Impeach Obama?!  Adam Schiff said he would have done it?!

According to Brie Stimson of Fox News. “[Adam] Schiff says Obama would have been impeached if he asked Russia to investigate Mitt Romney.”

Excuse me, but I’m a little “verklempt” at the moment.

Okay, Adam…, I think we’ve had enough.

I mean…, granted…, none of us expect politicians to be complete honest all of the time…, but with you, these out and out lies are coming at us on a daily basis now!

aimpobama 1

And with a complicit media, no one calls you on anything, which seemingly gives your lies a level of credibility.

It’s really quite sad.

aimpobama 16

If anyone out there believes Adam Schiff and the democrats would have impeached President Barack Obama for ANY reason, please raise your hand.

Okay…, now if you have your hand raised, smack yourself in the face with it to wake yourself up!

If that didn’t help, smack yourself again.

In fact, keep smacking yourself until you come to your senses and realize I’m right.

aimpobama 22

This whole potential scenario was raised by an Impeachment question submitted by one of the Senators: “Would Obama hypothetically have had the authority to seek investigation of Romney’s son?”

aimpobama 3

“House manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Wednesday said former President Obama would have been impeached if he had done what President Trump has been charged with in the first article of impeachment.”

The Presidents defense team and “shifty” Schiff also “… referenced the time President Obama was caught on a hot mic in 2012 telling former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have more ‘flexibility’ after his re-election.”

aimpobama 12

aimpobama 13

aimpobama 15

And maybe I’m missing something…, but what about the whole issue of the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign in 2015 and the Trump administration in 2016?

aimpobama 19

aimpobama 17

Obama

aimpobama 23

Just sayin’.

So please…, don’t even go there, Mr. Schiff.

aimpobama 8

aimpobama 6

We know you think your supporters are gullible enough to swallow what you’re feeding them…, and we know you think President Trump’s supporters are ignorant hillbillies…, but we’re not ignorant…, we just have our eyes wide open and we see you for what you are…, just a plain old socialist, anti-American, Trump hating liar.

aimpobama 24

WINNING!

aimpobama 11

aimpobama 10

aimpobama 5

aimpobama 7

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Impeachment! According to the memes.   

As the fraudulent impeachment proceedings are hopefully winding down, I would like to share my collection of impeachment memes that I found particularly entertaining and/or particularly enlightening.

Just to recap:

“Meme” is pronounced [MEEM], and rhymes with “seem,” if you’re not familiar with the term.

A “meme” is a humorous image that is copied and enhanced (often with the addition of a message, joke, or saying) and spread rapidly by Internet users.  I’m sure you saw them before you even knew there was a special name for them.  I know I did.

Well, anyway…, bring on the memes!

Enjoy.

aimp 13

aimp 1

aimp 11

aimp 9

aimp 15

aimp 10

aimp 8

Who you callin’ crazy, cuckoo birds?!

aimp 6

aimp 7

aimp 16

aimp 14

aimp 12

aimp 4

aimp 2

aimp 3

Ha!

I hope you enjoyed this collection of memes!

Now let’s hope our senators put this impeachment hoax to rest and get back to taking care of The Peoples’ business.

 

“A day without laughter is a day wasted.” –  Charlie Chaplin

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Can these democrat presidential candidates, who are Senators, really be impartial jurors in the impeachment trial of President Trump?

At the start of the impeachment proceeding in The Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts administered an oath to all 100 senators as they swore to “do impartial justice” during President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

Every senator solemnly swore “that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

I’m sorry…, but what a bunch of liars!

And they swore to GOD to top it off!

ajurors 6

Be that as it may…, I’m specifically referring to the democrat senators who are currently presidential candidates…, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

ajurors 2

By definition they are all opponents of President Trump, and they all have taken President Trump’s name in vain on a daily basis.

These three really expect us to believe they are able to “do impartial justice” where President Trump is concerned?

If these three had any honor or decency, they would recuse themselves from the impeachment trial and any Senate impeachment vote.

Wouldn’t that seem proper and reasonable?

