This copyrighted column - in part or in its entirety - may be freely shared among individuals, and it may be reprinted, republished, or quoted in any medium, including broadcast, cable, satellite, print, Internet, and other forms of media, but only when crediting Gary B. Duglin and The Controversy.
When reading this column, my suggestion is to not do so as you would another editorial on the Internet or in a newspaper or magazine, but instead to read it as you would a book. I am, after all, telling a story - a non-fiction, true story - where chapter after chapter, the readers are provided with more information that will take him or her to a stunning conclusion. Of course, though, readers will need to wait for the sequel because the end has not come just yet for this story. But what has transpired so far is well worth your time to read as I not only provide facts, but the debate that is documented below is a picture-perfect display of the contention and controversy that is agitating and aggravating Americans on the left, on the right, and in the center.
Since the comments on Facebook were not made anonymously and were entered voluntarily in response to a post on my Timeline, the remarks are in the public domain. Therefore, I am publishing them in this column and naming each writer as they identified themselves on Facebook.
Monday, October 28, 2019 at 5:07 PM by Gary B. Duglin (My original Facebook post) - Is it possible in the United States of America in 2020 for life to imitate art? In the CBS drama MADAM SECRETARY (which this season is MADAM SECRETARY/MADAM PRESIDENT), President Elizabeth McCord, a Democrat - as our nation's first woman President, brilliantly and convincingly played with strength, warmth and charm by Tea Leoni - has as her Vice President, a Republican, Carlos Morejon, who is wonderfully portrayed with conviction and determination by Jose Zuniga. Vice President Morejon had previously been an adversary of President McCord. Would our polarized nation - in real life - support a Democrat for President
with a Republican for Vice President? Would Americans vote for Democrat Joe Biden with a Republican such as Mitt Romney, John Kasich or someone else from the GOP as Mr. Biden's running mate? Is it what's necessary to unite our country in 2020? Have the producers and writers of MADAM SECRETARY come up with a brilliant solution to the problems of today's United States? Or is it a fictional scenario that could never happen in the real world? It does give us something to think about.
Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 3:51 PM by Wayne Duglin - To start I don’t believe that Joe Biden will be the Democrat’s nominee, I think the nut job left will push Warren in, but if he is and he were to pick Mitt Romney or John Kasich, he would be dividing the country more than it is already. Romney and Kasich may be disliked more by the average Republican then they dislike most Democrats and the far left. They both have turned their back on the GOP and have not supported what is best for America! The Bernie crowd would go crazy for him not picking a far left nut job and they would stay home or he would run as a 3rd party and they would vote for him. I think it is a great idea because that would in my mind hand the election to President Trump, maybe winning 40+ states, and also hand the House back to the sane people for control.
Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 7:38 PM by Gary B. Duglin - First of all, as I wrote months ago in a column at The Controversy, a mainstream far-left candidate or a mainstream far-right candidate cannot win the presidency in 2020. As for the far-left, the Democratic Party knows that. I can only hope that Democrats nationwide realize that come primary time. It's looking like they already are, just as the majority of Democrats did in 2016 and that's why Bernie Sanders didn't get the nomination over Hillary Clinton. But Democrats are even smarter this time. Senator Sanders, as I wrote on March 1st, 2016, should have ended his campaign at that time. If he had, Secretary Clinton would have had a much better chance of winning the election even with Russia's interference and Trump's involvement with Vladimir Putin. So far, for 2020, Democrats are leaning towards Vice President Joe Biden as
Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 7:59 PM by Roger Chiocchi (responding to the original Facebook post) - It would be a great idea but at this point the country is probably too divided for that to happen.
Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 8:54 PM by Robert Duglin (responding to the original Facebook post) - In an ideal world it would be terrific. Joe & Kasich or Mitt works for me. Of course anyone but the orange freak works for me at this point!
Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:54 PM by Roger Chiocchi (responding to the original Facebook post) - I don't know Gary, I'm wavering. The biggest problem we have is inequality of wealth and income. That pushes me towards Warren. However, I can live with Biden-Kasich (two Catholics, that may be hard to sell). We'd be far ahead of where we are now. But never Romney, he was a Wall St LBO guy and to me, that's disgusting.
Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 10:34 PM by Gary B. Duglin - As I noted above, Roger, I'm not for a Biden-Romney or a Biden-Kasich ticket, I was merely throwing it out for discussion because of what Madam Secretary/Madam President is doing. But I am a big supporter of Joe Biden. As I have written, I don't believe that a far-left candidate can win. And that comes from somebody like me, and I self-describe and identify myself as an ultra-progressive liberal Democrat. Most people would think I'd be more for someone like Warren or Sanders, but as much as I agree with their policies, I don't believe either can win the presidency. Besides, I believe, overall, Joe Biden is best for the job.
Friday, November 1, 2019 at 7:07 AM by Laura Barckmann Raynolds (responding to the original Facebook post) - Interesting idea!
Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:14 AM by Wayne Duglin (responding first to the original Facebook post, but then changing gears) - Gary, except in Utah Romney couldn’t get elected dog catcher on a GOP ticket and Kasich wouldn’t even get Ohio. My point wasn’t to get into your and the Dems lies about the President and his staff (Rudy included) it was to contest your thinking that you could unite the Country with Biden and anyone. All the Dems have been doing is dividing this nation, they want racial divide, financial divide, religious divide, the coast vs flyover country, they want conflict between US born and immigrants, millennials and GenX against anyone older, they want problems between LGBTQ and straights, they want conflict between everyone so they can try and blame the President and Republicans. They don’t care what it does to the country as long as they get power. They are the True haters!
Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:41 AM by Gary B. Duglin - Wayne, what a shame that you are so bitter and angry. Thus, I refuse to stoop to your level, whether in person, on Facebook, or elsewhere. I will not degrade, belittle or berate you - as you have done to me and all Democrats in your above comments. I will simply lay out the facts as I have all along. That being said, you couldn't be more wrong. Republicans on Capitol Hill WILL eventually HAVE TO unite with Democrats, just as they did in 1974 with Richard Nixon. There are too many crimes that Donald Trump has committed, and the proof is not only obvious, but the evidence itself is directly in front of everyone. Plus, too many witnesses from the Trump administration have first-hand knowledge of those crimes and they have testified under oath as to what
Friday, November 1, 2019 at 12:00 PM by Gary B. Duglin - One more note, as I have stated in numerous columns at The Controversy, but it is worth reminding the entire country over and over again. No one is above the law. Donald Trump may think that he is...but of course he is not. And the United States Constitution is our bible when it comes to the laws of our land, and so in addition to unimpeachable witnesses who are testifying before the House of Representatives during this impeachment process, our Constitution will convince 67 U.S. senators to do the right thing and remove Trump from office through a trial conviction, or force him to resign.
Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:15 PM by Wayne Duglin - Gary I am not bitter about anything, I just stated the truth. Nothing I said in this post degrades, belittles or berates you, it was just statements of facts. No I don’t think the Republicans will unite with the Dems to convict the President, I don’t believe he did anything impeachable, the Dems wish to assume things that didn’t happen and then lie about it. Nowhere did Mick Mulvaney, or Rudy Giuliani admit to any crimes. No where did they say the President put pressure on the Ukraine to influence the 2020 election, it’s all made up in your heads. It was to root out corruption and involvement in the 2016 election, mainly by the DNC and Clinton. I agree that nobody wants political candidates in the United States to go to a foreign government in an effort that they interfere in an American election and the President didn’t do that, he was trying to get to the truth of what the Clinton camp did with maybe Biden and Obama’s help in the 2016 election. We know from the Ukrainian Court that officials in the Ukraine involved themselves in the US 2016 election trying to help Hillary Clinton, those are facts. I agree nobody is above the law and unfortunately the House Rules are not law and that is why Pelosi, Schiff and the rest of Dems can break rules and change rules and hide behind locked doors, leak and lie at will so that the American people only hear their one sided lies and the mainstream press backs up their lies. I don’t believe the President will be removed or resign and the “nightmare” would be if Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren were to be elected. As I said before I don’t think Biden will be the nominee and if it is Warren, President Trump will get 4 more years.
Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:00 PM by Jane Garnes (responding to the original Facebook post) - It depends how the personalities would get on and one would never determine that before an election or until after they began to work together. In this polarized climate I do not think it would work well.
There is no evidence at all that the Ukrainian government tried to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. There was one report back in 2017 discussing that, but there is no proof. There are no witnesses as there are now against Trump. Yes, there are plenty of witnesses who have already testified before Congress and more who will soon be testifying - and not just behind closed doors, but before the American people on live television. I've already in an above comment mentioned a few of those witnesses,
Your comment that "(Speaker of the House Nancy) Pelosi, (House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Congressman Adam) Schiff and the rest of (the) Dems can break rules and change rules and hide behind locked doors" is
MARGARET BRENNAN FROM OCTOBER 27, 2019: "Well you- you're talking about process there and that's very specific here in terms of some of the criticisms from Republicans of this Democrat-led investigation. You said to me on this program in April in 2018 the following:"
[BEGIN CLIP FROM APRIL 2018] TREY GOWDY: "Well, our private hearing was much more constructive than the public hearing. I mean public hearings are a circus, Margaret. I mean that's why I don't like to do them. I don't do many of them. I mean they're - it's a freak show." [END CLIP]
MARGARET BRENNAN FROM OCTOBER 27, 2019: "Do you still believe that?"
TREY GOWDY FROM OCTOBER 27, 2019: "One hundred percent."
I will add that the Benghazi hearings were not impeachment hearings of the President of the United States. You and other Republicans loved the private, closed-door hearings when Republicans had control of the House. But not now? Hmmm.
