Jump to content

Professor Piggy

Members
  • Content Count

    1,086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Professor Piggy last won the day on May 11 2018

Professor Piggy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About Professor Piggy

  • Rank
    Range Member
  • Birthday 01/01/2000

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just like the mob boss he is, Donald apparently seems incapable of stopping himself from committing crimes. Aside from that he's a real class act, however. 'Witness intimidation in real-time': Democrats see more evidence of Trump obstruction Even Republicans expressed their discomfort with Trump attacking the former ambassador to Ukraine while she was testifying. House Democrats are calling Donald Trump’s decision to attack Marie Yovanovitch mid-hearing on Friday a blatant example of witness intimidation, further building the case to charge the president with obstruction in potential articles of impeachment. Lawmakers of both parties were stunned to see Trump’s disparaging tweet about the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in the middle of a hearing where she had already described in great detail how she felt personally threatened by the president. “What you saw today — witness intimidation in real-time by the president of the United States,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff told reporters during a brief pause in the hearing. “Once again, going after this dedicated and respected career public servant in an effort to not only chill her but to chill others who may come forward,” Schiff added. “We take this kind of witness intimidation and obstruction of inquiry very seriously.” Some lawmakers, meanwhile, were already speculating that it could act as more evidence in their articles of impeachment against Trump. Democrats have previously discussed charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his attempted blockade of witnesses and documents in their impeachment inquiry, though articles have not yet been drafted. “It looks like witness intimidation to me,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who sits on the Intelligence panel, told reporters. “She presented compelling testimony. It obviously got under his skin. He just couldn’t help himself, he had to tweet.” Trump’s tweet — in which he wrote, in part, “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad” — came one hour into the hearing designed to show how White House officials had personally targeted the former ambassador. Even Republicans admitted it was problematic for the president to be criticizing the witness, a respected career diplomat, at the same time she was testifying against him. Still, none would directly criticize the president, and many avoided questions about the tweet altogether. “It’s not something I would do,” Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters during a break from the hearing. Asked if it amounted to witness intimidation, Conaway did not offer a direct answer: “I’m not a lawyer, I’m not familiar with it, but it’s just not something I would do. It’s just not my style.” Several Republicans on the Intelligence Committee dodged the topic entirely. Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) refused to answer questions about the tweets as he ducked on to the House floor, while Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) quickly whipped out his cell phone and began talking into it, even though his home screen was visible and there was no call in progress. And Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO: "I don't discuss committee business." Notably, Nunes only briefly mentioned Yovanovitch in his opening statement. Other GOP members argued that the tweet did not amount to witness intimidation, even if they disagreed with the contents of it. “I have no reason to think she's done a bad job,” said Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah). Even some of Trump’s most hardcore supporters have been careful not to directly attack Yovanovitch, for fear it could play into Democrats’ hands. “Respectfully, this is all you need to know about Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony,” tweeted Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s closest allies. “She admits she can't bring any firsthand knowledge to” certain elements of the impeachment inquiry. For many Republicans, the mid-hearing attack embodies what has come to define the Trump era: a baffling or bombastic tweet, followed by a whole lot of GOP hand-wringing. “I have never been a fan of attacking people. That opinion has not changed this week or today,” said retiring Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.). White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham rejected Democrats' accusations. "The tweet was not witness intimidation, it was simply the President’s opinion, which he is entitled to," she said in a statement. "This is not a trial, it is a partisan political process — or to put it more accurately, a totally illegitimate, charade stacked against the President." Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday afternoon that she hadn’t seen the tweet and couldn’t comment on whether it could be added to potential articles of impeachment, but added, “witness intimidation is a crime.” “We have so much else going on. I’m so proud of the dignity and the grace of the ambassador and her patriotism, I haven’t really paid a lot of attention to the president,” the California Democrat said. Asked if the tweet was inappropriate, Pelosi quipped: “Appropriate and president in the same sentence? Why would we start making that judgment now?” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who also sits on the House Intelligence Committee, said he believed the tweet was “more evidence of intimidation, which is in effect, obstruction.” “I would have assumed that the Republicans would have tried to spend their time playing down the fact that she was intimidated and forced out,” Quigley said. “And the president opens with intimidation and getting rid of her.” https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-impeachment-witness-intimidation-071129
  2. Well, with insightful, meaningful, astute retorts like "LOL" and snappy, memorable nicknames like "nasty Nancy" and "shifty Schiff," Donald's supporters are certainly winning the debate here. With mature, intelligent defenders like this here and elsewhere, Donald is sure to be fully exonerated and vindicated any day now.
  3. Then you'll be glad to know that the diplomatic assistant referred to, David Holmes, will be testifying before Congress on Friday. By the way, the White House has been systematically trying to block people from the State Department and anyone else with the sort of first-hand knowledge that you value. Why do you think the White House is blocking their testimony? Wouldn't you think that with everything out in the open, the truth will show that Donald Trump has done nothing whatsoever wrong or illegal?
  4. As some of you may already know, I have a contact in the WH, and I'm reliably informed that the commander-in-chief's incontinence briefs (XXXL) are already on standby. Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him. [video=youtube;k-LTRwZb35A]
  5. The "For Dummies" series of instructional books is very popular and easy to read. Maybe Donald should pick up a copy of POTUS for Dummies so he can learn more about his job. Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him. [video=youtube;k-LTRwZb35A]
  6. Yes'm. He blocked me too. Me! Can you believe it? I still haven't gotten over it. Maybe he didn't know it, but his posts really meant a lot to me. I often reflect on the wonderful conversations we used to have together. They usually went something like this: PP: "The sun rises in the east." Sack: "No, it doesn't." PP: "Sure it does. Here is the data from twenty sources proving it." Sack: "I don't believe your sources. They all lie. They're all fake. Donald says it rises in the west." PP: "Sack, old chum, I love you, but Donald was lying when he said that. How do we know this? Because he doesn't tell this lie anymore and has since contradicted the lie and said that the sun rises in the east." Sack: "No, he didn't say that. He meant something else. He was just joking. You're too stupid to understand that he's playing three-dimensional chess. Let's talk about Hillary instead. Hillary was once heard to say that the sun rises in the north and sets in the south. I hope somebody investigates her for it. She should be locked up. I've won this argument. I'm going over to another thread now to promote a new alt-right conspiracy theory." Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him. [video=youtube;k-LTRwZb35A]
  7. Sack, if it's true that you completely owned Frawk or anyone else who is against the treasonous fraudster-in-chief that you worship, why did you always (before you blocked us) have to defend Donald's demonstrably proven lies and to tell lies yourself on his behalf? Defending lies and lying yourself and denying reality doesn't sound to me like you're owning anyone. And whenever I pointed out one of your lies on his behalf, what did you do? You usually changed the subject or scurried away to the next thread to post your Tя☭mp propaganda. Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him. [video=youtube;k-LTRwZb35A]
  8. Here, maybe this will help to counteract the OP's New England glorification and cheer up anyone who doesn't like the Cheatriots:
  9. Hello StraightJ, First let me get something out of the way. I don't think I've had occasion to write directly to you before now, but I'd like you to know that the pleasure and honor-- or honour as we say here-- is all mine. As a matter of fact, when I told my wife, Mrs Professor Pigworth, just now that I intended to write to you, her reaction, as her face lit up like a Christmas tree, was this: "StraightJ? You're kidding? You're really actually writing to StraightJ? The StraightJ? You're just teasing me, Piggy. (She calls me 'Piggy.') "I hate when you do that. Please stop." "No, really," I replied. "I really, really am writing to StraightJ." Anyway, StraightJ, I do hope that this might be the first of many exchanges we'll have in the months and years to come and that we can be pals who always listen to each other, no matter how different our viewpoints may be, and never talk down to each other as some do. I look forward to learning a lot of new things from you, because I know you possess a wealth of knowledge. Who knows, maybe you can even learn one