Trumps direct and to the point letter to Nancy Pelosi

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seriously? It's all been meticulously detailed elsewhere.
By the way, I cannot even begin to describe how much you have disappointed me in the past few years. I used to look up you as a good and sensible mod.

Yet with all the 'meticulous documentation' you can't actually name anything.
Hmmm. Can you at least point to some crime he has committed cited in the impeachment report?

You're embarrassing yourself in this thread - so please get specific and make your case... otherwise why are you here?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

By the way, I cannot even begin to describe how much you have disappointed me in the past few years. I used to look up you as a good and sensible mod.

Translation: Think like I do or else. Typical leftist attitude.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
perhaps you could get the english to tooth impaired english translation and it would make sense to you?

I get what you're saying - can I get it translated out of its original Orange Angry Bloviatarian? That's an excellent point. Does anyone here speak that strange and bizarre rant of a language?. And I can't imagine what the original original version was like. His handwriting is deeply strange.

I purposely did not put this in the mudpit as this is now a historical record of what the Democrats have done and are doing to the President, from his and many millions of other people's perspective.
If you actually do understand the Constitution and have done some study on what impeachment really means - e.g. Hamilton notes and Federalist papers then please do highlight where you think the President is wrong in his assessment.

This is a historical record of a half senile president that one day says he would gladly participate in the impeachment hearings and next day launches child-alike attacks and does everything in his power to stop the impeachment.

The letter makes it clear he's following events and interpreting them pretty accurately. I'd say his mind is pretty sharp and has nailed the message in terms of what his base thinks. Now, is it all true? Not all of it is factually correct, some of it is his opinion on motive, but the key lines of attack are in the main factually correct and supported by documentation.

Why just not for once admit he is lying? He is a lying s.o.b no matter how hard you tray to spin it and call it something different. It's not factually incorrect, it's called LIES.

You'll have to be more specific. What are you referring to exactly.
Which part of the letter is a lie?

There's a lie already in the first paragraph. He says the impeachment is unconstitutional. How is it? HOW?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I see the anti-Trump trolls are out. Doing a lot of smack talk but not really saying anything.

a reply to: UKTruth

I detest being an echo chamber but I would really like to know too.

I'm not sure that Crycek actually knows what the lies are.

I'm eagerly awaiting a response.

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
perhaps you could get the english to tooth impaired english translation and it would make sense to you?

I get what you're saying - can I get it translated out of its original Orange Angry Bloviatarian? That's an excellent point. Does anyone here speak that strange and bizarre rant of a language?. And I can't imagine what the original original version was like. His handwriting is deeply strange.

I purposely did not put this in the mudpit as this is now a historical record of what the Democrats have done and are doing to the President, from his and many millions of other people's perspective.
If you actually do understand the Constitution and have done some study on what impeachment really means - e.g. Hamilton notes and Federalist papers then please do highlight where you think the President is wrong in his assessment.

This is a historical record of a half senile president that one day says he would gladly participate in the impeachment hearings and next day launches child-alike attacks and does everything in his power to stop the impeachment.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

He claims that they found nothing. He's delusional.

I think you're delusional about who is delusional. Are you even reading the same document the rest of us are? Handwriting? You do know it's in type, right?

All I can say to you is ****** is one helluva drug!

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
perhaps you could get the english to tooth impaired english translation and it would make sense to you?

I get what you're saying - can I get it translated out of its original Orange Angry Bloviatarian? That's an excellent point. Does anyone here speak that strange and bizarre rant of a language?. And I can't imagine what the original original version was like. His handwriting is deeply strange.

I purposely did not put this in the mudpit as this is now a historical record of what the Democrats have done and are doing to the President, from his and many millions of other people's perspective.
If you actually do understand the Constitution and have done some study on what impeachment really means - e.g. Hamilton notes and Federalist papers then please do highlight where you think the President is wrong in his assessment.

This is a historical record of a half senile president that one day says he would gladly participate in the impeachment hearings and next day launches child-alike attacks and does everything in his power to stop the impeachment.

The letter makes it clear he's following events and interpreting them pretty accurately. I'd say his mind is pretty sharp and has nailed the message in terms of what his base thinks. Now, is it all true? Not all of it is factually correct, some of it is his opinion on motive, but the key lines of attack are in the main factually correct and supported by documentation.

Why just not for once admit he is lying? He is a lying s.o.b no matter how hard you tray to spin it and call it something different. It's not factually incorrect, it's called LIES.