Remember that there are 47 Republicans who sit in on those private depositions about Trump. The American people are not hearing "one-sided lies" and the press in no way "backs up their lies" because there are NO LIES. Thus, we fast-forward now to the upcoming public hearings. As I have already written, Americans will hear from unimpeachable witnesses in under-oath testimony that there is irrefutable evidence that Donald Trump has committed crimes of obstruction of justice, corruption, misconduct and abuse of power. As I've already written, Wayne, once those witnesses are heard by Americans on live television, Republicans will do as they did in 1974 with Richard Nixon and Trump's goose will be cooked. I'm amazed - in fact, bafffled and flabbergasted - that you and other Republicans continue to stand by Trump and put HIM above our country. It's mind-boggling that you and other
Wayne, you indeed have degraded, belittled and berated me and all Democrats when you make a statement such as you did above. Here is what you wrote. "All the Dems have been doing is dividing this nation, they want racial divide, financial divide, religious divide, the coast vs flyover country, they want conflict between US born and immigrants, millennials and GenX against anyone older, they want problems between LGBTQ and straights, they want conflict between everyone so they can try and blame the President and Republicans. They don’t care what it does to the country as long as they get power. They are the True haters!" I rest my case.
Monday, November 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM by Wayne Duglin - Gary, once again you try to twist words and say
things I never said. I never said I didn’t hear what Mulvaney said or what Rudy
Giuliani said. What I said was “Nowhere did they say the President put pressure
on the Ukraine to influence the 2020 election” neither of them did say
that they were trying to influence the 2020 election because they weren’t, they
were looking into 2016 and the President was making sure that the Ukrainian
government was investigating the corruption that they have had in there
government for years and have promised to get rid of before we give them more of
our tax dollars and the Biden’s are just part of that corruption. As for Clinton
and 2016 a Ukrainian Federal Court is the one who stated that there was
Ukrainian government interference into the US 2016 election to aid Hillary
Clinton.
Monday, November 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM by Gary B. Duglin - Oh
Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, you have it all wrong. The following is directly from The
New York Times, which of course you won't believe anyway so I don't know why I
am even responding, but here it is. The article's headline says, "Ukraine Court
Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused ‘Meddling’ in U.S. Election." Here's the
beginning of the article. "A court in Ukraine has ruled that officials in the
country violated the law by revealing, during the 2016 presidential election in
the United States, details of suspected illegal payments to Paul Manafort. In
2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption
prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had
earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort
resigned from the campaign a week later." As for the first part of your comments
above, I did not "twist" your words. Both Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani
admitted, nay confessed, to using quid pro quos. Just to refresh your memory,
Mulvaney said that it's "appropriate" and that Donald Trump and his
administration do it "all the time." When Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky for a "favor," that
was - as Trump's former personal attorney and
"fixer" Michael Cohen used to say - a "code" for you better do this for me or
else. Therefore, the handwriting was on the wall that Trump did indeed put
pressure on Ukraine to get dirt on Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter
Biden or else Ukraine was not going to receive the military aid that was
approved by the U.S. Congress. It's all right there in black and white as well
as from testimony now from numerous witnesses in Trump's orbit. Wayne, your boy
is going down and there's not much you or anybody else can do to stop it.
Numerous Senate Republicans are already telling reporters privately and
off-the-record that they think Trump is guilty of crimes and that he should be
removed from office. Those senators are not coming forward yet, except for 3 or
4, "but wait there's more" - as the late night infomercial announcer would say.
Once public impeachment hearings begin in the House of Representatives, public
opinion WILL change as it did with Richard Nixon in 1974 and once Republicans
nationwide start abandoning Trump, along with those right-leaning Independents
who Republican senators need to get re-elected, there will be at least 20
Republican senators who will join with the 47 Democrats to convict and remove
Trump from office. At that point Trump will either be forced to resign or he
will be convicted for his crimes and evicted from The Oval Office and The White
House. Once again, remember that Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and the GOP
leadership in both the House and Senate told President Nixon in 1974 that the
votes were there to impeach and convict, so that's when Mr. Nixon resigned.
Remember Wayne that Nixon infamously said earlier during the Watergate scandal
that he was "not a crook," but, in fact, he was, and so is Donald Trump.
was - as Trump's former personal attorney and
"fixer" Michael Cohen used to say - a "code" for you better do this for me or
else. Therefore, the handwriting was on the wall that Trump did indeed put
pressure on Ukraine to get dirt on Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter
Biden or else Ukraine was not going to receive the military aid that was
approved by the U.S. Congress. It's all right there in black and white as well
as from testimony now from numerous witnesses in Trump's orbit. Wayne, your boy
is going down and there's not much you or anybody else can do to stop it.
Numerous Senate Republicans are already telling reporters privately and
off-the-record that they think Trump is guilty of crimes and that he should be
removed from office. Those senators are not coming forward yet, except for 3 or
4, "but wait there's more" - as the late night infomercial announcer would say.
Once public impeachment hearings begin in the House of Representatives, public
opinion WILL change as it did with Richard Nixon in 1974 and once Republicans
nationwide start abandoning Trump, along with those right-leaning Independents
who Republican senators need to get re-elected, there will be at least 20
Republican senators who will join with the 47 Democrats to convict and remove
Trump from office. At that point Trump will either be forced to resign or he
will be convicted for his crimes and evicted from The Oval Office and The White
House. Once again, remember that Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and the GOP
leadership in both the House and Senate told President Nixon in 1974 that the
votes were there to impeach and convict, so that's when Mr. Nixon resigned.
Remember Wayne that Nixon infamously said earlier during the Watergate scandal
that he was "not a crook," but, in fact, he was, and so is Donald Trump.
Monday, November 4, 2019 at 1:52 PM by Wayne Duglin - Gary your first mistake is that you take something
said in the NY Times as fact, they are leftwing Trump haters. The reason a court
in “Ukraine has ruled that officials in the country violated the law by
revealing, during the 2016 presidential election
in the United States, details of suspected illegal payments to Paul Manafort in
2016,” the court said the reason the official revealed the information was to
hurt President Trump and aid Hillary Clinton. As for what you call a quid pro
quo, neither said it was to affect the 2020 election which is what I said. As for
what Mulvaney said, every administration does deal making you do x for us we will
do y for you. As for foreign aid we should do it more, no country should get any
aid if they go against us in the UN. If you don’t back our policies on
immigration you get no aid. It is called deal making that is not a quid pro quo
for personal gain, it should be applauded not condemned. What should be
condemned is your disgusting comment calling the President of the United States
“your boy,” it is disgraceful and divisive comments like yours are what is
dividing this country more than it already is. As I have said in the past you
can deny it all you want but your words show your hatred for the President. I do
not believe the democrats have a snowballs chance in hell to get 20 GOP Senators
to vote for removal. They are wasting time and money and not doing the work for
the American people.
Monday, November 4, 2019 at 6:52 PM by Roger Wink (responding to comments made by Wayne Duglin) - Wayne, IF it is proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty, would you expect the GOP senate
to vote to impeach. IF they did not, would that not be dereliction of their
sworn duties? Again, this is
hypothetical assuming that Trump is proven guilty.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:03 AM by Gary B. Duglin - Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...you can try to be the good
little Trumper that you set out to be, but you can't spin truth and facts and
call them lies because you don't believe them. That's what you do when you make
some of your remarks.
You can say you don't like The New York Times, but to disparage the newspaper is once again you playing "follow the leader" with Donald Trump. The New York Times has been publishing newspapers for 168 years and counting since 1851. The paper has won 127 Pulitzer Prizes, which is more than any other newspaper in the world, and The New York Times is ranked the third largest, by circulation - including digital circulation - in the United States. Only USA Today and The Wall Street Journal have bigger circulation numbers. Those statistics are as of October 26th, 2019, according to Cision Media Research. Respected and revered nationally and around the globe as a newspaper with integrity and credibility, The New York Times has long been regarded as America's "newspaper of record" with a national and international "reputation for thoroughness." So except for a fraction of time that The New York Times is in error with their reporting - but then corrects the record when they do fumble - (which Donald Trump would never do), your comment that it's a "mistake" to "take something said in The New York Times as fact" is not only ludicrous, but moronic.
Once again you make an attempt at spinning and flipping to your own liking when you make another off-the-mark statement, but there's no fact, no truth whatsoever that the Ukrainians revealed information to "aid Hillary Clinton" in the 2016 election.
As for Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff did admit to the existence of a quid pro quo and told the White House press corps, "Get over it." He went on to say that "We do that all the time with foreign policy." And Rudy "I''ll Be Heading To Prison Soon" Giuliani told Chris Cuomo on CNN that he did talk with Ukrainian officials about investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. And then there's Trump's request of a "favor" to be done for him by Ukraine's President Zelensky. So Trump did pressure Ukraine and from Trump's comments on The White House south lawn, along with the "summary" of the July 25th, 2019 telephone call with Trump and Zelensky - yes it's a summary, not a transcript - and the comments made by Mulvaney and Giuliani, there was a quid pro quo that was discussed in order to affect the 2020 election.
Wayne, when someone says - as you claim - "You do X for us, we will do Y for you," that's a quid pro quo. And it's illegal to do with a foreign government. Not "every administration" - as you wrongfully believe - does that. But Trump does. And that'll be one of the Articles of Impeachment from the House of Representatives.
Wayne, you can believe that the Democrats don't have "a snowball's chance in hell to get 20 GOP senators" to vote with 47 Democrats to convict Trump and remove him from office, but that's what many people said in 1974 about Richard Nixon. Public opinion is going to change more and more in the not too distant future, and as I wrote earlier, fast forward to the upcoming public hearings. Americans will hear from unimpeachable witnesses in under-oath testimony that there is irrefutable evidence that Donald Trump has committed crimes. Once those witnesses are heard by American voters on live television, "your boy" will be making his exit.
