LA-HOO-ZA-HERS!

It was a satisfying view, watching the House impeachment managers parade out of the senate, after having been denied an illegitimate impeachment…, again.  

See ya, losers!

Don’t let the senate doors hit you in the backside on the way out!

What we saw from these legal imposters was the disregard of constitutional law, a continual stream of lies, the manipulation of senate and basic trial procedures, and the doctoring of evidence.

Yes…, the doctoring of evidence!

Are these democrats capable of doing anything above board, while playing by the rules?

It seems like that is too much to ask from them.

Yes…, they doctored evidence, which has been completely dismissed now.

Ya…, they tried manipulating evidence, but it didn’t work, so, …  

And then there’s the whole witness debacle.

They hold a vote of the senators, to decide whether witnesses should be allowed, or not…, requested by the democrat House managers…, the senate votes in favor of allowing witnesses…, but then the democrat senators, the RINO republicans, and the House Congressional leadership Nancy Pelosi), realized the Pandora’s box they just opened, and who would be required to testify by the republicans…, like Nancy herself, Mitch McConnell, and the FBI, to tell us all what they knew ahead of the capitol riot, and why they chose not to address security concerns…, and they quickly brokered a deal with republicans to ignore the prior vote and dispense with having any witnesses called.

Ha!

What a joke?!

What an illegitimate circus this whole “trial” was!

Let’s take a moment to remember these House impeachment managers, and give them their due.

According to Clare Foran, Janie Boschma and Curt Merrill of CNN, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named nine Democrats to serve as impeachment managers, a role that called on them to make the case against [former President] Trump during the trial.”

“The group of Democrats included a number of top Pelosi allies. Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, an expert in constitutional law, served as the lead manager.”

Loser #1, “Jamie Raskin, lead manager, from Maryland’s 8th District.  Serving in the House for a third term, since 2017.  Committees: Oversight and Reform, Judiciary, Rules, House Administration, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.  Pelosi chose Raskin to lead the nine impeachment managers. Raskin was a professor of constitutional law at American University for more than 25 years before taking office in the House in 2017. He also served as assistant attorney general of Massachusetts from 1987-89.”

So, Raskin was a professor of constitutional law for more than 25 years?!

Who’s constitution?

I mean, either he was studying some other country’s constitution, or he can’t read or understand English!

I wonder how many students he infected with his stupidness?

Loser #2, “Joaquin Castro, Texas’ 20th District.  Serving in the House for a fifth term, since 2013.  Committees: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Education and Labor.  Castro was a litigator in a private law practice before joining Congress in 2013. He chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during the 116th Congress through 2020.”

Mr. Castro was the token Hispanic of the group.  

Loser #3, “David Cicilline, Rhode Island’s 1st District.  Serving in the House for a sixth term, since 2011.  Committees: Judiciary, Foreign Affairs.  Cicilline is a former public defender and former mayor of Providence. He chairs the antitrust subcommittee on the House Judiciary committee.”

Just your typical democrat turd who didn’t have anything else going on. Does Rhode Island have more than one district?

Loser #4, “Madeleine Dean, Pennsylvania’s 4th District, Serving in the House for a second term, since 2019.  Committees: Judiciary, Financial Services.  Dean is a former executive director of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association and later started a three-woman law firm outside of Philadelphia.”

Token female of the group and typical democrat turd who didn’t have anything else going on. Also, supposedly knows something about the law.

Loser #5 “Diana DeGette, Colorado’s 1st District.  Serving in the House for a 13th term, since 1997.  Committees: Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources.  Before her election to Congress, DeGette was an attorney in the Denver area. DeGette served in House leadership as a chief deputy whip for seven terms until 2019. She is the chair of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce committee.”

Second token female of the group and typical democrat turd who didn’t have anything else going on.  13 terms in Congress?  Boy, the people in her district have been dumb for quite a long time.

Loser #6, “Ted Lieu, California’s 33rd District.  Serving in the House for a fourth term, since 2015.  Committees: Judiciary, Foreign Affairs.  Lieu is a former active-duty officer in the US Air Force and a former prosecutor in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He still serves as a colonel in the US Air Force Reserves. Before his election to Congress, Lieu was also a judicial clerk for the US Court of Appeals. He is a co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.”

Mr. Lieu is the token Asian of the group. Did you ever wonder why there aren’t any funny shows about Asian families?

Loser #7, “Joe Neguse, Colorado’s 2nd District.  Serving in the House for a second term, since 2019.  Committees: Judiciary, Natural Resources, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.  Neguse is a former litigator in a private practice. The son of immigrants from Eritrea, Neguse is the first Eritrean-American member of Congress and the first African-American to represent Colorado in the House. He co-chairs the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.”

Mr. Neguse is the token African American male.  And where the hell is Eritrea?  Never heard of it. I’m sure I haven’t been missing much.

Loser #8, “Stacey Plaskett, Virgin Islands’ At-Large District, Serving in the House for a fourth term, since 2015.  Committees: Ways and Means, Budget, Agriculture.  Before her election to Congress, Plaskett served as assistant district attorney for the Bronx District Attorney’s Office and as senior counsel at the Department of Justice. She was also general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.”

Ms. Plaskett is the group’s token African American female, and resident racist extraordinaire.  I didn’t even know that the Virgin Islands’ At-Large District was a thing.  Were all the rest of the available racist democrats, which would be all of them, busy that week?  

And last, but certainly not least, loser #9, “Eric ‘shagwell’ Swalwell, California’s 15th District, Serving in the House for a fifth term, since 2013, Committees: Judiciary, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security.  Swalwell is a former prosecutor and former deputy district attorney for the Alameda County District Attorney in California. He is a co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.”

Swalwell is also a former sex toy for a Chinese spy. Phang Phang got info for bang bang!  

Let’s give them all a hand for being such a bunch of disingenuous, ignorant, pathetic losers!

Final score, President Trump 2, Democrat Nazis 0.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

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.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