Johnson pointed out that the President’s focus in the months before the infamous call was rooting out corruption.


    • GB Bari says:

      That Biden is a presidential candidate should in no way stop the President from investigating Biden and Ukraine for corr7ptipn when there is already significant hard evidence of corruption. This isn’t based on anonymous innuendo or hearsay from unidentifiable deep state sources. The contrast between this and the completely fabricated case against Candidate then President Trump is stark and significant.

      It is beyond maddening that the Republicans aren’t screaming 24/7 about the DemonRATs and Media’s blatant duplicity on this topic.


  7. Reserved55 says:


  8. moe2004 says:

    Waiting for a tweet from President Trump about Romney. Just a matter of time, it will be epic!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Linda K. says:

      It all really speaks for itself, doesn’t it? What is the point of telling people you have a secret twitter account, when you open a secret twitter account with a really fake name?


  9. Sherri Young says:

    Watch PapaD’s Twitter timeline.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. sunnyflower5 says:

    Pierre Delecto has been exposed just like Mitt Romney.

    Liked by 3 people

    • 7delta says:

      I don’t know where Mittens got Pierre Delecto or why he chose it, but I looked to see what each word means or implies.

      Pierre translates into English as Peter: petra (Latin); rock, stone millstone, heavy. 

      Delecto: latin; delight, charm, please, a source of delight, beyond, choose.

      Related to and often used the same as delicto; an act; criminal, immoral, sexual, such as flagrante delicto, “caught red-handed.” 

      Peter and dick are interchangeable colloquial nicknames for a male body part.  

      I’ll let everyone decide for themselves the message in Mittens’ choice of a pseudonym, but your comment,Pierre Delecto has been exposed just like Mitt Romney, made me laugh. Perfect on so many levels.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Linda K. says:

        I am embarrassed.

        Liked by 1 person

        • 7delta says:

          Oh Linda, you don’t have anything to be embarrassed about, but Mittens should be…for many things that started long before he decided he needed a pseudonym.

          I don’t know why he picked that name. Maybe Pierre was the guy who first discovered that a millstone hung around a person’s neck is too heavy to wear as a necklace. Takes you right to the bottom of the lake. Who knows? 


  11. Bubby says:


    FTA “I resented the hell out of Barack Obama claiming authority to fundamentally transform America. He didn’t admit to this mission until very late in his first campaign; there is no way in hell the majority of the American people who voted for him supported a fundamental transformation of this country….So as the evidence started to come out of the Obama/CIA/FBI/DOJ coup attempt against candidate Trump and then President Trump—and any moderately intelligent and objective observer knows that the evidence has continued accumulating and is now overwhelming and irrefutable in establishing the complete corruption and dishonesty of a federal government totally weaponized against the incumbent’s political opponents and under the direction of Barack Obama—then, yeah, Peggy, I have gone from cautious tolerance of President Trump to a 1,000% Trump supporter; I despise the ruling class behavior of both parties in DC; I respect President Trump as a fighter and disrupter of an absolutely rotten, entrenched elite and I don’t care what he tweets in furtherance of calling these people out. And I will join tens of millions of Americans in massive outrage if the House dares to use Coup Hoax 2.0 to vote for impeachment and/or the Senate votes for conviction and removal.”

    I feel the same way about the “rotten, entrenched elite”, about NeverTrumpers like Peggy Noonan, Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, John Kasich, George Will, etc. The article lists a lot of things done by obama, Democrats and the msm that the author resents. If you replace the word resent with hated it gets closer to how I felt during obama’s reign/imposition of leftism unchallenged. God forgive me! If the impeachment and removal of President Trump ever happens then those involved will reap the whirlwind of the unspeakable and deservedly so! Godspeed President Trump!