Therefore, I believe that the toxic stench of Donald Trump as a result of his dishonesty, his more than 13,000 lies since his inauguration, his corruption, his misconduct, his profanities on live television, his obstruction of justice, his abuse of power, his witness tampering and intimidation, and a whole host of other malicious and unpresidential reasons make him totally unfit for The Oval Office. And as I have written in more than one past column this year at The Controversy when comparing Donald Trump to President Nixon, Trump makes Richard Nixon smell like a fragrant springtime bouquet of fresh White House Rose Garden flowers.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 9:43 AM by Wayne Duglin (responding to comments made by Roger Wink) - Roger, you said if he is guilty, the question is guilty of
what? What is the crime? To weed out corruption before we give them our tax
dollars, since the President sets foreign policy isn't that part of his job?
Just to let you know the senate doesn't vote to
impeach only the House does, the Senate holds the trial and can vote to convict or acquit. Even if the President did what the House claims he did
(hypothetically) it is not dereliction of their sworn duties if they feel it
does not rise to the level of impeachment or that it is not a crime at
all.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM by Gary B. Duglin - Wayne, you didn't answer Roger Wink's questions. All you did was nitpick over the word
"impeach." Yes we all know that the House of Representatives is the
congressional body that holds the impeachment hearings and the Senate conducts
the trial and then convicts or acquits. I think Roger knows that. However, that
being said, most people in our country use the word "impeach" to mean removal
from office. Wrong as that is, in the public vernacular, it's what most
Americans mean when they use the word "impeach." The questions though that Roger
asked you and that you did not answer are these. "IF it is proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty, would you expect the GOP senate to vote
to impeach. IF they did not, would that not be dereliction of their sworn
duties?" You know quite well what the majority of Americans believe Trump is
guilty of. Don't play games and say "What is a crime?" As I wrote in my response
to you above, "Wayne, when someone says - as you claim - 'You do X for us, we
will do Y for you,' that's a quid pro quo. And it's illegal to do with a foreign
government." Donald Trump's actions by putting pressure on Ukraine's President
Zelensky is bribery. Historians and constitutional scholars are very clear that
under circumstances as discussed herein our Founding Fathers determined bribery
as an elected official's abuse of power through his office. What Trump did was a
typical shakedown. When Trump said to Zelensky in that July 25th, 2019 telephone
call, "We do a lot for Ukraine" and "spend a lot of effort and a lot of time" to
help Ukraine but that it's not always "reciprocal," and then Trump says he wants
Ukraine "to do us a favor though," those words equate to Trump committing
crimes. The bottom line is that Trump was pressuring a foreign government to
investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden and Vice President Biden's son,
Hunter. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution plainly states
that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." So YES,
if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt - and based on the above and all the
witnesses' testimonies I don't know how it won't be proven - then if the Senate
doesn't convict and remove Donald Trump from office after a House impeachment,
that would indeed be a dereliction of their sworn duties. THAT'S the answer you
should have given to Roger.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 12:29 PM by Wayne Duglin - Gary, yes I did answer his question. As for me
nitpicking I don’t know Roger Wink so I don’t know if he has a 3rd grade
education or a PHD, so I don’t know if he knows that impeachment is done by the
House. It is a sorry state if you believe that “most
Americans” are that stupid to think impeachment means “removal from office”. A
very sorry state of education in America if that is true but maybe it is true
and that is why we have so many liberals in our Country! The question comes back
to “if what is proven?” What I am saying is if he asked for a favor to help do
what is right and not for personal gain there is NO crime. Yes, Gary learn
history, almost every treaty and or agreement between countries do what I said
'You do X for us, we will do Y for you,' President Obama did it with Iran, you
stop enriching uranium and we will give you billions of US Tax payer dollars.
Under your definition that's a quid pro quo, Obama should have been impeached!
Maybe he should have been, that really put American’s national security at risk!
Every trade deal does it, you buy American corn and we will buy your oil. And it
works both ways, you stop doing X or we will do y, Mexico help stop illegal
immigration or we will put tariffs on you products, all fit your definition of
quid pro quo. You may believe he did it for political gain against a 2020 rival
I believe he asked for help to find out what if any corruption a father and son
did in 2016. So that’s my answer, what I see isn’t a crime so proving he did
something that is not a crime means the Senate should not convict or remove the
President of the US.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM by Gary B. Duglin - None of what you said is accurate, Wayne, but you
go ahead and think that way. You can sob in your Rice Krispies when Donald Trump
is impeached, convicted and removed from office. And yes, Trump, Mulvaney,
Guiliani, et al have all shown the country as a whole that the quid pro quo was
indeed for "political gain against a 2020 rival." I'm done discussing this issue
with you because it's obvious that you're not going to accept facts. However, I
have more faith, in that there are at least 20 Republican senators who will put
country over party, and country over Donald Trump, and therefore they will do
what's appropriate and justifiable and join with 47 Democrats in the Senate to
convict Trump and remove him from office after the House impeaches him. By the
way, I will let Roger Wink defend
himself further with you, should he choose to do so, but I will tell you, my
friendship with Roger goes back 46 years and he has much more than a 3rd grade
education.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:41 PM by Wayne Duglin - Gary, you have NO FACTS you have only opinions and
assumptions which I disagree with and of course you have your hatred for the
President as does Schiff, Pelosi and the rest of that crew who are running the
Soviet style inquisition. We can only hope that the American people wake-up and
vote all of them out in 2020. God save America from the radical
left!
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:14 PM by Gary B. Duglin - Wayne, I said above that I was done discussing this
matter, however, I have to add the following. Why must you conclude with such
viciousness? Why must you make comments that include accusations of my "hatred"
for Donald Trump, which I do not have? Why must you make comments that include
"hatred" by "Schiff, Pelosi and the rest of that crew who are running the Soviet
style inquisition," which the Democrats are not doing. The Democrats are
conducting an inquiry and will be soon conducting public hearings EXACTLY the
way our Founding Fathers designed for them to act as per the U.S. Constitution.
The Democrats are doing their constitutional duty. The Democrats are putting
country over party and country over Trump. You and the Republicans clearly
are not. I pray that the majority of Americans - through popular vote and electoral
vote - are smart enough to realize EXACTLY what Vice President Joe Biden said to CBS News anchor Norah O'Donnell on 60 Minutes last week. "I’m not worried about my legacy. What I am worried about
is the country. Four years of Donald Trump will be very hard to overcome, but we
can. Eight years of Donald Trump will fundamentally change the nature of who we
are as a country. And it’ll take a generation — a generation or more for us to
get back on track." I echo Mr. Biden's sentiments. Now, I am done
here.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:41 PM by Wayne Duglin - Gary, I was done until you made so many false
statements. First nothing I said was vicious, just facts. Second, anyone who
reads your writings would conclude you are a Trump hater. You make me laugh when
you insinuate that Schiff and Pelosi are not
haters and that they are not running a Soviet style inquisition because they
are. Not allowing access, not allowing the GOP House members to ask all their questions, don’t tell it’s not true Schiff has shut down questions by the GOP in
every hearing. Saying the GOP has equal rights in calling witnesses but only if
Schiff approves them, it is a joke and a Soviet style inquisition meant to
influence the 2020 election. We all know it is for show and that they are going
to impeach him so just do it and move it to the Senate where they can hold a
trial or do it the easy way and just hold a vote and acquit him and show the
Dems for what they are: partisan hacks and Trump haters. The biggest fear I have
for the Country is what you and the Dems want to fundamentally change America
into, which would not be the America we all should love and cherish. Let’s keep
America Great!
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:07 PM by Gary B. Duglin - I am forced by my own self-worth to respond to you
again, Wayne, because if I said I was done after you made "so many false
statements," I would never have responded to you at all from your first remarks
at the top of this string of comments. I truly feel sorry for you if you don't
feel that the remarks you made at 1:41 PM today are vicious towards Speaker of
the House Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrats in general, and me.
Furthermore, I have written for more than four years - since Donald Trump became
a candidate - that I am not a "hater." How many times do I have to say that I do
not hate anyone? I despise and loathe what Trump has done and continues to do to
the United States of America, and I abhor the way he treats people who are not
wealthy and white. But I do not hate HIM. I am incapable of hating any
person.
As for your lie that Democrats are "not allowing the GOP House members to ask all their questions," that statement is so false that it doesn't even deserve a response from me. However, I will reply in this manner, which is directly from PolitiFact. "There are nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, 17 are on the House Oversight Committee, and 21 are on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. By contrast, those three committees feature 13, 23 and 26 Democrats, respectively, with four Democrats sitting on two of them at the same time." PolitiFact goes on to say, "All 47 of those Republicans have been able to participate and ask questions in the interviews and depositions held to this point. There is no constitutional provision that says a president or his allies must be allowed to cross-examine witnesses during a House impeachment inquiry. When Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the inquiry was denying Trump 'due process accorded every American,' we rated his statement False. If such rights apply at all, they would be granted during the Senate’s trial phase. 'The House impeachment
Wayne, you have it backwards that Democrats are trying to "influence the 2020 election." That script is being acted out by Trump, his administration, and other Republicans.
None of what the Democrats are doing, Wayne, is "for show." It is to save America. It is to save our democracy, our liberties, our freedoms. Donald Trump has for nearly three years since entering The White House undermined our democracy. I will reiterate what I have stated previously, there will be at least 20 Republican senators who will hop over the fence and jump on to the Democrats' bandwagon to vote to convict Trump in the Senate trial.
