Trump Consciousness

The Impeachment may pass in the House, because that vote is nothing but a monkey trial, ad populum contest.

Caveat: In determining whether or not the investigations were REAL prior to the call (the critical path issue at hand) - the government must turn over all material regarding the investigations themselves highlighted below - this is a backfire mechanism. Because if the investigations are real - then DNC tampering with the 2016 primary (bullet point 1) and election (bullet point 2) is a REAL THING...

This is a Catch 22 for the accusers, and really brings into question whether they are being played by someone using this to blow open the 2016 primary and election tampering cases.

What is the CIA up to?

Some have speculated the political theater is merely to keep the public distracted from issues that matter.

Others that this is "struggle between the agents of America’s Democratic Party billionaires versus those of its Republican Party billionaires "
https://thesaker.is/here-is-the-dir...im-hidden-by-rampant-falsehoods-in-the-press/

I will shed no tears for Biden as he is just more of the status quo corruption.

My irrational intuition is that Trump is a stepping stone to get to a Pence presidency, but I have no definitive evidence.
 
Hispanic Voters At The White House Chant “Four More Years! Four More Years!”

They don't believe the anti-Trump propaganda or the mainstream media's selective editing, they know Trump is not a racist.

 
Last edited:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...histleblower-and-is-connected-to-obama-video/

"Former CIA Whistleblower Kevin Shipp: The Partisan CIA “Leaker” Is No “Whistleblower” and Is Connected to Obama"


Kevin Shipp: If you read the statement it’s based on absolutely nothing but hearsay and terrible accusations against the President of the United States that are not substantiated by anything. In the statement, the so-called whistleblower, says 12 times that he had no direct evidence to what he was saying and 18 times that he overheard the evidence from “several US government officials” never mentioning their name or their identities at all. And, as you know, if this was a court case based on hearsay the judge would throw it out. Also if we examine the whistleblower’s statements it’s pretty clear to me it was not written by the whistleblower…​
Laura Ingraham: I want to go back to the Obama connection. Why do you think the connection must go back to Obama. Because why?​
Kevin Shipp: Well, for example, this whistleblower was detailed to the White House with access to these transcripts, presidential transcripts. And he was detailed by the then Director of the CIA, John Brennan, who we know was at the center of the soft coup against the President of the United States. So that in itself needs to be looked into.​

Kevin Shipp:
4:05
This is not a whistleblower, again, it's a leaker. And what they slyly did is they took this plant with false information and they put him or her under the cover of the whistleblower statutes so they couldn't be investigated and it couldn't be pursued. And that obviously was a deep state operation to put out false accusations against Donald Trump be using the whistleblower statute after changing it and it's just another attempt in my view to impeach President Donald Trump.


Laura Ingraham
Well this is, again that Schumer, keeps, that that line of Schumer's keeps coming back. The deep state wants to get you they'll find a way to get you and yeah I want. Trump with a disrupter they didn't like the fact that it was a disrupter.

(https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-six-ways-from-sunday-at-getting-back-at-you
""Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer" )
 
Last edited:
"The deep state is terrified of being exposed."

"The President of the United States is the nation's highest ranking law enforcement officer. ... And just because Joe Biden may be running for president doesn't mean that he's immune from scrutiny."

"You've talked about the betrayal of the American [people]... because of offshoring, outsourcing, and misguided trade deals, ... open border policies, and misguided foreign policies. The president stood up in 2016 and said, "Enough I'm putting a stop to the selling out the betrayal and even the crucifying of the American middle class in this country". And they are trying to say we're not going to let the American people have the leadership and have the government that they want. And this president is standing in the breach and saying he's going to fight for the American worker."

"You have people inside the executive branch, permanent career government officials, who do not recognize democracy...everything we're trying to do to make working Americans have a better future is constantly blocked and sabotaged by the deep state. And we're breaking through and we are winning... what you have is somebody inside the government along with their allies trying to overthrow a democratically elected president so they can get their policies that they want put in place. That's what's at stake for every American."


0:52
The deep state is terrified of being exposed. Lou, what we have right now is a situation in which the Attorney General of the United States and John Durham are going to get to the bottom of what really happened in 2016. And we're going to find out what went on and what was done to try and sabotage this president and try to sabotage this administration. And that has the deep state and their Democrat allies terrified.
...