The only problem being, we shouldn’t expect any of these three to behave properly or reasonably.

Not to mention the rest of the impeachment crazed democrats.

ajurors 3

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

The democrats are clueless about impeachment, clueless about economics, and just clueless in general.

According to Julia Musto of Fox News, “House Democrats don’t care about the needs of the American people because their hatred for President Trump is blinding, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Friday.”

“Appearing on ‘Fox & Friends’ with hosts Pete Hegseth, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade, Limbaugh said that Democrats have ‘sacrificed every bit of concern for the American people’ in their efforts to impeach the president.”

aimpeach2 1

So, they really have sacrificed nothing!

“On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Democrats will proceed with articles of impeachment against President Trump, declaring that the president’s conduct ‘leaves us no choice but to act.’”

Bawahaha!

You mean your hate for The President “leaves you no choice but to act.”

aimpeach2 4

“Her announcement comes after a heated House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday featuring four law professors — most of them notably Democrat-invited witnesses who presented arguments for impeachment.”

aimpeach2 5

“Pelosi claimed the facts are now ‘uncontested’ that Trump ‘abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security’ by allegedly using aid as leverage to seek an investigation of Joe Biden and his son Hunter from Ukraine.

aimpeach2 3

Excuse me, but Mrs. Pelosi wouldn’t recognize a fact if she tripped over it!

It’s also very hard to contest “facts” that don’t exist.

And the only “abuse of power” here is the congressional democrats trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election by promoting their impeachment fairytale…, which changes its focus every other day.

“However, the Trump administration and Republicans say the president did nothing wrong.”

“Trump accused Democrats of trying to impeach him over ‘NOTHING’ and warned that this impeachment could set a dangerous precedent in the future. Limbaugh said Democrats are motivated by one thing — hatred of Trump.”

‘“Democrats are wandering aimlessly and being propelled by one thing, you guys. You’re watching it. You watched it with the three so-called expert [Constitutional law] witnesses. We are watching pure, raw, hatred. They hate the man and they hate the people who elected him. They hate him because he beat them,’ Limbaugh explained.”

Actually, Rush, they don’t hate President Trump because he beat them.  They hate President Trump because he won’t play along with their “swampy” game.

They hate him because he’s not part of “the political establishment club.”

They hate him because he’s putting America and her people first and not them.

They hate him because he’s costing them and their friends’ money.

They hate him because he’s after the truth and not covering up the truth.

aimpeach2 7

“He [Rush Limbaugh] told the ‘Friends’ hosts that Democrats have ‘not a shred of evidence for any allegation they have made for three-and-a-half, going on four years’ and that Pelosi and her leadership are ‘almost sickeningly absorbed with destroying Donald Trump.’”

aimpeach2 6

‘“Meanwhile, Trump keeps plugging away. The economy is roaring, its future looks great, wages are up, Trump’s job approval numbers are up…The Democrat Party does not care about the things the American people [care] about,’ he said.”

aimpeach2 8

“On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the United States added a staggering 266,000 jobs in November with unemployment down to 3.5 percent — a 50-year low.”

Not to mention a 3.1% growth in wages.

That is huge.

Wages had been frozen or in decline through all of the Bush and Obama years.

aimpeach2 9

The projected jobs number was 180,000, which many of these “expert” economic pundits seemed to scoff at.

I watched a couple of these “experts” who wanted to bet their co-pundits the actual number would be south of 150,000 and even lower that 90,000!

I watched others who decried an apparent weakness in the manufacturing sector, while feeling the employment numbers would come in low as well.

Then…,

BANG!

BOOM!

WHAMMO!

The numbers came out and 266,000 jobs were added in November!

266,000!

That 86,000 over the projected number!

That’s almost unheard of.

Have you ever heard the saying, “even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while?”

These “economic experts” who are employed by the fake news media must have multiple disabilities, because they can’t seem to find their own butt with both hands!