Wayne, you once again conclude another of your comments with viciousness when you make the statement to imply that Democrats do not "love and cherish" our country; that if Democrats are in office, you have a "fear" for the United States. I don't know what you think Democrats want to "fundamentally change America in to," but I can assure you that it will be significantly better than Donald Trump. Now, once again, I'm done.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:50 PM by Roger Wink (responding to comments made by Wayne Duglin) - Wayne, so, you simply can't answer a question. All you do
is deflect. The question is not WHAT he is
guilty of. IF, he is found beyond a doubt to be guilty of a crime (no matter
what one), do you feel the GOP in the senate should or would convict
him?
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 6:14 PM by Gary B. Duglin - Roger, you might as well give up with Wayne. I
have. When it comes to Trumpers we're beating our heads against the wall because
they're just not going to give in until they're hit over the heads with more
bombshell testimony, which with Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman and today's NEW
testimony from Ambassador Gordon Sondland (pictured above right), not to mention others from the last
couple of weeks and more in the upcoming weeks, I'm confident the end is coming
for Trump. Sondland today changed his testimony that there was indeed a quid pro
quo with Ukraine and that the crime of bribery was committed. Sondland's new
testimony makes totally clear that releasing foreign aid to Ukraine was
conditional on President Zelensky launching an investigation in to Vice
President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. I have said all along - in columns at
The Controversy - that Trump (like Richard Nixon) has spearheaded a major
cover-up. As for Wayne and other Trumpers, they're not going to provide us with
truthful answers. It's impossible to get Trumpers - be them my brother or
anybody else - to say anything that could be thought of as even possibly bad
towards Donald Trump.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 10:23 AM by Wayne Duglin (responding to comments made by Roger Wink) - Roger, hypothetically what he is guilty of is important;
many “crimes” do not rise to the level of impeachment and or removal. Once again
hypothetically if he was guilty of a crime that is of that level he should be
removed, asking a favor of another leader or
requiring a foreign country to investigate corruption before we give them our
tax dollars is not only not to that level it is not a crime at all, even if it
involves a possible future political rival.
Wayne's remarks above on November 6th concluded the string of Facebook comments as there was no reason for Roger to continue the debate as Wayne refused to give a straight-forward, suitable answer to the question being asked. And I was not going to move forward with a political argument where the person in the opposition simply would not recognize and acknowledge - even hypothetically - that Donald Trump could be guilty of crimes and that, if proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate should do it's constitutional duty and convict him and subsequently remove him from office.
The next day - Thursday, November 7th at 1:09 AM - I posted a follow-up to the thread of remarks above.
The curtain will soon be
coming down on the Donald Trump stage featuring his production, "Corruption and
Obstruction, Extortion, Bribery, Fraud and Abuse of Power."
What Trump did was a typical shakedown. Call it bribery, call it
extortion, call it corruption, call it a federal crime against the United
States, all those words are accurate because the bottom line is that Donald
Trump broke the law. Like a mob boss, Trump twisted Zelensky's arm to interfere
in our upcoming 2020 election. When Trump said to Zelensky in the aforementioned
telephone call, "We do a lot for Ukraine" and "spend a lot of effort and a lot
of time" to help Ukraine but that it's not always "reciprocal," and then Trump
says he wants Ukraine "to do us a favor though," those words equate to Trump
committing crimes. The fact is that Trump was pressuring a foreign government to
investigate his political opponent and the former Vice President's son, Hunter
Biden.
The following paragraph was not part of my Facebook comments on November 7th, but I add this critical piece of information for this column, as I have noted them in other past editorials for The Controversy.
Why would Donald Trump do any of this? There is a simple explanation. Trump knows that he has to do whatever is humanly possible - whether legal or illegal - that might help him get re-elected. Because Trump also is fully aware that if he loses the 2020 election to the Democratic nominee - whomever that may be - then come January 20th, 2021, Trump's future will become disastrous, as there is no doubt that he will be indicted. Unfortunately, U.S. Justice Department policy - not law, but policy - does not permit a sitting President to be indicted. Once Trump is out of office, he will answer for his alleged crimes, and it is likely that he would be convicted and sentenced to prison. However, if Trump wins in 2020 - that's if he's not impeached, convicted and removed from office (or resigns) before the election - then a second term would surpass the statute of limitations for the crimes he is accused of committing. Now back to my Facebook comments from November 7th.
The following paragraph was not part of my Facebook comments on November 7th, but I add this critical piece of information for this column, as I have noted them in other past editorials for The Controversy.
Why would Donald Trump do any of this? There is a simple explanation. Trump knows that he has to do whatever is humanly possible - whether legal or illegal - that might help him get re-elected. Because Trump also is fully aware that if he loses the 2020 election to the Democratic nominee - whomever that may be - then come January 20th, 2021, Trump's future will become disastrous, as there is no doubt that he will be indicted. Unfortunately, U.S. Justice Department policy - not law, but policy - does not permit a sitting President to be indicted. Once Trump is out of office, he will answer for his alleged crimes, and it is likely that he would be convicted and sentenced to prison. However, if Trump wins in 2020 - that's if he's not impeached, convicted and removed from office (or resigns) before the election - then a second term would surpass the statute of limitations for the crimes he is accused of committing. Now back to my Facebook comments from November 7th.
In
his under-oath testimony on Wednesday, November 6th, 2019 Taylor confirmed to
Congress that he was informed that “everything” from the U.S., including a White
House meeting with Trump and more than $390 million in congressional approved
military aid for Ukraine to defend itself against Russia, was contingent upon
Ukraine agreeing to investigate the Bidens. "That was my clear understanding,
security assistance money would not come until the President (of Ukraine)
committed to pursue the investigation," Taylor told House of Representatives
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and other lawmakers who are leading
the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump.
Public opinion is going to change more and more in the not too
distant future, as I have written in the past. So fast forward to the upcoming
public hearings, which begin next Wednesday, November 13th. Americans will hear
from unimpeachable witnesses in under-oath testimony that there is irrefutable
evidence that Donald Trump has committed crimes. Once those witnesses are heard
by American voters on live television, Trump will be finding himself in the
hottest water so far. And the first scheduled witness just happens to be
Ambassador Taylor.
As
for Ambassador Sondland, his revised testimony, which came in a Monday, November
4th three-page declaration to those House committees involved in the Trump
impeachment inquiry and that was made public on Tuesday, November 5th, also
confirms the quid pro quo. Sondland's refreshed memory reverses his
congressional testimony from October. Sondland says that initially he was
unaware of any link between Ukraine investigating Mr. Biden and his son in
exchange for military aid, but Sondland says he remembers telling a top
government official in Ukraine that U.S. assistance would "likely" be withheld
unless Zelensky did what Trump wanted. It should be noted that Trump had cited
Sondland - his handpicked U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and a campaign
mega-donor - as proof that there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine. But Sondland
now says any pressure by Trump towards the Ukraine president was "improper" and
possibly "illegal."
So
who will be next from Donald Trump's orbit to throw him under the bus? It's a
foregone conclusion that more one-time allies of Trump will be putting country
over a gangster who has no right sitting behind The Oval Office desk. Article
II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution clearly states that the
President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Note the word
"Bribery." For both Sondland and Taylor to basically say that Trump indeed violated federal law is one more nail in the coffin of Trump's presidency. That means the House of Representatives and the Senate need to do their duty and move
forward - in fact, full speed ahead - with the impeachment, trial, conviction
and removal from office of Donald Trump.
But there's more. On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 1:41 PM, the following was added to my Facebook post by Jack J. Benedetto in response to comments made by Wayne Duglin. - Gary, now if Wayne, can't see the facts, what can
you do? I think if Wayne would listen to MSNBC'S Rachel Maddow's 8th of November podcast, and truly listen without prejudice, and listen to her read the
testimony of true patriots that have actually served our country, it might dawn
on him that President Trump is unfit for office and a clear danger to our
democratic republic. Or would he simply dismiss and prejudge her as a lesbian
leftist fake news deep state conspiracy commentator? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Would
he? I sincerely hope not. Even though Rachel has a bachelor's degree in
public
policy from Stanford University and a PhD from Oxford University, I wonder? I
wonder what academic qualifications Sean Hannity has? As an educator, I have
worked with all sorts of behaviors in schools k-12. I taught and guided gifted
education students, special education students, students needing behavior
intervention and even adolescents in a psychiatric treatment center. I know a
bad actor when I see one. Character counts, and Trump is a bully with limited
cognitive ability who simply cannot focus. He's bullied and intimidated his way
through life. That's his modus operandi. Yes he has lots of money, (and probably
had the most blocks in kindergarten and didn't share) and he's used it in many
dishonorable ways. He's a con man, and unfortunately a narcissist. He lacks
depth, is barely literate, has no vision and other than what he adores when he
looks in the mirror, loves no-one. A hedonist if I ever saw one. Character
counts. So I so hope, people like Wayne, take off their coats of preconceived
and entrenched beliefs, and read, listen to the testimony. Maybe then he and
others, who out of their fear, have been fooled, will see who we accidentally
elected with the help of the cyber warfare and the purposely divisive
misinformation and disinformation emanating from the Russians whose president,
Vladimir Putin, convinced feeble minded Trump in Helsinki to say that he
believed Putin over our own men and women who every day try to protect against
foreign invaders, terrorists and the like to keep us safe. Crazy new world of
psychological cyber warfare. Wayne Duglin I don't mean to offend you. I respect
your fears and reasons why you believed president Trump was doing a good
job as you once told me. I don't (try never to), call people names. But maybe you could
be a little bit wrong here? Am I dreaming this or did I see a picture of you and
former mayor Giuliani? Was it the old Giuliani, America's mayor, or the new
unimproved version? "A republic. If we can keep it." -Ben Franklin
Monday, November 11, 2019 at 1:36 PM by Wayne Duglin (responding to comments made by Jack J. Benedetto) - Jack, I see the facts fine, I just disagree with your and the lefts interpretation of those facts. I don’t feel that President Trump is “unfit for office and a clear danger to our democratic republic.” I don’t believe he has done anything to warrant this partisan investigation; sure as hell he’s done nothing to require impeachment or removal from office. What bothers me the most of your disgraceful comments is your insinuation that I would not listen to or accept what MSNBC'S Rachel Maddow has to say because she is a lesbian, get this straight I don’t care whether someone is black, white, brown, yellow or red, I don’t care how they pray or what their sexual orientation or gender identity is. All I care about is what their policies and positions are, it is you who as most of the left like to do is bring up identity politics. You try and play the race card, gender card, whatever card there is, you guys will try and play it. If you run your classrooms like what you wrote here, I now know why our public education in the US is failing. It is you and the left that won’t look at everyone as Americans; you need to call them African Americans, Hispanic Americans, gay Americans, the list goes on and on, why can't you accept that we are all just Americans? Why must you divide us with your hate? You listen to sound bites and attempt to bring fear hate into the conversation, that is not the American way but it seems to be the lefts way. Yes, that was a photo of me with the greatest Mayor of NYC and in my opinion the greatest Mayor of any city in America of all time. Mayor Giuliani was and is a great American and works for and fights for the good of America!