    Liked by 5 people

  12. linda4298 says:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/mitt-is-done-liked-tweets-from-mitt-romneys-secret-pierre-delecto-twitter-page-show-man-obsessed-with-trump MITT IS DONE! — ‘Liked’ Tweets from Mitt Romney’s Secret “Pierre Delecto” Twitter Page Show Man Obsessed with Trump Hatred and Leading GOP Resistance

    Liked by 1 person

  13. freespeechfanatic says:

    Mulvaney is an incontinent communicator and should be sidelined immediately. The real issue however is why in God’s name are we still going on these programs in good faith with the expectation of a fair hearing? Are we learning impaired? If we’re not going on as gladitaors or Ninja assassins, with full and total intent to leave them bleeding on the floor, we have no business calling ourselves patriots.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Bigly says:

      Agree , in part, free speech.

      Mulvaney is not what is needed.

      Rudy , Bannon and Stephen Miller fight , would have creamed Wallace on his – talked with popular GOP Senator and he says trump sucks!

      Mulvaney needed to attack, instead he responded “that’s not true”

      Hurts trump. Sideline Mulvaney , hire a pit bull. Stop accepting their premise – make them read the actual transcript….but I digress. It’s harder than it looks, but geez! Trump needs pit bulls. He can’t do it all himself.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sherri Young says:

        Actually, I was happy to hear him bring up the fact that the media ran with the false narrative re the content of PDJT’s telephone conversation and never apologized. I would have preferred that Mulvaney has used that only as a starting point to make it personal and begin a line of questioning vs. Wallace. Just plow into that tool and leave him bleeding.

        It is time for Stephen Miller to fill in at the last minute and devastate these clowns.

        Liked by 3 people

    • I don’t understand why POTUS selected Mulvaney to do that press conference. You normally don’t put your chief of staff out there like that…not his job. Anyway, he did a not so good job. I hate to say terrible, but …well…

      Liked by 1 person

    • donnahaddock4224 says:



    • annieoakley says:

      Mr. Mulvaney is fine. The press people need an intervention. “people say” is their only source. CNN wishes he would die. Zucker is jealous, Romney is too. They act like jilted teenage girls fighting over a boy. Pathetic

      Liked by 4 people

    • listingstarboard says:

      Incontinent? I think you mean incompetent.


    • auscitizenmom says:

      Hear, hear! “, with full and total intent to leave them bleeding on the floor,”


  14. Troublemaker10 says:


  15. StanH says:

    Oh itty bitty Mitty you’re such a weasel. Being a corporate raider is not as lucrative as it once was? Perhaps with President Trump running things your Brick & Mortar assets are draining your wealth. Somethings got your magic underwear crawling.

    Perhaps they’ve got pictures of Mitt on orgy island? Deep State rolled him up real fast when he embarrassed Barry in the 1st debate in the 2012 election. You can imagine his train of thought” “Hmmm…If I win the presidency they let the pictures of me diddling children out to the media, and they love their Barry and the news actors across the land will go 24/7 with the photos. If I roll over, Barry hates America, I’m okay with that, and Bain Capital can make some real coin pilfering American Companies, heads I win tails you lose.Hmmm…Honey! No need to put the dog on the roof of the car we’re not moving.”

    The rest is history.


  16. jimboct says:

    Keep in mind that tulsi has been picked up for season two of the DNC Schiff show. She did a stellar job of knocking out Harris so the dnc has engaged her services to keep Hillary out of the race. Once tulsi does her job, she will disappear faster than a virgin on Epstein’s island with bill Clinton as a sleep over guest.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. wisdell says:

    Off topic, please excuse me…. but both my iPad and my husband’s using Safari just closed The Treehouse and will not load it again. It even removed the icon from my favorites… anyone else have this problem?


  18. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 9 people

  19. Lulu says:

    Great exposition of cold anger – and great list to share with friends/acquaintances of the corruption in the swamp.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 9 people

  21. When is Steve Hinton’s show on FOX? POTUS posts clips on is twitter and they are always really good.


  22. Robster says:

    My head hurts after listening to this interview. I can only conclude that Tulsi Gabbard is the ultimate swamp dweller. Ran for the state legislature at 21yrs of age and been in politics since then. Uses 50 words when 3 would suffice. Cannot give a straight or coherent answer.