‘“If you had to give President Trump a legacy right now, [it’d be] peace and prosperity. What every voter goes to the voting booth and wants to achieve with their vote: peace and prosperity,’ said Limbaugh, applauding Trump for not starting any new wars.”

“Limbaugh said Democrats are turning to impeachment because they ‘have nothing to run on in 2020,’ given the economic success under the Trump administration.”

Well, that’s true as well, but they’re really just trying to discredit The President, while attempting to keep everyone’s attention off of all of the wrong-doing their deep state friends have been involved with, with special concern being paid to the Obama administration.

“Limbaugh cited stalling legislation including passing the United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) and lowering prescription drug prices as further evidence that Democrats are not working on behalf of the American people.”

‘“They have abandoned any pretense of any care or concern of what the American people want,’ he said. ‘After Trump wins 2020, they’ll keep going like he’s John Gotti. So people better get ready for this because this isn’t going to end because the Democrats are nothing but pure raw hatred.’”

aimpeach2 2

So apparently the democrats can’t “walk and chew gum at the same time,” like they said before this whole impeachment mess started.

WINNING!

aimpeach2 10

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Are the democrats ‘“whistling’ past the graveyard?”

If the democrats foolishly move the impeachment process on to the Senate for trial, here’s a list of the people I believe the republicans should call to testify and what I would like to ask them under oath, and at least get them on the record regarding some of these issues.

#1, former President, Barack Obama.

I admit this would be unprecedented and probably even a bit disrespectful…, but haven’t we moved past having to show any level of respect or decency towards an American president?  Hey…, democrats…, what goes around comes around!

aimpeach 3

That being said…, lets get on with the questioning.

President Obama…, you assigned your Vice President, Joe Biden, to handle the whole Ukraine situation while you were The President, correct?

Did you believe you were aware of what Joe Biden was doing over there with Ukraine?

Knowing what you know now, do you still feel you were aware of what Mr. Biden was doing in The Ukraine?

We never heard any comments from you at the time, but were you okay with Joe Biden’s quid pro quo arrangement regarding Ukraine’s aid money and the removal of a prosecutor?

aimpeach 4

Are you in favor of the impeachment of President Trump?

Do you feel vice president Biden should have been impeached for his behavior regarding The Ukraine?

Were you aware that Joe’s son, Hunter, was hired to sit on the board of the Ukrainian gas company named Burisma?

We never heard any comments from you at the time, but were you okay with Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a large Ukrainian company like that at the same time Mr. Biden was acting as your official emissary there?

Oh…, and while we have you here…, were you aware of Peter Strzok’s and Lisa Page’s “insurance plan” regarding Donald Trump?

And, Mr. Obama, were you aware that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign?

With all of the concern about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, why didn’t you or your administration take any action to stop it, or at least warn the candidates of the possible interference?

In summation, were you aware at any time about anything that was going on in any part of your administration, Sir?

aimpeach 5

 

#2, former Vice President, Joe Biden.

Mr. Biden…, did you say, and I quote, “I said, I’m telling you [the Ukrainian leaders and representatives], you’re not getting the billion dollars [of financial aid from the U.S.]. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.’”

When you said, and I quote, “I said, I’m telling you [the Ukrainian leaders and representatives], you’re not getting the billion dollars [of financial aid from the U.S.]. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired,’” would you consider this a “quid pro quo” type of situation?

aimpeach 6

When you said, and I quote, “I said, I’m telling you [the Ukrainian leaders and representatives], you’re not getting the billion dollars [of financial aid from the U.S.]. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired,’” was President Obama aware of what you were threatening Ukraine with here?

Were you aware that this Ukrainian prosecutor was in the process of investigating the relationship between you, your son, and his paid board appointment at Burisma?

Wouldn’t it be fair to say you had a conflict of interest in this matter in this regard?

Is it true that your son, Hunter, accompanied you more than once on official trips on Air Force Two to The Ukraine and to China?

Do you recall how many times, exactly, Hunter conveniently combined his business trips with your official trips on Air Force Two?