or two new things from me that you didn't know before. And if I sound a little nervous, please excuse me for that. Like I also said to my wife, Mrs Professor Pigworth, just now: "Pinch me, pinch me. I can't believe I'm really writing to StraightJ! This could be the beginning of great things for me." Gosh. You must think I'm kind of silly for carrying on like this, right? It's just that I've been a great fan and admirer of yours for as long as I can remember. Now let me come to the point. Here it is: Yes. To answer your question, yes, I have heard of China. I can definitely confirm that I have. Now would you mind if I asked you a question of my own? My question is this. Have you heard of "historical emissions"? Here, look at this: Now, as you can see, according to this the US has caused more pollution than any other country from 1850 to 2007. Granted, China at the moment pollutes more per year, but the US wins the award for the most cumulative pollution. I wish I could have found statistics to at least 2017 or 2018, but I think that we can assume that the US still occupies the No. 1 position. In fact, as of 2011 it was the second highest current producer, right after China. Whether India has since surpassed the US, I don't know, but it's possible. Here are those 2011 statistics: Anyway, do you not think that the US, as the greatest historical cumulative polluter and either the second or third biggest current polluter bears considerable responsibility for the state of the environment and that it's rather crazy and selfish to, for example, withdraw from climate treaties? Thank you in advance for your response. Your new friend, PP Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him.
  10. At this point, I guess nothing coming from the Tя☭mp administration death-star should surprise anyone. Nonetheless I did find the below bolded part amazing, and not in a good way. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48185793 Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him.
  11. In his infinite wisdom as not only the most fabulous deal maker of all time, stable genius and incorruptible superhero president but also now a climate-change expert, Tя☭mp is the only leader in the world to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty-- this despite the US being the greatest contributor to pollution from the time of the Industrial Revolution until today. Every other country on the planet aside from war-torn Syria signed the treaty. Since Tя☭mp opted out, others have now begun to waver and also opt out-- most notably President Bolsonaro of Brazil, where most of the beleaguered Amazon Forest is located. To Tя☭mp's lovely supporters, I would say that you can still adore your Great Leader but at the same time condemn him for his utter madness. Or perhaps you truly believe what Tя☭mp and other selfish and arrogant money-first industrial leaders have told you about the US getting a raw deal when it comes to the treaty and that the US should somehow be exempt from responsibility. But what you cannot deny if you respect the reality and facts of science is the immense threat to the earth that we are all facing no matter where we live on this planet. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48169783 Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him.
  12. Well, this certainly is surprising. I could have sworn that Honest Donald was vindicated and completely exonerated by the Mueller report. Both he and that nice private attorney of his, Huggy-Bear Barr, said so. Like most Donald supporters, I like to believe in everything he says, even the contradictions-- some coming within the same sentence-- but there are a number of things that don't make sense to me. Perhaps one of my fellow Donald lovers can help me out. For example, why, if Donald is, as we all know, completely innocent and the victim of a corrupt deep-state conspiracy, did he not agree to be interviewed by Mueller? This has always puzzled me, especially since Honest Donald had said several times that he was eager to sit down with Mueller. As all the world knows, innocent people with nothing to hide do not fear being questioned. And absolutely nobody is more innocent than Honest Donald. Another thing that puzzles me is why Barr twisted the findings of the Mueller report to make it look so much better than it was for Donald. He also, as we all now know, lied on several points to Congress and in his report summary and did all he could to cover up for Donald instead of conducting himself as an impartial servant of the people like he's supposed to. Why would he do that? These are trying times. It's getting harder and harder for a card-carrying Honest Donald fan like myself to believe in our beloved Great Leader. My faith is a little shaken. But I refuse to give up on him. Word is, for instance, that Donald has surpassed 10,000 documented lies now, but of course that's no reason to think he's dishonest. There are so many haters out there who refuse to see all the many great things he unselfishly does for us all, and they really disgust me. What's wrong with them? Donald is trying his best to provide a great life for everyone. My stock portfolio is humming along. Yes sir. And if your stock portfolio is doing good, what else do you need?
×
×
  • Create New...