1:55
I have some breaking news Lou. The President of the United States is the nation's highest ranking law enforcement officer. You know it seems like some of our Democrats need a civics lesson. And just because Joe Biden may be running for president doesn't mean that he's immune from scrutiny. It doesn't mean that his family is immune from scrutiny for corrupt behavior in the Ukraine and in China. And the reality is is that the President of the United States is doing the American people a profound service by getting to the bottom of corruption in Ukraine. And all Americans have a right to know how our taxpayer dollars are being spent and whether former high-ranking officials engaged in corrupt behavior and whether or not Ukraine or anyone in Ukraine engage in interference in 2016.

...

3:30
The Democrats have truly no depth to which they will not sink in their Craven pursuit of power and that's what this is all about Lou. Right it's about power. You know you've talked about these issues for so many years on your show. You've talked about the betrayal of the American worker because of offshoring outsourcing and misguided trade deals. You've talked about the betrayal of American families because of open border policies and misguided foreign policies. The president stood up in 2016 and said, "Enough I'm putting a stop to the selling out the betrayal and even the crucifying of the American middle class in this country". And they are trying to say we're not going to let the American people have the leadership and have the government that they want. And this president is standing in the breach and saying he's going to fight for the American worker.
...
5:29
I want to drill down to the heart Lou of what's happening in our country right now. You have people inside the executive branch, permanent career government officials, who do not recognize democracy. I know because I deal with some of these people every day or every week. I'm talking about the deep state Lou. And the everything we're trying to do to make working Americans have a better future is constantly blocked and sabotaged by the deep state. And we're breaking through and we are winning and we're going to keep on winning. But what you have with this current non scandal non controversy made-up phony story from this fake whistleblower about Ukraine, what you have is somebody inside the government along with their allies trying to overthrow a democratically elected president so they can get their policies that they want put in place. That's what's at stake for every American. Do you believe we should be governed by a democracy or not?[/s]
 
Last edited:
"We should bring a lawsuit on behalf of the President and several the people in the administration maybe even myself as a lawyer against the members of Congress individually for violating constitutional rights violating civil rights. "

"We can also sue them for doing things like obstructing of justice. I mean going and writing letters to Italy and to other countries that have evidence of criminality concerning of a setup and a frame-up is obstructing a criminal investigation. "

"What I was investigating in Ukraine, which there's plenty of evidences of, is the only interference in this election by a foreign government directly, is Ukraine at the behest of Hillary Clinton."

" The whole purpose of not getting a vote [on starting impeachment investigations], you realize that, the whole purpose they're not getting a vote on [starting] impeachment [investigations] is had they gotten a vote on a impeachment then Republicans would have the right to subpoena witnesses"

"The [mainstream media] are covering up for the Democrats because they [the media] are more corrupt than anyone realizes. "

"Everybody in the Ukraine knew that that money was going to buy Joe Biden. And everybody in China knows that they weren't investing in that stupid private equity fund with ... with with whitey bulger's nephew. "


Giuliani
0:19
"I had a couple of talks with civil rights lawyers and a constitutional lawyer today. And here's what they're recommending: That we should bring a lawsuit on behalf of the President and several the people in administration maybe even myself as a lawyer against the members of Congress individually for violating constitutional rights violating civil rights. They're doing extraordinary things. For example, they're violating they are interfering with the president exercising his rights on the article II: President of the United States has to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. They're calling foreign leaders they're going to foreign capitals. Senator Murphy went and threatened the president of Ukraine with no Democratic support if you cooperate."
...
Ingraham
1:03
"So you want to go to court against the house. They wouldn't get congressional immunity immunity unless they said it on the House floor."
...
Giuliana
1:20
"A conspiracy to violate civil rights, if it isn't, except for what they say on the floor ... they are as liable for that as anything else. How about the congressman who threatened to arrest the Attorney General."

...

2:34
"We'll also sue them for trying to violate the attorney-client privilege. We can also sue them for doing things like obstructing of justice. I mean going and writing letters to Italy and to other countries that have evidence of criminality concerning of a setup and a frame-up is obstructing a criminal investigation. That it's a better theory than Mueller's."
...
03:07
"This will be a civil case in which we can take discovery."
...