Mr. Biden…, do you think your son, Hunter, profited from the fact that you, his father, was the vice president of the United States regarding his board appointments in the Ukraine and with China?

aimpeach 9

Do you think your son, Hunter, would have gotten these board appointments in the Ukraine and China if you, his father, wasn’t the vice president of the United States?

aimpeach 11

What do you think your feelings would have been if President Trump’s sons had the same good fortune as Hunter?  Do you think you still would have thought there was “absolutely nothing wrong” with that situation if we were talking about the Trumps rather than the Bidens?

aimpeach 7

 

#3, son of former Vice President, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden.

Mr. Biden…, Hunter Biden that is…, between your dealings with your Chinese investment company and the Ukrainian gas company, how much money would you estimate you made?

Can you give us an example of something you feel you contributed to either of these companies during your time with them?

aimpeach 8

What were your qualifications, and why do you think these companies hired you, and actually hired John Kerry’s stepson as well?

Do you feel that it was appropriate to be employed by these foreign companies, while your father was conducting official business of The United States in these foreign countries?

Do you recall how many times, exactly, you conveniently combined your business trips with your father’s official trips on Air Force Two?

Did you ever reimburse the people of the United States for using Air Force Two as a means of business travel?

aimpeach 10

 

#4, Intelligence Committee Chairman, democrat congressman, Adam Schiff.

aimpeach 12

Mr. Schiff…, did you or your staff have any contact prior to your impeachment hearings with “the whistleblower?”

Mr. Schiff…, did you or your staff assist “the whistleblower” in crafting their complaint in any way?

Do you still insist that you did not know the identity of “the whistleblower at the time of the impeachment hearings?”

Do you now know the identity of “the whistleblower?”

 

#5, “The whistleblower.”

aimpeach 13

Did you have any political motivation for “blowing the whistle” on President Trump?

Do you believe you would have “blown the whistle” on President Obama if the situation would have been comparable back then?

aimpeach 15

Have you supported, worked for, of contributed to any prior democrat politicians?

If so, what politicians, what did you do for them, and how much did you contribute to them?

Prior to your “blowing of the whistle,” had you made any negative or critical statements, tweets, texts regarding President Trump?

aimpeach 14

If so, can you share any of these with us now, or do we have to wait until a review of your statements, tweets, texts regarding President Trump is made?

Did Congressman Schiff of his staff have any contact with you prior to the impeachment hearings?

Did Congressman Schiff or his staff assist you in crafting of your complaint in any way?

Was Congressman Schiff or his staff aware of your identity at the time of the impeachment hearings?”

Is Congressman Schiff or his staff aware of your identity now?”

 

#6, Speaker of the House, democrat congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi.

aimpeach 16

Speaker Pelosi, can you give us your definition of the word “hate?”

You have claimed that you don’t hate President Trump.  Using your own definition, do you still claim to not hate President Trump?

aimpeach 17

Do you believe your actions regarding The President are consistent with your claim that you do not “hate” the President?

You have claimed that as a Catholic you can’t hate anyone, as it is against the Church’s doctrine, is that true?

Do you support abortion Mrs. Pelosi?

Are you aware that the Catholic Church does not support abortion?

Mrs. Pelosi…, you have claimed to have prayed for President Trump when speaking to the press on numerous occasions.  How many times exactly have you said a prayer for President Trump?

 

So there you have my wish list…, and that’s really just for starters.

I could also add Hillary Clinton to the list, but she’s such an accomplished liar, there really would be no point in asking her anything.

aimpeach 2

aimpeach 1

Yes…, if the democrats are foolish enough to take this whole impeachment “hoax” to a Senate trial, I’ll be eagerly waiting for The President and the republicans to have their day in court.

WINNING!

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Where’s the “quid pro quo?”  Look at “quid pro Joe!”

ajoe 9

Now that the impeachment attempt (the coup attempt) against President Trump has failed miserably for the democrats…, what are we left with?

ajoe 8

I’m sure we’ll have a pathetic vote in Congress to still impeach the president, even though their witch hunt (part two) failed to uncover ANYTHING President Trump actually did wrong.

ajoe 12

The Senate will then dispatch the fraudulent impeachment fairy tale in short order, and the democrats will be left to concoct yet another anti-Trump fairy tale.