You'll have to be more specific. What are you referring to exactly.
Which part of the letter is a lie?

There's a lie already in the first paragraph. He says the impeachment is unconstitutional. How is it? HOW?

HOW?

There were never any grounds for impeachment in the first place.

The Democrats just made it up!

Lo!ololollollool

a reply to: XCrycek

There's a lie already in the first paragraph. He says the impeachment is unconstitutional. How is it? HOW?

Don't you have to do something to get impeached? Like break a law, have sex with an intern you know, something? I mean other then being a butt hurt dem.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seriously? It's all been meticulously detailed elsewhere.
By the way, I cannot even begin to describe how much you have disappointed me in the past few years. I used to look up you as a good and sensible mod.

Unfortunately, we are not "elsewhere" and I have no idea what you are talking about. The least you could do is link to it. Hand waving and jedi mind tricks don't convince me much.

it breaks my heart to have disappointed a stranger on the internet. The only difference between me today and me 4 years ago is how you view me through a political prism. That speaks to you, not me.

I am actually quite a bit more liberal leaning that I have ever been....i used to fall in the "hardcore libertarian" realm. Today, im willing to accept some liberal concepts as beneficial.

Trump should have gave pelosi some medical advice.
Nancy's doctor is obviously shoving the botox needle in too deep.

a reply to: UKTruth

He wrote a letter? So what?
Polosi doesn't even have to read it does she? Is there a law that forces her to read any letter from a potus?

It's not like this will change her mind or anyone else's.

Seems to me all this letter does is give fuel to those that wish to make fun of the potus.
In fact I think the only thing we hear about this letter going forward will be the jokes people make about it.

I'm a wrong? Does this letter carry any kind of legal weight? Does it have any power to change anything? Will any actions have to be taken because of what it says?

This was a weird move.

a reply to: XCrycek

C'mon, be honest...how much did you have to drink today?

Impeachment in 2019

Democrats: We're impeaching you based on what we think you meant.

Trump: But I didn't say that or mean that.

Democrats: WE get to decide what you meant, and what you meant was bad. So we get to impeach you.

Trump: Da fu'?

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
perhaps you could get the english to tooth impaired english translation and it would make sense to you?

I get what you're saying - can I get it translated out of its original Orange Angry Bloviatarian? That's an excellent point. Does anyone here speak that strange and bizarre rant of a language?. And I can't imagine what the original original version was like. His handwriting is deeply strange.

I purposely did not put this in the mudpit as this is now a historical record of what the Democrats have done and are doing to the President, from his and many millions of other people's perspective.
If you actually do understand the Constitution and have done some study on what impeachment really means - e.g. Hamilton notes and Federalist papers then please do highlight where you think the President is wrong in his assessment.

This is a historical record of a half senile president that one day says he would gladly participate in the impeachment hearings and next day launches child-alike attacks and does everything in his power to stop the impeachment.

The letter makes it clear he's following events and interpreting them pretty accurately. I'd say his mind is pretty sharp and has nailed the message in terms of what his base thinks. Now, is it all true? Not all of it is factually correct, some of it is his opinion on motive, but the key lines of attack are in the main factually correct and supported by documentation.

Why just not for once admit he is lying? He is a lying s.o.b no matter how hard you tray to spin it and call it something different. It's not factually incorrect, it's called LIES.

You'll have to be more specific. What are you referring to exactly.
Which part of the letter is a lie?

There's a lie already in the first paragraph. He says the impeachment is unconstitutional. How is it? HOW?

For two main reasons.

1) Obstruction charge - The entire system of US govt was set up as 3 co-equal branches of Govt. When the Executive Branch and Legistlative Branch are in conflict, the COURTS (i.e. the Judicial Branch) are SUPPOSED to arbitrate.
Trying to impeach a President for asking the courts to rule on demands from the the Legislature is entirely unconstitutional.

2) Abuse of Power - The criteria for impeachment is NOT anything the House decides - as is sometimes mistakenly referenced. The language was debated in great detail at the Philadephia convention. The term that was to be used was 'maladministration' instead of the finally agreed word of misdemeanor. Maladminstration was specifically considered too broad and the framers were wary of the House using such a broad term to impeach for partisan , political reasons. That is exactly why they changed it. The word misdemeanor in the Constitution does not mean what it does today in legal language. That said, a misdemeanor is still a criminal act and yet there is NO criminal act cited in the impeachment report.
In other words the Democrats have not actually impeached the President for ANY crime, whether a misdemeanor or something more severe.
That is most certainly unconstitutional.