3:22
"We have to raise their violation of constitutional civil rights. This is worse than McCarthy. How about a totally illicit impeachment proceeding?"

...
3:48
"What I was investigating in Ukraine, which there's plenty of evidences of, is the only interference in this election by a foreign government directly, is Ukraine at the behest of Hillary Clinton."

4:30
"Let's suppose, just suppose, that this whole thing with the ... guy who put the [whistle blower] complaint, ... he may be telling the truth or he may be lying, okay suppose there was a conspiracy to develop that with people like members of Congress? That wouldn't be immune, that'd be a conspiracy to violate civil rights."


05:06
"... I'm saying, suppose there could be. ... Let me give you evidence. Okay? Somebody conspired to deprive him [Trump] of the right of confrontation and the right to call witnesses. The whole purpose of not getting a vote [on starting impeachment investigations], you realize that, the whole purpose they're not getting a vote on [starting] impeachment [investigations] is had they gotten a vote on a impeachment then Republicans would have the right to subpoena witnesses ... they're depriving him of basic rights its the deliberate deprivation of civil rights."


Regarding media claimnig Hunter Biden's actions have been debunked:

6:39
The [mainstream media] are covering up for the Democrats because they [the media] are more corrupt than anyone realizes. They are covering up serious crimes that were committed against the United States by the Biden family in taking millions and multi millions of dollars and putting the United States in a very compromised position. Everybody in the Ukraine knew that that money was going to buy Joe Biden. And everybody in China knows that they weren't investing in that stupid private equity fund with ... with with whitey bulger's nephew. ... the Chinese were buying ...
 
There is a difference between abusing the power of the government to obtain fake evidence to hurt a political rival which is what Obama and Hillary Clinton did and investigating that crime and then discovering a current political candidate was involved.

Accusing Trump of using his office to gain an advantage over a political rival is like accusing the police of viewing child porn as they investigate child pornographers.

1:48
The President of the United States had an obligation to ask the President of the Ukraine to follow up on these allegations. Because there is substantial -- I don't want to exaggerate it but pretty close to overwhelming evidence including the finding by Ukrainian court -- that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats cooperated with Ukrainians with the order coming directly from the White House in January of 2017 to dig up dirt on her political opponent and they did.
 
Amazing how two people can read the same thing and have such different reactions.

I presume you posted this as a favorable reference to the Trump (the man as opposed to a generic action by a President)?

If I'm wrong then it would seem to me you must not be a patriot. The question a hand must be answered through a constitutional basis which eliminates any consideration of Trump's popularity. Either he did or did not do something rises to the level of impeachment. Threatening "Try to impeach this"? Ridiculous and more than anything: recklessly dangerous. It reeks of one trying to drive civil unrest.

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't trust the democratic party's motivation nor do I have 100% confidence that Trump would always act in a constitutionally oriented fashion. If it can be proven that he crossed that line; then he should be impeached and any American choosing to take up arms in response is a traitor. Conversely, if it can't be proven and is shown to have been purely a political stunt by the dems, I'd call them traitors too.

Its already way too tribal. Trump is president and if there are enough eligible voters motivated to change that; we have a process for it in November of next year. That said, if the man (Trump) crosses the line and forgets the ultimate loyalty he has to our constitution; then he should pay the price.
 
Amazing how two people can read the same thing and have such different reactions.

I presume you posted this as a favorable reference to the Trump (the man as opposed to a generic action by a President)?

If I'm wrong then it would seem to me you must not be a patriot. The question a hand must be answered through a constitutional basis which eliminates any consideration of Trump's popularity. Either he did or did not do something rises to the level of impeachment. Threatening "Try to impeach this"? Ridiculous and more than anything: recklessly dangerous. It reeks of one trying to drive civil unrest.

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't trust the democratic party's motivation nor do I have 100% confidence that Trump would always act in a constitutionally oriented fashion. If it can be proven that he crossed that line; then he should be impeached and any American choosing to take up arms in response is a traitor. Conversely, if it can't be proven and is shown to have been purely a political stunt by the dems, I'd call them traitors too.

Its already way too tribal. Trump is president and if there are enough eligible voters motivated to change that; we have a process for it in November of next year. That said, if the man (Trump) crosses the line and forgets the ultimate loyalty he has to our constitution; then he should pay the price.