The democrats and their co-conspirators, the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media,” will not be getting the impeachment of The President for Christmas!

They have not been very nice, but rather quite naughty!

Quite a few democrats and fake news journalists” will be finding coal (“beautiful clean burning coal”) in their Christmas stockings this year!

I also have a feeling that the upcoming Senate hearings and the newly announced investigations by the Ukrainian government will combine to make 2020 a bad year for Joe and Hunter Biden, the democrats, and the deep state in general.

ajoe 1

It’s a wonderful life!

I’d like to refer you to my blog from November 6, 2019 titled, “This is how President Trump could destroy Joe Biden in a debate in about 5 minutes:”

https://mrericksonrules.com/2019/11/06/this-is-how-president-trump-could-destroy-joe-biden-in-a-debate-in-about-5-minutes/

ajoe 5

ajoe 4

With the Inspector General’s report dealing with FISA court abuses, and U.S. Attorney John Durham’s criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation results coming out just in time for Christmas, 2020 is shaping up to be a bad year for the democrats, which will be capped by another crushing defeat at the hands of President Trump and all of the loyalist American deplorables!

ajoe 16

ajoe 14

WINNING!!!

KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

USA! USA! USA!

ajoe 13

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

Marie Yovanovich can cry all she wants about losing her job…, a job she apparently feels entitled to, but the bottom line is…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

ayovan 4

In other words, President Trump doesn’t have to have any particular reason for replacing Ms. Yovanovich.  Maybe he didn’t like her looks.  Maybe he didn’t like her attitude.  Maybe whatever.

ayovan 8

Again…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, WHEN “SHIFTY” SCHIFF HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, “A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE.”

Alex Pappas of Fox News reported that, “Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, pointed her finger at Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani while detailing her sudden removal from her diplomatic post during Friday’s nationally-televised impeachment testimony, as President Trump fired back at the diplomat and said every place she worked ‘turned bad.’”

ayovan 3

“During her appearance, Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who served both Republican and Democratic presidents, relayed her story of being suddenly recalled by Trump in May, saying she believes Giuliani played a key role in telling people she was not sufficiently supportive of the president.”

ayovan 2

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

ayovan 6

‘“I do not understand Mr. Giuliani’s motives for attacking me, nor can I offer an opinion on whether he believed the allegations he spread about me,’ Yovanovitch said.”

Where is it written that Ms. Yovanovich must be able to understand the motives for anyone attacking her?

Perception is reality, Ms. Yovanovich.

“She argued the efforts against her by the president’s allies hindered her work.”

Again…, so what?  What’s your point?

‘“If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States,’ Yovanovitch said.”

BINGO!

You couldn’t handle your duties effectively, for whatever reason.

Perhaps this is why you were removed?

“After the hearing started, Trump began attacking her, tweeting, ‘Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.’ He added, ‘It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.’”

Again…, “Shifty” Schiff agrees with you Mr. President…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

“At the same time the hearing began Friday, the White House released a new transcript of the president’s first call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which showed Trump agreeing to meet with Ukraine’s president-elect — without preconditions — in the first official phone call between the two leaders.”

“Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., read the entire letter in his opening statement. A separate call between the two leaders ignited the impeachment inquiry, and Republicans suggested the new transcript is helpful to the president’s argument he did nothing wrong in his conversations with Zelensky.”

“Yovanovitch’s removal is one of several events at the center of the impeachment effort.”

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO AGAIN, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

‘“These events should concern everyone in this room,’ Yovanovitch said in her opening remarks. ‘Shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American ambassador who does not give them what they want.’”

ayovan 5

Again…,

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO AGAIN, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

“Democrats have worked to connect the circumstances of Yovanovitch’s ouster to Trump’s alleged pressure campaign to enlist Zelensky in the effort to damage 2020 rival Joe Biden.”

“SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  AND THAT IS TRUE,” Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said.

SO AGAIN, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!