Monday, November 11, 2019 at 6:08 PM by Jack J. Benedetto (responding to comments made by Wayne Duglin) - You are absolutely right Wayne. I should not have said that lesbian Maddow stuff. I think I've seen you call other people names and I was indeed upset with things in general with this president. I am glad you would openly listen to her. It was, in retrospect unfair to assume that you'd be like that. I never saw you be racist or anything like a hater of some specific group race religion sexual orientation. Actually I never thought of you that way at all. The president however I believe to be racist. He has demonized groups of people. Wayne, as a person who was literally forced to run and climb up an apple tree as the Upper Saddle River chief of police's son chased me called me nigger and threw rotten apples and rocks at me, I do have sensitivity to people who are different. I couldn't have been allowed to be a teacher, or do the job I am right now, if I were not accepting of all cultures in a class room. I don't get why or how you got that I'm part of the group of people who divide us. I also think of all Americans as Americans regardless of what ever subgroup they are in. Anyway, now that we have established we are both not racists, demonizers of Mexicans as rapists, murderers, drug smugglers (and some I suppose are good people), Muslims or those other people from shithole countries, I would like to ask you your take on a few things, if you don’t mind. I have lots of questions but feel free to answer one none or all. First Wayne I am glad we have the back and forth. You are the only Trump guy I know. Seeing how you think and feel is helpful for me to understand my and your biases. Here are my questions. I would really like to know your thoughts on these.
.
Why do you think 27 mental health professionals felt compelled to write the book: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump? Why did Tony Schwartz the man who wrote The Art of the Deal felt guilty for 30 years about writing the book and when DT was running as a candidate felt compelled to warn the nation of Trump's short attention span? Recently 1100 scientists from around the world wrote calling our present situation a Climate Emergency while at the same time Trump has weakened out clean air laws, tried to roll back auto emissions standards in CA and pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Trump is ignoring the warnings and has even silenced scientists. Are you comfortable about this?
Why did I see Trump supporters at rallies raising their right hands up in the air and chanting their allegiance to Donald Trump while several of the people who disagreed with him were beaten up and dragged away? Why do you think DT believed Putin in Helsinki but did not believe all the US intelligence agencies who had proof the Russians were behind the psychological warfare attacks? Are you comfortable with the fact that Harvard political scientists have warned that Trump meets every criteria for an authoritarian leader? Why do you think Michael Cohen warned that if Donald Trump loses In 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power? Are you comfortable with DT saying that the press is the enemy of the people? Why does he make horrible tweets at people who disagree with him putting a virtual target on their backs which could get them shot? Why do you think Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns?
Why do you think Donald Trump has to tell us he's smart? "I am a very stable genius" Why did DT abandon our Kurdish allies in Syria? Did you agree with him on that one? Why do you think the anonymous White house official wrote the NY Times article and now the book “WARNING”? Is it ok that a president is allowed to extort and or bribe a foreign country to find dirt on his political rival? (You know like withholding the aid money to Ukraine until the Ukraine president agreed to say publically he would investigate VP Biden who was at that time carrying out the will of the IMF, EU and USA policy).
Monday, November 11, 2019 at 1:36 PM by Wayne Duglin (responding to comments made by Jack J. Benedetto) - Jack, I see the facts fine, I just disagree with your and the lefts interpretation of those facts. I don’t feel that President Trump is “unfit for office and a clear danger to our democratic republic.” I don’t believe he has done anything to warrant this partisan investigation; sure as hell he’s done nothing to require impeachment or removal from office. What bothers me the most of your disgraceful comments is your insinuation that I would not listen to or accept what MSNBC'S Rachel Maddow has to say because she is a lesbian, get this straight I don’t care whether someone is black, white, brown, yellow or red, I don’t care how they pray or what their sexual orientation or gender identity is. All I care about is what their policies and positions are, it is you who as most of the left like to do is bring up identity politics. You try and play the race card, gender card, whatever card there is, you guys will try and play it. If you run your classrooms like what you wrote here, I now know why our public education in the US is failing. It is you and the left that won’t look at everyone as Americans; you need to call them African Americans, Hispanic Americans, gay Americans, the list goes on and on, why can't you accept that we are all just Americans? Why must you divide us with your hate? You listen to sound bites and attempt to bring fear hate into the conversation, that is not the American way but it seems to be the lefts way. Yes, that was a photo of me with the greatest Mayor of NYC and in my opinion the greatest Mayor of any city in America of all time. Mayor Giuliani was and is a great American and works for and fights for the good of America!
Monday, November 11, 2019 at 6:08 PM by Jack J. Benedetto (responding to comments made by Wayne Duglin) - You are absolutely right Wayne. I should not have said that lesbian Maddow stuff. I think I've seen you call other people names and I was indeed upset with things in general with this president. I am glad you would openly listen to her. It was, in retrospect unfair to assume that you'd be like that. I never saw you be racist or anything like a hater of some specific group race religion sexual orientation. Actually I never thought of you that way at all. The president however I believe to be racist. He has demonized groups of people. Wayne, as a person who was literally forced to run and climb up an apple tree as the Upper Saddle River chief of police's son chased me called me nigger and threw rotten apples and rocks at me, I do have sensitivity to people who are different. I couldn't have been allowed to be a teacher, or do the job I am right now, if I were not accepting of all cultures in a class room. I don't get why or how you got that I'm part of the group of people who divide us. I also think of all Americans as Americans regardless of what ever subgroup they are in. Anyway, now that we have established we are both not racists, demonizers of Mexicans as rapists, murderers, drug smugglers (and some I suppose are good people), Muslims or those other people from shithole countries, I would like to ask you your take on a few things, if you don’t mind. I have lots of questions but feel free to answer one none or all. First Wayne I am glad we have the back and forth. You are the only Trump guy I know. Seeing how you think and feel is helpful for me to understand my and your biases. Here are my questions. I would really like to know your thoughts on these.
.
Why do you think 27 mental health professionals felt compelled to write the book: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump? Why did Tony Schwartz the man who wrote The Art of the Deal felt guilty for 30 years about writing the book and when DT was running as a candidate felt compelled to warn the nation of Trump's short attention span? Recently 1100 scientists from around the world wrote calling our present situation a Climate Emergency while at the same time Trump has weakened out clean air laws, tried to roll back auto emissions standards in CA and pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Trump is ignoring the warnings and has even silenced scientists. Are you comfortable about this?
Why did I see Trump supporters at rallies raising their right hands up in the air and chanting their allegiance to Donald Trump while several of the people who disagreed with him were beaten up and dragged away? Why do you think DT believed Putin in Helsinki but did not believe all the US intelligence agencies who had proof the Russians were behind the psychological warfare attacks? Are you comfortable with the fact that Harvard political scientists have warned that Trump meets every criteria for an authoritarian leader? Why do you think Michael Cohen warned that if Donald Trump loses In 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power? Are you comfortable with DT saying that the press is the enemy of the people? Why does he make horrible tweets at people who disagree with him putting a virtual target on their backs which could get them shot? Why do you think Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns?
Why do you think Donald Trump has to tell us he's smart? "I am a very stable genius" Why did DT abandon our Kurdish allies in Syria? Did you agree with him on that one? Why do you think the anonymous White house official wrote the NY Times article and now the book “WARNING”? Is it ok that a president is allowed to extort and or bribe a foreign country to find dirt on his political rival? (You know like withholding the aid money to Ukraine until the Ukraine president agreed to say publically he would investigate VP Biden who was at that time carrying out the will of the IMF, EU and USA policy).
Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 11:15 AM by Wayne Duglin (responding to comments made by Jack J. Benedetto) - Jack, I listen to all sides and try to weed out the
partisan soundbites and focus on the facts. The facts to me are that I don’t
believe the President has done anything to call for his impeachment and or
removal. I don’t accept the lefts position
that he was looking to affect the 2020 election; it is the Executive Branch’s
responsibility by federal law to investigate any foreign corruption prior to the
release of any foreign aid. We know from the Ukrainian Court that officials did
interfere with our 2016 election attempting to aid Clinton. I don’t believe the President is a racist, I will
say I am not thrilled the way he speaks a lot of times, but you take the good
with the bad. To me his actions more than compensate for his mouth and tweets.