I don't know why you are bringing in the question of taking up arms. I didn't see that in the map tweet. No mention of arms, no pictures of guns. The map is about the election ie voting.

The point of the map tweet is that the impeachment investigations are part of an effort to disenfranchise Trump voters that began right after Trump won in 2016. It is equivalent to a coup attempt.

This effort involved the Russia hoax, the Mueller witch hunt, the "insurance policy", the fake Steele dossier, the "trump is mentally unfit" meme, and now we have the Ukraine hoax.

 
Last edited:
...
I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't trust the democratic party's motivation nor do I have 100% confidence that Trump would always act in a constitutionally oriented fashion. If it can be proven that he crossed that line; then he should be impeached and any American choosing to take up arms in response is a traitor. Conversely, if it can't be proven and is shown to have been purely a political stunt by the dems, I'd call them traitors too.
...

I don't know why you are bringing in the question of taking up arms. I didn't see that in the map tweet. No mention of arms, no pictures of guns. The map is about the election ie voting.

When you write "if it can" or "can't be proven" it sounds like there will be an objective assessment of all valid evidence and a fair impartial decision made based on it.

I don't think that is what is going to happen. The likely problems include: fake evidence being used, valid exculpatory evidence being ignored, and people calling something a crime when they know it is a perfectly legal action. The public won't know what is true or what to believe. What is the point of "proof", under conditions when you can't trust it?

I don't see this as a theoretical problem. It is a matter that affects people in practical ways, Does their vote count? Parts of the government (the bureaucratic "resistance") seem to think votes are irrelevant. Trump's economic policies affect people. immigration laws affect people, judicial appointments affect people, foreign policy affects people.

I have explained why I think Trump's policies are beneficial in previous posts.
I do support Trump because I care about the poor people in the United States. The USA is a wealthy country but we do have poverty here. Trump's policies will help the poor in the US more than Democrat policies. ...
  • Unrestricted immigration hurts poor citizens because it lowers wages. It also puts stress on systems designed to help the poor which results in fewer resources available for poor citizens. It also increases demand for low income housing which raises rents.
  • High corporate taxes hurt poor people because high corporate taxes slow economic growth which slows job creation and slows growth in wages.
  • Interpreting the constitution according to "modern" views hurts poor people. The rule of law is based on objective interpretation of written laws, if we start interpreting laws according to the whims of the judges then every citizen is at risk of losing the protections guaranteed by the constitution. This hurts poor people most because poor people are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system. Trump is not appointing "conservative" judges to the supreme court and federal courts, he is appointing judges who believe the law should be interpreted as intended by the writers not by the whim of the judges presiding over a case.
  • Unnecessary environmental regulation and other unnecessary government regulations slow economic growth which hurts poor people (above)
  • The conservative view of abortion is that an unborn baby is still a human being and deserves the same rights that every other human being has. (This video will show you why people oppose abortion, it is not for the squeamish: https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/14...-in-first-trimester-moving-her-arms-and-legs/: Also, a racist would never oppose abortion.

This is similar
What did Trump do that merits impeachment, and what is the evidence?

...
Trump:
  • Lowered business taxes (helps poor US citizens by stimulating economic growth: jobs, wages, working conditions all improve)
  • Reducing government regulation (encourages economic growth)
  • Trying to stop illegal immigration (helps poor US citizens by reducing competition for jobs etc)
  • Forced Mexico to police their border.
  • Renegotiated the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico - helps the poor citizens by keeping jobs in the US
  • Trying to stop unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft by China
  • Wiped out ISIS
  • Decertified the "Iran Deal"
  • Banned travel from terrorist producing countries.
  • Moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem - Trump makes US policy based on domestic considerations, rather than kow-towing to world opinion.
  • Terminated TPP
  • Withdrew the US from the Paris climate accord.
  • Approved new oil pipelines in the US (which Obama would not do)
  • Forced NATO allies to contribute more to the alliance.
  • Appointing judges who believe the law should be interpreted according to the intent when it was passed rather than according to their personal preferences.
  • Tariffs on foreign steel and aluminium to protect domestic industries vital to US national security.
  • Reversed restrictions on coal powered electricity production helping to keep electricity prices low - high energy costs hurt the poor the most.
  • Veterans Administration: - incompetent hospital employees can be fired.
  • Criticizes the news media for false reporting.
  • Refuses to submit to political correctness. (Political correctness is used to censor free speech.)