“The question before us is not whether Donald Trump could recall an American ambassador with a stellar reputation for fighting corruption in Ukraine, but why would he want to?”

Does it matter?

If you believe that, “A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS, AND THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT,” the “why” is irrelevant.

“It’s unfortunate that today, and for most of next week, we will continue engaging in the Democrats’ day-long TV spectacles instead of solving the problems we were all sent to Washington to address,” Nunes said.

In particular, Yovanovitch and others have described Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, as leading what one called an “irregular channel” outside the diplomatic mainstream of U.S.-Ukraine relations.

Giuliani and others had claimed Yovanovitch was not supportive of the president and that she had criticized him to others. Trump, in a conversation with Zelensky, referred to her as “bad news.”

Asked on Friday what she thought of those comments from Trump, she said, “I couldn’t believe it. Shocked appalled. Devastated.”

“Schiff claimed Friday she was ‘too tough on corruption for some, and her principled stance made her enemies’ and it became clear Trump ‘wanted her gone.’”

Like they would say in a real court, “Objection, your honor, that’s an opinion,” and the judge would say, “Sustained,” meaning it isn’t admissible.

Yovanovich is just another liberal tool who is confused about where her loyalty should lay.

“Lawmakers, as they have in previous meetings, on Friday clashed with each other over procedure. Before the testimony began Friday, Schiff shut down New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik after Stefanik asked if he would “continue to prohibit witnesses from answering Republican questions.” Schiff said it wasn’t a ‘proper’ point of order, and then declined to recognize Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan who also tried to raise a parliamentary question.”

ayovan 10

Such is life in the “People’s Republic of The Liberal Swamp!”

ayovan 9

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

What do you call government employees who are working against our president?

Un-American?

Anti-American?

Treasonous?

How about traitors?

During this whole impeachment “inquiry” process, I find it amazing to see how brazenly political and unapologetic these unelected government workers are in their opposition to our president, President Donald J. Trump.

aemps 4

Disagreeing with the policies of our president is one thing, but disregarding his wishes, plotting resistance to him behind his back and generally trying to impede his progress is treasonous in my mind.

aemps 3

These government employees are quite mistaken if they think they are acting in the best interests of our country.

aemps 10

They were not elected by anyone.

President Trump was elected by the people to represent us and do what he thinks is in the best interests of our country.

If anyone is working against him, they are working against us and the country.

They are by definition committing treason and should be charged as such.

Merely losing their jobs should go without saying.

According to Charles Creitz of Fox News, “White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham slammed the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry Wednesday, suggesting that Foreign Service officials should resign if unprepared to carry out orders based on President Trump’s constitutionally recognized powers.”

“Grisham told ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host Tucker Carlson he was correct when he claimed a number of State Department officials did not seem on board with Trump’s brand of foreign policy.”

‘“There is no reason that anybody in our government across our administration should be actively working against the president, especially a president that is doing so well for the country,’ Grisham said.”

“In response, Carlson said his interpretation of the Constitution tells him that ‘legitimacy comes from votes’ in a democracy, so the president, as elected head-of-state, has the power to determine foreign policy.”

‘“Aren’t they constitutionally bound to carry out the foreign policy of the president?’ he asked of Foreign Service officials.”

‘“Absolutely,’ Grisham replied. ‘If they aren’t ready to do that then they need to resign.  It’s as simple as that.’”

Like I said before, it’s not “as simple as that.”  These people need to be held accountable for their treasonous actions.

“In addition, Grisham ripped a Chicago Democratic lawmaker who interrogated witnesses at Wednesday’s impeachment hearing.”

“Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., claimed ‘hearsay’ evidence is sometimes more important than direct evidence.”

‘“A primer on hearsay: I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay, because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay,’ he said, in an apparent reference to Republicans’ comments that witnesses George Kent and William Taylor Jr. did not have first-hand knowledge of Trump’s Ukraine phone call.”

aemps 1

I would argue they didn’t have much “knowledge” in general.