The Presidents statements about Mexicans was not about all Mexicans but about
the illegal aliens coming in from south of our boarder. Some of the countries he
called out are shithole countries but I agree it shouldn’t have been said. I
won’t go into climate change except to say the US emissions are the lowest they
have been since the early 1990’s and the Paris climate agreement would have had
the USA taking the brunt of the problem and paying the brunt of the bill.
Destroying our economy. You asked “Why did I see Trump supporters at
rallies raising their right hands up in the air and chanting their allegiance to
Donald Trump while several of the people who disagreed with him were beaten up
and dragged away?” the answer is easy it is what the leftwing media wanted you
to see. They weren’t chanting their allegiance to President Trump, they were
chanting USA, USA, their allegiance to America. The media didn’t show you the
enthusiasm and love of America his supporters have. The media and the left wanted
you to see them as crazy nuts that need to be feared and pushed away. Michael
Cohen is a liar and a cheat and a man without honor. I don’t believe that
anything the President has said is going to get anyone shot. No I wasn’t
thrilled with what was done with the Kurds, I don’t think we abandoned them, we
have treaties with Turkey (NATO) and they were going in no matter if we stayed
or not. We should have pushed them not to go in and maybe we did, I don’t
know. No I don’t believe it is ok for a President to
extort and or bribe a foreign country to find dirt on his political rival. From
everything I have read and heard I don’t believe that President Trump did any of
that, I think he was looking to find out how the Ukraine Government and the
Biden’s were involved in the 2016 election corruption and possible corruption by
VP Biden to protect his son. Which is 100% legal and right for the President to
ask the new President of Ukraine to look into as a favor to America, if a
President has questions about corruption in a country it is not only his right
but his obligation under the law to withhold aid until he gets
answers.
Now I, Gary B. Duglin, continue with my thoughts. The back and forth tussle of tongues by everyday Americans with opposing views is becoming more and more incendiary. But day after day, former Trump administration officials - and some current ones - are providing damning information about Donald Trump's alleged threat to Ukraine's President Zelensky. Meanwhile, Trumpers nationwide are merely echoing the false information being broadcast by Fox News and other conservatives in the media. One Republican after another is gulping down the Trump rhetoric as if it was fresh squeezed Florida orange juice or a creamy chocolate milkshake. And they believe every word he says as if it were all true. But Trumpers don't want to accept the fact that Donald Trump is a habitual liar who cannot be trusted and who will tell his base anything he wants - whether fact or fiction - because Trump knows he has brainwashed them all and they will believe him. It's unfortunate - actually disturbing - that one individual has the capability - not to mention the audacity - to hoodwink and downright deceive millions of people who have no clue that the man couldn't give a damn about any of them. So, if the Senate doesn't put country above party and convict Trump, removing him from office after what I expect will be an impeachment by the House of Representatives, then every single Democrat and left-leaning Independent of voting age, plus any other voter in the center or even on the right who opposes Trump, must exercise their duty and cast their ballot come November 3rd, 2020 for the Democratic nominee for President, as well as for every Democrat running for a seat in each of the two chambers of Congress.
Moving ahead with the Trump impeachment inquiry, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent is a key witness. The transcript of Kent's October testimony before Congress was released on Thursday, November 7th and Kent says he listened to the aforementioned phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that Trump's attempt at a quid pro quo was maliciously detrimental. Kent's crushing statement corroborates other witnesses' testimonies that Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate his number one political rival in the 2020 presidential race, Democrat and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, and that Trump, in an extortion plot, withheld military aid of more than 390 million dollars, as part of the quid pro quo relation to a Biden investigation. Kent told the congressional committees, "I wrote a note to the file saying that I had concern that there was an effort to initiate politically motivated prosecutions that were injurious to the rule of the law, both in Ukraine and the U.S." Kent was very clear with House of Representatives committee members that "I do not believe the U.S. should ask other countries to engage in politically associated invesigations and prosecutions." According to the transcript of Kent's testimony, "POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to the microphone and say investigations, Biden and Clinton. Basically, there needed to be three words in the message, and that was the shorthand."
The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Democrat from California, who has been given the reigns of the impeachment inquiry, are keeping their word for transparency. So on Friday, November 8th, the transcript of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman's closed-door testimony was made public. Vindman - who is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council - was plain as day when he told House impeachment investigators, "there was no doubt" that Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to get dirt on Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the gain would be for the President in investigating the son of a political opponent." Vindman was also clear with his testimony that Trump and his cronies had issued a quid pro quo message to Ukraine.
Another transcript was released on November 8th, and Donald Trump's former Deputy Assistant to the President and former chief adviser on Russia and Europe says she received "death threats" and "hateful calls" while she was a member of
the administration. Fiona Hill also testified that her tenure was marked with "conspiracy theories." Hill told Congress that the harassment campaign was given a shot of B12 once it became known that she would cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Hill says Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland were both involved in a plan to put pressure on Ukraine to perform the investigations that Trump wanted. From Hill's closed-door testimony, "I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbors reported somebody coming and hammering on my door."
Hill's transcript spells out in black-and-white that Giuliani and Sondland bypassed the National Security Council and proper White House methods in order to advocate for a shadow policy on Ukraine, which Hill alleges was given muscle by Trump and Giuliani.
Hill testified that she and Sondland butted heads during a meeting that focused on Zelensky hooking up with Trump at The White House, but only after the Ukrainians moved forward with the investigations of the Bidens. Hill further stated that Sondland talked with White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about such a U.S./Ukraine get-together, but with the same conditions. Hill says that afterwards she privately discussed with then National Security Adviser John Bolton (pictured above right) the scheme that Mulvaney and Sondland were concocting. Bolton had put a stop to the meeting with
Mulvaney, Sondland and Hill. In her testimony to Congress, Hill didn't mince words. "This is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton. You go tell (Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs John) Eisenberg (pictured left) that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and tell him what you've heard and what I've said."
Meanwhile, Mulvaney basically gave the proverbial "finger" to Democrats on November 8th when he snubbed a subpoena to appear for a deposition with the congressional impeachment committees. Mulvaney claims he has "absolute immunity" and, therefore, he, in essence, told Democrats to go to hell. But Mulvaney already let the cat out of the bag at a press conference in October when he admitted on live, national television that Donald Trump withheld vital military aid for Ukraine as a means of strong-arming its country's leader to launch an investigation in to the Bidens in order to help Trump's personal and political interests. Mulvaney later tried to walk back his spilling of the beans, but anyone with a brain knows that his statements to reporters in The White House Briefing Room - not to mention the entire United States and the whole world - cannot be shoved back in to the tube after the toxic toothpaste has been plopped on to the brush.
In addition, the transcript of testimony by the foremost Pentagon official overseeing U.S. policy relating to Ukraine also shows that Donald Trump ordered the freeze on military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper has corroborated under oath what other witnesses have told House impeachment investigators that Trump sought a quid pro quo with Ukraine in order to benefit him politically. Congress Members asked Cooper if Trump was authorized to withhold such funding and she stated that there was some worry among Department of Defense officials that Trump's actions were not lawful and thus there were questions whether he had the right to issue that type of directive. Cooper's reply to House investigators was that there were "concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion" because she and other DOD officials had understood that the bucks were "specific to Ukraine security assistance" and, therefore, "there would need to be a notification to Congress." But Cooper topped off her answer with, "That did not occur."
Some people in Washington and throughout the nation have suggested that Donald Trump did not "direct" or "order" a quid pro quo. But as I have written for years - going back to that infamous June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York City with (from left to right in the picture) Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, along with a number of Russians - nothing, absolutely nothing goes on in "Trump world" without the direction and approval of Donald Trump. It should be remembered that Trump Jr. admitted in an email that he would "love it" if Russia could get them dirt on Hillary Clinton.
I have wondered for a very long time - and have posed this question in other columns because of Donald Trump's bromance with Russia's President Vladimir Putin - what does Putin have on Trump? I have included "blackmail" in the title of this
column for that reason, and also because of the off and on lovefest that Senator Lindsey Graham displays for Trump. What damaging information does Trump have on the South Carolina Republican that has caused Graham to kiss Trump's ass? I wrote an editorial on May 5th, 2019 that focused on that issue. Part of the title included "Lindsey Graham Should Be Wearing A Neck Brace For Whiplash After All His Flip-Flops About Donald Trump." In that commentary I noted that it was December 8th, 2015 - while the two men competed against each other for
the Republican nomination for president - when Graham, in an interview on CNN,
vehemently uttered the following about Trump. "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic,
religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represent the
values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting
for." Also in that same appearance on CNN, Graham asked, "You know how to make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell." Several months later on April 8th, 2016, Graham made the following comment about Trump on CBS This Morning. "I don't believe he's a Republican. His policies are really bad for the
country. Trump's foreign policy is a complete disaster." Back on CNN, Graham blasted Trump by saying, "The Republican Party has been conned here. I don't think he has the
temperament or judgment to be commander-in-chief." From butt-kicker to boot-licker, one has to be curious about an individual who
believes in his heart and soul that another person is a dastardly demon, but
then later raises that evil scoundrel on to an elevated pedestal and praises him
with sweetness and applause. Graham's verbal jabs at Trump became heartfelt hugs, as demonstrated at a South Carolina Town Hall on March 4th, 2017. "I'm trying to help our president, Donald Trump, be as successful because number
one I agree with him mostly." And the following year, on June 15th, 2018, Graham included profanity with his praise for Trump. "I like the President. I want to help him. I hope he's successful. If you
don't like me working with Trump to make the world a better place, I don't give
a shit." But it's Graham's recent comments that are the icing on the cake in defense of Trump when he called the Democrats' impeachment inquiry a "political vendetta." Graham told reporters on November 6th, "I'm not gonna read these transcripts. The whole process is a joke. I find the whole process to be a sham and I'm not gonna legitimize it." Graham, on the same day, was interviewed by Fox News and expressed that this entire matter was made up in somebody's head. "This, to me, is a manufactured issue created by some unknown whistle-blower who needs to be known, and the phone call is the basis for the impeachment allegation. I don't think the President did anything wrong."