    She is clearly not decisive or a leader. Under pressure she would cry, ‘forward march to the rear and the front rank died’. (apologies to Pink Floyd)

    This is her discussing the troop withdrawal from Syria. I have no idea, nor does she, if she would keep troops there or not.

    CU: What’s your read on the cease fire?

    TG: It’s bizarre, honestly, it’s bizarre because the United States and certainly not Donald Trump, they don’t own Syria and so they’ve made this agreement and so the United States is going to go in and give this piece of territory that’s within the country of Syria to Turkey when it’s really not ours to give. This is up to the Syrians, this is up to the Syrian Kurds whether they’re going to fight to protect their territory or whether or not they’re going to protect their territory or surrender to Turkey. It’s not up to us at all. When you really think about this, this would be like if Syria went in and said okay Mexico we’re going to give you California or if the United States said okay China we’re going to give you Okinowa. It’s, it’s crazy.

    CU: Pretty stark though, when you have a hundred to a hundred and fifty American service members there on a line essentially, they pull back and suddenly we see chaos erupt, blood shed, our adversaries empowered, ISIS prisoners running free. How does this square? I mean, you want to end these regime change wars as you call them.

    TG: Absolutely

    CU: As I said, it’s stark when something like that happens and you see this small number of Americans and the difference that makes. Is it not a risk there, if we leave that small footprint, to be able to stop something like that happening isn’t that worth it in some way?

    TG: Well we’ve got to be clear on a few things. First of all, how and why did this occur. December of 2018 Donald Trump puts out a tweet saying he wants to bring our troops home. I agreed with him at the time and I said we need to bring our troops home as quickly as possible but it must be done in a responsible way. Our troops are there to assist and train and equip Syrian Kurds and others on the ground to fight against ISIS, that was the mission that they were authorized to go to Syria for and that’s what they were doing, working with the Syrian Kurds. Rather than actually ensuring our troops could withdraw in a responsible way what Donald Trump did was this hasty pullback of moving our troops back from the Northern border allowing Turkey to go in and begin this ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Kurds. Every step of the way Trump and his administration were lying to Syrian Kurds saying, we’re going to be here for you, we’re going to protect you, support you, provide you what you need. Preventing them from going in and getting the kinds of security agreements and having the negotiations and reconciliation with the Syrian government so that they could actually form a common defense on that Northern border against Turkish invasion. So I think we’ve got to be very clear on why we are in this situation and how this beginning of a genocide against the Syrian Kurds is just another negative consequence of the regime change war that we’ve been waging in Syria since 2011.

    CU: If America leaves a vacuum behind we often see people like Vladimir Putin Russia, in other areas of the world, China step in who don’t share our values. So, if we are going to, under a President Gabbard, reduce our American global military footprint how do you ensure those aren’t the players that are moving in and exerting influence in those areas?

    TG: Again, I think that we have to look at the world that exists, not the one that we wish existed. When we look at Syria, Syria had long as a country been allied with Russia. They have not long been allies with the United States. So unless we were advocating for a permanent military presence in a country that has not welcomed that presence and has actually rejected it, we’ve just got to be honest about why are our troops actually there. So we’ve got to make decisions whether it’s in places like Syria or other parts of the world, first asking that question, what is our objective, how will it best serve the interest of our country, our national security and the American people. I do not advocate for being isolationalists. We have to engage and we will continue to engage with other countries in the world under a Gabbard Presidency but we will stop this madness of trying to be the world’s police, going in and trying to topple dictators we don’t like in other countries. Needlessly costing us more American lives and costing us more American taxpayer dollars that are really needed desperately to serve the people right here at home.

    Dear goodness, she makes my head hurt. Will she keep our troops there or not? A typical politician word salad answer. She has no substance.