Here is another similar post
And Trump is not trying to protect the status quo. The status quo is the problem Trump is trying to fix:

Socialism - too much government infringing on personal freedom inhibiting economic growth (see below on how this hurts the poor)

Globalism - international corporations profiting at the expense of ordinary people.

Unfair trade agreements with other countries that have led to loss of jobs in the US.

Political correctness - used by liberals to restrict free speech to silence political opposition.

And unrestricted immigration (no country in the world allows that). US politicians want it for two reasons to provide cheap labor for corporations and to increase the number of Democrat voters. Unrestricted immigration hurts poor citizens them most - it make it harder to find jobs and reduces wages and increases competition for low income housing and government resources allocated to the poor. Porous borders also help organized drug gangs and human traffickers to operate ruining countless lives of people the government should be protecting instead of profiting off of their destruction.


Because there is a cost/benefit analysis for everything and the cost is jobs for workers who have children to clothe, house, feed, send to college. Economic growth helps poor people most - it provides more jobs, better wages and benefits when there is a labor shortage.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/usa-meets-kyoto-protocol-without-ever-embracing-it/
USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it​
...​
In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.​
 
Last edited:
I don't know why you are bringing in the question of taking up arms. I didn't see that in the map tweet. No mention of arms, no pictures of guns. The map is about the election ie voting.
"Try to impeach this". Phrased as a threat; a challenge. The map is meant to imply the strength of his base; implying they won't allow him to be impeached. The results of the 2016 election are irrelevant to impeachment charges (e.g., Nixon's landslide win in '72).

When you write "if it can" or "can't be proven" it sounds like there will be an objective assessment of all valid evidence and a fair impartial decision made based on it.

I don't think that is what is going to happen. The likely problems include: fake evidence being used, valid exculpatory evidence being ignored, and people calling something a crime when they know it is a perfectly legal action. The public won't know what is true or what to believe. What is the point of "proof", under conditions when you can't trust it?
A couple thoughts here:

First, on your question of procedure: I choose the Constitution. We have defined processes for dealing with the allegations against Trump. We must follow them and hold those responsible for the carrying out of the proceedings to act in concert with the laws of the land. Do I have complete confidence that will happen? Not entirely as I don't trust politicians on both sides of the aisle. That said, what choice do I have as a patriot? Should I step in and shout down those bringing impeachment allegations; foregoing due process? Why this time? What about next time? What about the next time its a Democrat? Isn't the entire point of our democracy's structure to have defined processes for these things so as to avoid manipulation and tyranny?

Second, I see great irony in your concerns regarding the forthrightness of those pursuing impeachment (i.e., Trump's detractors as I would assume you'd categorize them); your fear of being unable to trust what they will say/present. That's exactly the challenge many people have with Trump himself.
 
These Democrats are against impeachment:



Concerns that the impeachment process is a kangaroo court:


Questions for Nancy Pelosi

  • Do you intend to hold a vote of the full House authorizing your impeachment inquiry?
  • Do you intend to involve the full House in each critical step of this inquiry, including defining its scope and establishing its rules and procedures?
  • Do you intend to grant co-equal subpoena power to both the Chair and Ranking Member at the committee level?
  • Do you intend to require that all subpoenas be subject to a vote of the full committee at the request of either Chair or Ranking Member?
  • Do you intend to provide the President's counsel the right to attend all hearings and depositions?
  • Do you intend to provide the President's counsel the right to present evidence?
  • Do you intend to provide the President's counsel the right to object to the admittance of evidence?
  • Do you intend to provide the President's counsel the right to cross-examine witnesses?
  • Do you intend to provide the President's counsel the right to recommend a witness list?
  • Do you intend to refer all findings on impeachment to Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee, as prescribed by Rule X of the Rules of the House, or is Chairman Schiff in charge of leading this inquire, as has been reported in the press?
By answering "no" To any of the above, you would be acting in direct contradiction to al lmodern impeachment inquiries of a sitting president.​
-------------------------

p3.PNG

b1.PNG

b2.PNG
 
Last edited:
Back
Top