Go ahead and think that way, Lindsey. How about all the witnesses who have come forward and corroborated the whistle-blower's testimony? The evidence is as sharp as a killer shark's teeth, and before the shark in The White House devours our democracy, we're "gonna need a bigger boat." And that's why the Democrats on Capitol Hill are sailing their ship down Pennsylvania Avenue in order to capture a creature that can no longer be allowed to roam freely.
This entire ordeal erupted after The Washington Post published a report
on September 18th, 2019 about a whistle-blower complaint that was filed in
August 2019 by a U.S. intelligence officer who reported troubling and alarming
concerns about communications between Donald Trump and a foreign leader. That leader turned out to be Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The whistle-blower is a courageous individual and this person needs to be applauded by each and every American and protected by the laws of our land. Trump, on the other hand, is a clear and present danger to the United States. He has caused a constitutional crisis in our nation. Congressional doctors need to administer an antidote to our country for the poison that is Donald Trump. His toxicity has sickened our national security and infected the liberty and freedom that each American cherishes dearly. Trump needs to be held accountable - in a legal and constitutional manner - for the crimes he has allegedly committed.
I'm waiting to hear from John Bolton and from his former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman (pictured left) plus from former White House Counsel Don McGahn (pictured below left). That's if we ever do get to hear from any of them. As for Bolton, he was scheduled to appear before Congress for a closed-door deposition on Thursday,
November 7th, but he didn't show because he and Kupperman are waiting on a judge's ruling on a lawsuit to determine whether they're required to follow orders by Donald Trump and The White House to totally ignore the House of Representatives. Bolton has said he will not testify until the lawsuit is settled. The suit was filed in October after Kupperman was subpoenaed by House Democrats. The White House argues that Kupperman doesn't have to testify because he is covered by "constitutional immunity." But now, Kupperman's subpoena has been withdrawn and House leaders have decided not to subpoena Bolton. Democrats say the lawsuit would affect the pace of the impeachment inquiry and slow it down. The House Intelligence Committee issued a statement that "We regret Mr. Bolton's decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months. Rather, The White House instruction that he not appear will add to the evidence of the President's obstruction of Congress." Bolton was privy (and probably Kupperman too) to "many relevant meetings and conversations" on Ukraine
that Congressman Adam Schiff and the impeachment committees might be unaware of, according to Bolton's attorney, Charles Cooper (pictured). Meanwhile, Mick Mulvaney has jumped on the Kupperman lawsuit bandwagon because he feels legal guidance is necessary. Mulvaney had been subpoenaed also, but he was told by the Trump administration that he too is protected by "constitutional immunity" and, therefore, he did not have to report for a deposition on Friday, November 8th. Trump has also instructed McGahn not to testify. The lawsuit he filed could be resolved by the end of November, which - depending on the judge's ruling - could provide legal grounds to force Bolton, Kupperman and others to testify. Obviously, Trump does not want McGahn, Mulvaney, Bolton or Kupperman to appear under oath because one or more of them are likely to know where some - if not all - the bodies are buried, metaphorically speaking of course.
Donald Trump should not be allowed to block witnesses from testifying because of his power to assert executive privilege just because they had conversations with him. Everyone needs to remember - including, if need be, the justices of the United States Supreme Court - that Trump is the subject of this impeachment inquiry.
At 7:26 AM on Saturday, November 9th, Speaker Pelosi tweeted, "Our inquiry has uncovered some profound betrayals of our Constitution, but it has also uncovered acts of profound patriotism by public servants who stood up for what was right. We will continue to conduct our inquiry aspiring to the same ideals. #DefendOurDemocracy
Before I close, I want to share words I received from Congressman Adam Schiff who at 6:32 PM on Sunday, November 10th emailed me the following. "For the last month, my colleagues and I have been engaged in an intense investigation. Twelve hour-long depositions and interviews, 3 or 4 days a week. Late nights and early mornings. And of course the backdrop is constant attacks by the President, his allies and his acolytes. The truth is we've made tremendous progress as we seek to uncover the full extent of the President's misconduct, despite the efforts to obstruct us at every turn. And now the American people are beginning to see our work through the transcripts we've released. Next week, we begin the next phase. Next week, the American people will for themselves from dedicated public servants with direct knowledge of the President's efforts to press Ukraine to investigate his political opponents. The men and women who will testify have spent decades serving their country. They've served Presidents of both parties faithfully, advancing America's interests around the world. And they will describe, as they did in their closed-door testimony, the way in which the President's personal and political interests were put first. As the American people watch, as you watch, I hope they will keep in mind that these men and women are demonstrating incredible courage and patriotism by coming forward. They did not seek out the limelight or bright lights of a congressional hearing room, but when called upon, they have done their nation yet another service. That spirit of service and patriotism is what inspires me, and what is at the forefront of my mind on the cusp of the momentous days to come. I'm buoyed by the knowledge that you and so many others are with me in our fight to put our nation and our democracy first. Talk to you soon. Adam"
Yes, Congressman Schiff. I'm with you, our Constitution, and our country one-hundred percent.
All of the above being said, tickets have been on sale and purchased over the last three years for a play that should never have made it beyond a workshop in a small summer stock theatre. But it's been in playhouses, large and small, throughout the country. Titled "Corruption and Obstruction, Extortion, Bribery, Blackmail, Fraud and Abuse of Power," it was written by its star, Donald Trump. Now, Congress will take their production to the big stage later today, Wednesday, November 13th, for opening night (actually a matinee) of their two-act play. Act One is "The U.S. House of Representatives." It's being produced exactly the way the creators (our nation's Founding Fathers) outlined the concept and described it in their original script titled, "The United States Constitution." Actors this week (and in subsequent weeks) will appear in the spotlight in what promises to be Tony Award winning performances. But they will take their cues from directors who - more than two-centuries ago - prepared for this week in dress rehearsals. It will, however, be the theatre-going public who will let the producers of Act Two - "The U.S. Senate" - know whether they should allow Trump's show to continue "treading the boards," or if the play should be closed so that a new production can open starring a different leading man or leading woman who would take center stage. Notwithstanding my metaphor, an impeachment hearing is not theatrics. It's democracy in action. And it's what our Founders - the Framers of America's Constitution - would want for us to do today.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy is a publication of GBD Productions. Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B. Duglin.
Please express your personal opinions by following the instructions printed at the top of this column. And thank you for reading The Controversy.
Photo credits:
1 - The Associated Press/Getty Images (Donald Trump #1)
2 - Barbara Hall Productions/Revelations Entertainment/CBS Television
Studios (Tea Leoni)
3 - Barbara Hall Productions/Revelations Entertainment/CBS Television
Studios (Jose Zuniga)
4 - Nathan Congleton/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank/Getty Images (Former Vice
President Joe Biden) and Rick Bowmer/The Associated Press (Senator Mitt Romney)
5 - Patrick Semansky/The Associated Press (Former Vice President Joe Biden and Former Governor John Kasich)
6 - Douliery Olivier/Abaca Press/Sipa USA/Newscom (Senator Bernie Sanders)
7 - The Washington Post and Getty Images (Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
8 - Rick Bowmer/The Associated Press (Senator Elizabeth Warren)
9 - Inna Sokolovskaya/EPA/EFE (Former Ambassador Kurt Volker)
10 - Charles Krupa/The Associated Press (Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani)
11 - Alex Brandon/The Associated Press (Acting White House Chief Of Staff Mick Mulvaney)
12 - The Associated Press (Former President Gerald Ford)
13 - ABC News Screenshot (ABC News Chief White House Correspondent
Jonathan Karl)
14 - CNN Screenshot (CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo)
15 - Jim Watson/Agence France-Press/Getty Images (Former President Barack Obama and Former Vice President Joe Biden)
16 - Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters (Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman)
17 - Bettmann/CORBIS (Former White House Counsel John Dean)
18 - CBS News/Face The Nation Screenshot (Former Congressman Trey Gowdy and CBS News Anchor Margaret Brennan)
19 - The Republic (Former Senator Barry Goldwater and the 1974 Republican Leadership in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives)
20 - Richard Nixon Foundation (Former President Richard Nixon)
21 - Getty Images (Former Trump Personal Attorney Michael Cohen)
22 - Agence France-Presse/Getty Images (Former Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden)
23 - Getty Images (President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Supreme Leader
Kim Jong-un of North Korea)
24 - NBC News Screenshot (Congressman Jerry Nadler)
25 - Susan Walsh/The Associated Press (Former Congressman Elijah
Cummings)
26 - CBS News/60 Minutes Screenshot (CBS News Anchor Norah O'Donnell and Former Vice President Joe Biden)
27 - Vanderbilt University (Professor Suzanna Sherry)
28 - Daniel Mihailescu/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images (Ambassador
Gordon Sondland)
29 - Aaron Schwartz (Former Ambassador William "Bill" Taylor Jr.)