    • bofh says:

      That really is a whole lot of nonsense from Gabbard. Sadly, it’s much easier to get your mind right about her if you imagine her with a face and voice like Nanzi or HRC or DWS…


    • the small number of Americans
      I wonder if it would seem so small if her father or brother were one of those “small number”. I really hate (despise) politicians that refer to our most valued treasure as if our fighters are play things on a game board. They are real people with real lives and real families. Aarrgghh. PDJT is the first politician I’ve ever heard that says NO, every single one of our soldiers is valuable. Every single one.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Elle says:

      Here is what I think. FIrst I have some street cred because I predicted years ago that Tulsi would be the pre-selected Globalist candidate. It was the picture of her surfing that gave it away. She’s like a Dukakis or a John Edwards. Attractive air-head that someone in a smokey room groomed to run.

      So I think that Hillary may have outed her for her own benefit. I suppose that Clinton is just nuttier than a rum soaked fruitcake, but I don’t think Clinton is stupid or should be underestimated. Her machine is still strong.

      When I say outed her, I don’t mean Tulsi is a Russian asset, I mean outed in the sense that I think that “they” wanted to keep Gabbard out of the limelight for as long as possible because she’s just not that smart or that good. I think they also wanted to keep her away from having to make stupid comments about Climate Change or impeachment that would haunt her in the general while they collected money for the DNC by putting out niche candidates that their rabid base would send money to. Once base had been shaken down, then they put in their candidate who has a chance in a general. Tulsi will pull back the non-attention paying voters and all of those who don’t want to pull the lever for Trump in important states.

      I think they wanted to wait until at least February so they could pull off the “Tulsi is a moderate charade”. Now this is where it gets fuzzy, but I wonder if Clinton (recognizing that Tulsi was becoming a real threat to her own plans to ride up the middle of the clown show and be the nominee) threw out her accusation against Gabbard to lay down the battle lines and expose that Tulsi is the candidate in time for Tulsi to be dragged through the mud before the convention.

      I think we are seeing a power struggle within the Democratic party machine. I don’t think that Clinton expected Gabbard to come back with such a damning accusation of her. I think Gabbard was full of herself and her support and she went off script. It was such a stupid novice move on Gabbard’s part. It was so damning it can’t be walked back on either side. Gabbard needs the Clinton and far left voters and she just threatened their sense of personal superiority over the stupid Deplorables. If Clinton is evil, then they were stupid not to see it earlier. It was suicide to call out Clinton like that. No, I don’t mean actual suicide, though I don’t think it was particularly smart to anger a woman like Clinton. I mean political suicide.

      Now, some say Gabbard’s role might be that of a 3rd party spoiler. And that’s possible. I noticed on Meet the Press that they gave Butti some good statesman airtime on Sunday.. Warren can’t win. Biden’s out. Gabby goes off script. The rest of them are a cartoonish smorgasbord of liberal fundraising issues. Or maybe the DNC knows they can’t beat Trump so they fund raise off the base and then fund raise off the middle and then get voters to show up at the polls for the House and Senate candidates across the country. Who knows?

      Just because Democratic votes don’t want Hillary to run doesn’t mean that Hillary doesn’t intend to run or that she doesn’t have the machine to give the DNC lots of trouble if they try to keep her out.

      gag…I need to get a life.


  23. Reserved55 says:

    Whistle Leaker.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. sunnyflower5 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  25. sunnyflower5 says:

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Little Berkeley Conservative says:

    The hills are alive with Pierre Delecto!

    Glad I don’t have a stripper name fake twit account or it’d be Snooki Biscayne!

    Liked by 2 people

  27. sunnyflower5 says:

    Fox News has been shrilling for Tulsi all morning because of Hillary. 👌


  28. Reserved55 says:

    It’ll work this time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • k4jjj says:

      No. Removing President Trump does not remove the tens of millions solidly behind him. He has begun an uprising that will push on LONG after he finishes his second term. Those who think this is about one man are fools. Millions now see the solid success of Donald Trump’s approach.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mike Robinson says:

      No, ultimately this will result in a legal challenge – that “Lawfare is Wrong” and they always were. These attorneys have fattened their wallets at public expense telling Congressmen that the law and the Constitution are “whatever they want it to be,” but it isn’t.