“Quigley continued: ‘Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances.’”

aemps 11

“Grisham dismissed the claim, telling Carlson, ‘I don’t know how that’s even possible.’”

In response, all I can say is, “Mr. Quigley…, a friend of one my friends claims to have heard one of your staffers admit that you confessed to being an idiot.”

Now there’s some hearsay I may be inclined to believe!

‘“Today was a joke [referring to the impeachment inquiry hearing],’ she [Grisham] added. ‘It was all a sham.’”

I would tend to agree Ms. Grisham.

aemps 5

What we had was a political circus, with a main event, complete with liberal clowns, however, the “stars of the show” were a real flop and not as good as they were billed to be.

aemps 8

aemps 7

The next “star” appearing in the center ring is Marie Yovanovich, who was ousted from her post (former US Ambassador to Ukraine) back in April, so she wasn’t around for many of the key events of this “impeachment fairy tale,.” but she is apparently willing to bash the president and bombard us with more opinion and hearsay.

aemps 2

WINNING!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

The “liberal lexicon” according to MrEricksonRules.

When we listen to democrats, it is important to really understand what they’re saying and what they mean.

alex 11

alex 5

Feel free to use my “liberal lexicon” to aid you in your understanding of our deceptive and deceitful opposition.

 

African-Americans = fools we assume will vote for us no matter what

Anonymous source = I just made this up

Bipartisan = when there are enough stupid republicans to go along with the democrats on an issue or a law

Border Patrol = people who impede probable democrat voters from coming to America

Collusion = an act of inappropriate cooperation that can only be performed by a conservative

The Constitution = that annoying document that stops us from doing what we really want to do

Democracy = socialism

Democrat = anti-American socialist

The Democrat party = elite white liberals who put up with minorities in order to get elected

Election = an opportunity to hijack governmental power

Evidence = a desire to push a false narrative

The Founding Fathers = the racists who created our country

Free = paid for with other people’s money

Freedom of religion = free to be anything other than a Christian

Freedom of speech = speech which liberals deem appropriate

Freedom of the press = freedom to lie for a “good” reason

The Government = the people who know what’s better for you than you do

Greed = a selfish desire for something, which can only be associated with capitalism and/or conservatives

Higher education = liberal indoctrination

Hispanic-Americans = referring only to the unemployed or illegal Hispanics

Invest = redistribute wealth

Law abiding people = neo-nazis

Liberals = socialist wannabes

Liberalism = fascism

Mainstream media = the propaganda arm of the democrat party

Misremembered = conveniently forgot or lied

Misspoke = lied

The National Anthem = Conservatives’ racist/imperialistic theme song

“Our conservative friends” = “Our mortal enemies”

Patriots = “deep state” and “establishment” “tools” who put their party before the country

The Pledge of Allegiance = the pledge of right-wing, globalist enemies

The Police = annoying people who harass our illegal potential voters

Polls = fabricated statistics used to support a desired outcome

Poverty level = the level democrats desire all people to be at or below

Racist = anyone who doesn’t agree with me

Raising awareness = propaganda regarding a narrative

Recollection = a self-serving and manufactured memory

Refugees = probable future democrat voters

Safe zone = constitutional rights free zone

Sanctuary = area free of laws

Scandal = an inappropriate or illegal action which is attempted to be covered-up, but which can only be associated with a conservative or a conservative administration.

Taken out of context = you heard it or read it correctly

“The rich” = anyone with a job or retired from a job

Undocumented immigrants = probable future democrat voters

Unethical – that which is deemed unethical exclusively by the democrat party.  Democrats are incapable of unethical behavior.

The United States military = Imperialist American Forces

Watchdog = liberal activist

Whistleblower = unaccountable co-conspirator

White supremacist = any white person who isn’t a liberal

 

I hope this “liberal lexicon” helps make democrat-speak a little more understandable for you in the future.

If you have any other terms that you’d like to suggest for my liberal lexicon, please drop me a line!

alex 13

alex 9

alex 10

alex 2

alex 3

alex 18

alex 14

alex 15

alex 12

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