I am thinking that Trump had a little help drawing up that letter and also had many attorneys look over it to make sure it is correct and appropriate. It has probably been revised more than a few times. That is not his own unchecked writing. We know how he writes from Twitter.

I wonder what the Democratic response to this clear and precise letter will be. It is hard to twist what it says to turn it around to show the opposite, but they will try with the help of the Media giants to do just that.

They will try to say that Because he wrote this letter he is trying to intimidate her, a seasoned congressman,because she is a woman. If women cannot handle this kind of letter from the president complaining that he has not been given due justice of law, then they should not be in congress. Nancy Pelosi is not a shy and meek woman, she is a power yielding high ranking congresswoman. He will not hurt her feelings with this letter

I see some things wrong with Trump's actions but I see ten fold as much wrong with the actions of multiple Democratic Congressmen and women.

I am waiting to see the Democratic response to this letter. How are they going to twist this letter that is worded appropriately into something they can impeach him with.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: UKTruth

He wrote a letter? So what?
Polosi doesn't even have to read it does she? Is there a law that forces her to read any letter from a potus?

It's not like this will change her mind or anyone else's.

Seems to me all this letter does is give fuel to those that wish to make fun of the potus.
In fact I think the only thing we hear about this letter going forward will be the jokes people make about it.

I'm a wrong? Does this letter carry any kind of legal weight? Does it have any power to change anything? Will any actions have to be taken because of what it says?

This was a weird move.

It aligns perfectly with his base and a lot of independents I'd say.
It's a rallying call for the 2020 election and in my view it's an effective one.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I am thinking that Trump had a little help drawing up that letter and also had many attorneys look over it to make sure it is correct and appropriate. It has probably been revised more than a few times. That is not his own unchecked writing. We know how he writes from Twitter.

I wonder what the Democratic response to this clear and precise letter will be. It is hard to twist what it says to turn it around to show the opposite, but they will try with the help of the Media giants to do just that.

They will try to say that Because he wrote this letter he is trying to intimidate her, a seasoned congressman,because she is a woman. If women cannot handle this kind of letter from the president complaining that he has not been given due justice of law, then they should not be in congress. Nancy Pelosi is not a shy and meek woman, she is a power yielding high ranking congresswoman. He will not hurt her feelings with this letter

I see some things wrong with Trump's actions but I see ten fold as much wrong with the actions of multiple Democratic Congressmen and women.

I am waiting to see the Democratic response to this letter. How are they going to twist this letter that is worded appropriately into something they can impeach him with.

Well logic was flushed into the gutter a while ago so whatever it takes, they will find an angle. No matter how distorted it is.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Impeachment in 2019

Democrats: We're impeaching you based on what we think you meant.

Trump: But I didn't say that or mean that.

Democrats: WE get to decide what you meant, and what you meant was bad. So we get to impeach you.

Trump: Da fu'?

I really like the way you put that because that is exactly what is going on....said in simple layman's terms.

Most people would think you are joking, but I can see it as a legitimate interpretation of what is going on.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
perhaps you could get the english to tooth impaired english translation and it would make sense to you?

I get what you're saying - can I get it translated out of its original Orange Angry Bloviatarian? That's an excellent point. Does anyone here speak that strange and bizarre rant of a language?. And I can't imagine what the original original version was like. His handwriting is deeply strange.

I purposely did not put this in the mudpit as this is now a historical record of what the Democrats have done and are doing to the President, from his and many millions of other people's perspective.
If you actually do understand the Constitution and have done some study on what impeachment really means - e.g. Hamilton notes and Federalist papers then please do highlight where you think the President is wrong in his assessment.

Historical record? Have you hit your head on something old fruitbat? It's nothing of the sort. It's a ragbag of lies, bloviating nonsense and froth. Have you even been paying attention to the hearings in Congress? Vindman? Sondland? Hill? All the others? He's claiming that only his version of reality is the true one.
This is the work of a man who has lied so much that he has never known what truth is. It's nonsense - a desperate PR stunt. It will achieve nothing and will be quickly forgotten.

Were you talking about your comments or Trump's letter?

You named some of the "witnesses" none of whom were able to present actual evidence with only one exception, Sondland stated that the President announced that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.

Also, can you actually point to something in the letter regarding the issues that you brought up or is it just going to be more "[a]ngry Bloviatarian" rhetoric?