      The Founders perfectly well knew that the Legislature could stage a palace coup. They therefore required a crime. This time, there isn’t one. At all.


  29. Mitt, he was no dynamo.
    His nick? Obama-lite.
    Now he’s gone and fit himself
    with MIC-lit dynamite.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. youme says:


    • sunnyflower5 says:

      If anyone can find Fox’s Pete Doocy’s video of questioning Joe Biden early on in his campaign— its pure gold. Joe Biden went on and on and on about not having any income while he campaigns. He describes fixing up his homes and building his dream beach – in preparation for running.


  31. sunnyflower5 says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Blue Wildflower says:

      As soon as I heard about Doral, I knew they would go insane as I am sure President Trump also knew. This is a wonderful trap, he is so much smarter than me I do not know what he is trapping, but I am sure it is something I will like.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Reserved55 says:

    PsychoJo and the rest of Pravda are the Kingpins of the coup.

    Another Nervous Nancy.


  33. Reserved55 says:

    “President’s thinking”
    Mind readers.


  34. Sherri Young says:

    Mitt looks like a charging RINO sent out of the Bush pen to maul not only Donald J. Trump but the Trump supporters too. The old guard has lost control of the GOP. The 2020 local, then state, GOP conventions could be epic struggles.

    My advice? Get involved at the local level. Volunteer to be an election poll worker. Finding enough workers is always a challenge. Those appointments are easy pickings. Having done such work gives you the creds to attend your GOP precinct convention and stand for election to the next level. After that, try to advance to the state convention level. That is where the national electors are chosen from the congressional district delegations.

    If the Dimms are smart, they will try to widen the cracks among voters who at least lean Republican. They will vigorously try to establish two camps — Trump and Never-Trump. It appears that is what is going on right now, doesn’t it?

    Mitt must be marginalized right now.


    Liked by 2 people

  35. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 3 people

  36. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 2 people

    • bofh says:

      What are the contents of the QR codes? I don’t have a scanner handy.

      “People of good conscience” huh? Is that the newspeak aphorism-of-the-week?


  38. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 5 people

  39. Zorro says:

    So people in Utah think that Willard Pierre Romney might be the fulfillment of the White Horse prophecy when he is really only the White Horse’s ass.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. burnett044 says:

    getting on the Tulsi band wagon is sort of like a drunk sailor picking up an attractive whore with the clap……
    it may feel good at first but later ya gonna be dripping….and peeing barb-wire..

    Liked by 2 people

  41. Linda K. says:

    Victor David Hansen on why the Establishment hates Trump. Are you listening Pierre Delecto?

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Reserved55 says:

    RepubliCon CONservatives.


  43. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 3 people

  44. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      Liked by 1 person

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      Liked by 1 person

    • Shelley Childs says:

      The only reason I voted for him was I thought, hey, maybe getting a businessman in there means that someone will finally balance the books.

      Yes, but not THAT businessman…


  45. CM-TX says:

    What Pelosi’s recent threat meant?

    (c/o https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/dky7z0/republicans_in_the_congress_should_be_asked_why/ )

    The problem with this plan– like so many before it… these morons are totally incapable of seeing past any self-serving objective to consider the consequences of their actions. Never-mind their inability to anticipate any obstacles arising in getting there. This is why their “plans” so often FAIL.


  46. sDee says:

    “a source familiar with the President’s thinking”

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Deplore Able says:

    I would call Mitt Romney (aka Pierre Delecto) a traitor, but that might not be fair to Benedict Arnold.

    Liked by 2 people

    • TwoLaine says:

      Coward. Yellowbelly. Idiot. Worthless. Delusional.

      He is every bit as bad as ILLary with their TDS! Two AAA SORE LOOSERS. (Yes, that was intentional.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s