30 - Charles Dharapa/The Associated Press (Former President Barack Obama
and Former President George W. Bush)
31 - MSNBC Screenshot/NBC News (MSNBC Anchor Rachel Maddow)
32 - Fox News Channel Screenshot (Fox News Channel Host Sean Hannity)
33 - Joseph-Siffred Duplessis (Dr. Benjamin Franklin)
34 - Alex Wong/Getty Images (Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State George Kent)
35 - Evan Vucci/The Associated Press (Former Deputy Assistant To The President Fiona Hill)
36 - Peter Nicholls/Reuters (Former National Security Adviser John Bolton)
37 - C-SPAN Screenshot (Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs John Eisenberg)
38 - Olena Khudiakova/Ukrinform via ZUMA Wire (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper)
39 - Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Richard Drew, Evan Vucci/The Associated Press (Former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Senior Adviser To The President Jared Kushner)
40 - Fox News Channel Screenshot (Senator Lindsey Graham)
41 - Sean Gallup/Getty Images (President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine)
42 - Embassy of Afghanistan (Former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman)
43 - Alex Wong/Getty Images (Former White House Counsel Don McGahn)
44 - Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM (Attorney Charles Cooper)
45 - Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call (Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi)
46 - Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images (Congressman Adam Schiff)
47 - The Associated Press (Donald Trump #2)
Copyright 2019 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
Now I, Gary B. Duglin, continue with my thoughts. The back and forth tussle of tongues by everyday Americans with opposing views is becoming more and more incendiary. But day after day, former Trump administration officials - and some current ones - are providing damning information about Donald Trump's alleged threat to Ukraine's President Zelensky. Meanwhile, Trumpers nationwide are merely echoing the false information being broadcast by Fox News and other conservatives in the media. One Republican after another is gulping down the Trump rhetoric as if it was fresh squeezed Florida orange juice or a creamy chocolate milkshake. And they believe every word he says as if it were all true. But Trumpers don't want to accept the fact that Donald Trump is a habitual liar who cannot be trusted and who will tell his base anything he wants - whether fact or fiction - because Trump knows he has brainwashed them all and they will believe him. It's unfortunate - actually disturbing - that one individual has the capability - not to mention the audacity - to hoodwink and downright deceive millions of people who have no clue that the man couldn't give a damn about any of them. So, if the Senate doesn't put country above party and convict Trump, removing him from office after what I expect will be an impeachment by the House of Representatives, then every single Democrat and left-leaning Independent of voting age, plus any other voter in the center or even on the right who opposes Trump, must exercise their duty and cast their ballot come November 3rd, 2020 for the Democratic nominee for President, as well as for every Democrat running for a seat in each of the two chambers of Congress.
The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Democrat from California, who has been given the reigns of the impeachment inquiry, are keeping their word for transparency. So on Friday, November 8th, the transcript of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman's closed-door testimony was made public. Vindman - who is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council - was plain as day when he told House impeachment investigators, "there was no doubt" that Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to get dirt on Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the gain would be for the President in investigating the son of a political opponent." Vindman was also clear with his testimony that Trump and his cronies had issued a quid pro quo message to Ukraine.
Another transcript was released on November 8th, and Donald Trump's former Deputy Assistant to the President and former chief adviser on Russia and Europe says she received "death threats" and "hateful calls" while she was a member of
the administration. Fiona Hill also testified that her tenure was marked with "conspiracy theories." Hill told Congress that the harassment campaign was given a shot of B12 once it became known that she would cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Hill says Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland were both involved in a plan to put pressure on Ukraine to perform the investigations that Trump wanted. From Hill's closed-door testimony, "I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbors reported somebody coming and hammering on my door."Hill's transcript spells out in black-and-white that Giuliani and Sondland bypassed the National Security Council and proper White House methods in order to advocate for a shadow policy on Ukraine, which Hill alleges was given muscle by Trump and Giuliani.
Hill testified that she and Sondland butted heads during a meeting that focused on Zelensky hooking up with Trump at The White House, but only after the Ukrainians moved forward with the investigations of the Bidens. Hill further stated that Sondland talked with White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about such a U.S./Ukraine get-together, but with the same conditions. Hill says that afterwards she privately discussed with then National Security Adviser John Bolton (pictured above right) the scheme that Mulvaney and Sondland were concocting. Bolton had put a stop to the meeting with
Meanwhile, Mulvaney basically gave the proverbial "finger" to Democrats on November 8th when he snubbed a subpoena to appear for a deposition with the congressional impeachment committees. Mulvaney claims he has "absolute immunity" and, therefore, he, in essence, told Democrats to go to hell. But Mulvaney already let the cat out of the bag at a press conference in October when he admitted on live, national television that Donald Trump withheld vital military aid for Ukraine as a means of strong-arming its country's leader to launch an investigation in to the Bidens in order to help Trump's personal and political interests. Mulvaney later tried to walk back his spilling of the beans, but anyone with a brain knows that his statements to reporters in The White House Briefing Room - not to mention the entire United States and the whole world - cannot be shoved back in to the tube after the toxic toothpaste has been plopped on to the brush.
I have wondered for a very long time - and have posed this question in other columns because of Donald Trump's bromance with Russia's President Vladimir Putin - what does Putin have on Trump? I have included "blackmail" in the title of this
Go ahead and think that way, Lindsey. How about all the witnesses who have come forward and corroborated the whistle-blower's testimony? The evidence is as sharp as a killer shark's teeth, and before the shark in The White House devours our democracy, we're "gonna need a bigger boat." And that's why the Democrats on Capitol Hill are sailing their ship down Pennsylvania Avenue in order to capture a creature that can no longer be allowed to roam freely.
The whistle-blower is a courageous individual and this person needs to be applauded by each and every American and protected by the laws of our land. Trump, on the other hand, is a clear and present danger to the United States. He has caused a constitutional crisis in our nation. Congressional doctors need to administer an antidote to our country for the poison that is Donald Trump. His toxicity has sickened our national security and infected the liberty and freedom that each American cherishes dearly. Trump needs to be held accountable - in a legal and constitutional manner - for the crimes he has allegedly committed.
Donald Trump should not be allowed to block witnesses from testifying because of his power to assert executive privilege just because they had conversations with him. Everyone needs to remember - including, if need be, the justices of the United States Supreme Court - that Trump is the subject of this impeachment inquiry.
Yes, Congressman Schiff. I'm with you, our Constitution, and our country one-hundred percent.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy is a publication of GBD Productions. Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B. Duglin.
Please express your personal opinions by following the instructions printed at the top of this column. And thank you for reading The Controversy.
Photo credits:
1 - The Associated Press/Getty Images (Donald Trump #1)
2 - Barbara Hall Productions/Revelations Entertainment/CBS Television
Studios (Tea Leoni)
3 - Barbara Hall Productions/Revelations Entertainment/CBS Television
Studios (Jose Zuniga)
4 - Nathan Congleton/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank/Getty Images (Former Vice
President Joe Biden) and Rick Bowmer/The Associated Press (Senator Mitt Romney)
5 - Patrick Semansky/The Associated Press (Former Vice President Joe Biden and Former Governor John Kasich)
6 - Douliery Olivier/Abaca Press/Sipa USA/Newscom (Senator Bernie Sanders)
7 - The Washington Post and Getty Images (Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
8 - Rick Bowmer/The Associated Press (Senator Elizabeth Warren)
9 - Inna Sokolovskaya/EPA/EFE (Former Ambassador Kurt Volker)
10 - Charles Krupa/The Associated Press (Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani)
11 - Alex Brandon/The Associated Press (Acting White House Chief Of Staff Mick Mulvaney)
12 - The Associated Press (Former President Gerald Ford)
13 - ABC News Screenshot (ABC News Chief White House Correspondent
Jonathan Karl)
14 - CNN Screenshot (CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo)
15 - Jim Watson/Agence France-Press/Getty Images (Former President Barack Obama and Former Vice President Joe Biden)
16 - Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters (Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman)
17 - Bettmann/CORBIS (Former White House Counsel John Dean)
18 - CBS News/Face The Nation Screenshot (Former Congressman Trey Gowdy and CBS News Anchor Margaret Brennan)
19 - The Republic (Former Senator Barry Goldwater and the 1974 Republican Leadership in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives)
20 - Richard Nixon Foundation (Former President Richard Nixon)
21 - Getty Images (Former Trump Personal Attorney Michael Cohen)
22 - Agence France-Presse/Getty Images (Former Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden)
23 - Getty Images (President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Supreme Leader
Kim Jong-un of North Korea)
24 - NBC News Screenshot (Congressman Jerry Nadler)
25 - Susan Walsh/The Associated Press (Former Congressman Elijah
Cummings)
26 - CBS News/60 Minutes Screenshot (CBS News Anchor Norah O'Donnell and Former Vice President Joe Biden)
27 - Vanderbilt University (Professor Suzanna Sherry)
28 - Daniel Mihailescu/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images (Ambassador
Gordon Sondland)
29 - Aaron Schwartz (Former Ambassador William "Bill" Taylor Jr.)
30 - Charles Dharapa/The Associated Press (Former President Barack Obama
and Former President George W. Bush)
31 - MSNBC Screenshot/NBC News (MSNBC Anchor Rachel Maddow)
32 - Fox News Channel Screenshot (Fox News Channel Host Sean Hannity)
33 - Joseph-Siffred Duplessis (Dr. Benjamin Franklin)
34 - Alex Wong/Getty Images (Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State George Kent)
35 - Evan Vucci/The Associated Press (Former Deputy Assistant To The President Fiona Hill)
36 - Peter Nicholls/Reuters (Former National Security Adviser John Bolton)
37 - C-SPAN Screenshot (Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs John Eisenberg)
38 - Olena Khudiakova/Ukrinform via ZUMA Wire (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper)
39 - Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Richard Drew, Evan Vucci/The Associated Press (Former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Senior Adviser To The President Jared Kushner)
40 - Fox News Channel Screenshot (Senator Lindsey Graham)
41 - Sean Gallup/Getty Images (President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine)
42 - Embassy of Afghanistan (Former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman)
43 - Alex Wong/Getty Images (Former White House Counsel Don McGahn)
44 - Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM (Attorney Charles Cooper)
45 - Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call (Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi)
46 - Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images (Congressman Adam Schiff)
47 - The Associated Press (Donald Trump #2)
Copyright 2019 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment