Jump to content
IGNORED

Pence 2: Couch Surfing With Mother


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

I’ll put Pence in the same bucket where I put Daniel Webster (R) Rep, FL.

God, God, God, nothing before God...until power, control and money are introduced into the equation.

Just another lying liar who lies.

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am beginning to think that Pence is continually making contradictory statements to Trump’s, on many issues, particularly Syria, in an effort to distance himself from Trump. Rats and sinking ships being what are... 

  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

Pence does have that Fundie wife stare down, doesn't he? I wonder if Mother insists upon it?

Edited by Audrey2
  • Upvote 3
  • Disgust 1
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"When Pence can’t defend Trump"

Spoiler

Leave it to President Trump to take what should be a unifying moment of celebration and add nasty shots at his opponents. Another president would have simply celebrated the successful raid that resulted in the death of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But this president could not resist throwing in an attack on Democrats.

During the Sunday news conference about the raid, the president was asked whether he had notified top congressional leaders ahead of time. (This is typical for such operations; ahead of the Osama bin Laden raid in 2011, for example, President Barack Obama told the top two Democrats and Republicans in both houses, as well as the leaders of the intelligence committees.) “We were going to notify them last night,” the president replied, “but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I’ve never seen before. … And I told my people we will not notify them until our great people are out, not just in but out.” He made the point even more explicitly when asked whether he told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ahead of time: “No, I didn’t. I didn’t do it. I wanted to make sure this kept secret. I don’t want to have men lost, and women. I don’t want to have people lost.” In other words: Democrats are a threat to the troops.

If anyone overshared, it was Trump himself. The president couldn’t restrain himself from heavily implying that he and other U.S. officials were watching live video of the raid, before admitting he shouldn’t discuss that technology.

Contrast this with Vice President Pence’s interview on “Fox News Sunday.” Asked whether the president was saying he didn’t trust Pelosi with sensitive information, Pence played dumb: “I don’t think that was the implication at all,” he said — even though that implication was as clear as day. Pressed twice more by host Chris Wallace, Pence sidestepped each time to how “focused” the president was on the mission.

Why didn’t Pence echo and defend the president, with whom he is so often in rhetorical lockstep? Because Pence knows it’s a crock. Pelosi would no more leak the details of the Baghdadi raid than John A. Boehner would have leaked details of the bin Laden raid. Whatever the disagreements of the parties on national security, the execution of those policies works best when neither side is hiding information from the other.

But the problem for Pence — and for many other Republican politicians — is that for year after year the party has told its base that Democrats threaten national security and our troops. From Fox News to talk radio, that message has been hammered home, especially after Sept. 11, 2001, and during the Iraq War. Pence, himself a former talk radio host, is no doubt particularly aware of this. Now that the GOP is led by a president whose rise came almost exclusively through right-wing media, Pence and others have to live with a president who believes the lies they perpetrated — at a cost to the country.

 

  • WTF 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the WaPo editorial board: "Mike Pence is reliably, relentlessly wrong"

Spoiler

THE MORE undisciplined President Trump becomes in his scattershot defenses of his behavior toward Ukraine, the more robotically Vice President Pence seems to stay on message. Unfortunately, that message is an indefensible falsehood. During a television interview Monday with PBS’s Judy Woodruff, Mr. Pence said three times that anyone who reads the rough transcript of Mr. Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “will see the president did nothing wrong. There is no quid pro quo.”

The interview left us with the sense that Mr. Pence himself has not carefully read the document. As we pointed out in an editorial on Sept. 25, the day it was released, the transcript ends with a clear exchange of commitments between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents. Mr. Zelensky promises to launch the investigations Mr. Trump had just requested of Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee; Mr. Trump responds by offering the invitation to the White House Mr. Zelensky was seeking.

More to the point, Mr. Pence appears determined to ignore the sworn testimony of senior officials who have since confirmed the quid pro quo that the White House claims doesn’t exist. The latest was National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who told Congress on Tuesday that he attended a July 10 meeting with a senior Ukrainian official at which an ambassador appointed by Mr. Trump, Gordon Sondland, “started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president.”

To his credit, Lt. Col. Vindman told Mr. Sondland that “his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security,” a judgment he said was echoed by his boss, NSC senior director Fiona Hill. Both later reported their concerns to the NSC general counsel.

That makes at least five officials who have described the quid pro quo in congressional testimony. That includes the United States’ acting ambassador in Kyiv, William B. Taylor Jr., who said Mr. Sondland told him U.S. military aid was also linked to Mr. Trump’s political demands; Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, who provided text messages spelling out the deal; and Mr. Sondland himself, who, according to his lawyer, told House investigators that while Mr. Trump had denied any quid pro quo, Mr. Sondland — who spoke to the president directly about the matter — believed there was one.

Mr. Pence dismissed all this evidence on the grounds that it was “leaks” from secret hearings; never mind that most of the officials released their own opening statements. He criticized House Democrats for failing to hold a formal vote on impeachment proceedings and for not releasing the transcripts of testimony, even though they have announced they will do both. He seemed to believe that by mindlessly repeating the words “no quid pro quo” he could disappear the increasingly powerful case that Mr. Trump abused his office.

He can’t — and nor will slander of the witnesses by Mr. Trump’s more vulgar surrogates. On Tuesday, former congressman Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.) shamelessly suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman, a refu­gee from the former Soviet Union, might be more loyal to Ukraine than the United States. GOP law professor John Yoo hinted the Purple Heart recipient might be implicated in espionage. Such vile slurs only underline the absence of any legitimate defense for Mr. Trump’s actions.

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

From the WaPo editorial board: "Mike Pence is reliably, relentlessly wrong"

  Hide contents

THE MORE undisciplined President Trump becomes in his scattershot defenses of his behavior toward Ukraine, the more robotically Vice President Pence seems to stay on message. Unfortunately, that message is an indefensible falsehood. During a television interview Monday with PBS’s Judy Woodruff, Mr. Pence said three times that anyone who reads the rough transcript of Mr. Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “will see the president did nothing wrong. There is no quid pro quo.”

The interview left us with the sense that Mr. Pence himself has not carefully read the document. As we pointed out in an editorial on Sept. 25, the day it was released, the transcript ends with a clear exchange of commitments between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents. Mr. Zelensky promises to launch the investigations Mr. Trump had just requested of Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee; Mr. Trump responds by offering the invitation to the White House Mr. Zelensky was seeking.

More to the point, Mr. Pence appears determined to ignore the sworn testimony of senior officials who have since confirmed the quid pro quo that the White House claims doesn’t exist. The latest was National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who told Congress on Tuesday that he attended a July 10 meeting with a senior Ukrainian official at which an ambassador appointed by Mr. Trump, Gordon Sondland, “started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president.”

To his credit, Lt. Col. Vindman told Mr. Sondland that “his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security,” a judgment he said was echoed by his boss, NSC senior director Fiona Hill. Both later reported their concerns to the NSC general counsel.

That makes at least five officials who have described the quid pro quo in congressional testimony. That includes the United States’ acting ambassador in Kyiv, William B. Taylor Jr., who said Mr. Sondland told him U.S. military aid was also linked to Mr. Trump’s political demands; Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, who provided text messages spelling out the deal; and Mr. Sondland himself, who, according to his lawyer, told House investigators that while Mr. Trump had denied any quid pro quo, Mr. Sondland — who spoke to the president directly about the matter — believed there was one.

Mr. Pence dismissed all this evidence on the grounds that it was “leaks” from secret hearings; never mind that most of the officials released their own opening statements. He criticized House Democrats for failing to hold a formal vote on impeachment proceedings and for not releasing the transcripts of testimony, even though they have announced they will do both. He seemed to believe that by mindlessly repeating the words “no quid pro quo” he could disappear the increasingly powerful case that Mr. Trump abused his office.

He can’t — and nor will slander of the witnesses by Mr. Trump’s more vulgar surrogates. On Tuesday, former congressman Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.) shamelessly suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman, a refu­gee from the former Soviet Union, might be more loyal to Ukraine than the United States. GOP law professor John Yoo hinted the Purple Heart recipient might be implicated in espionage. Such vile slurs only underline the absence of any legitimate defense for Mr. Trump’s actions.

 

Pence, or his aides, were also on the call -- or so I've read. If true (as I'm inclined to believe), he's lying, and he knows exactly what went on. 

  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Don't get all exited though, it's an old article from the Clinton era...

  • WTF 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Don't get all exited though, it's an old article from the Clinton era...

Sure, when it's a Democrat, this is a terrible thing and must not be tolerated.  But now that a Republican president, who will probably go down in history as the most corrupt president to date, Pence is OK with this.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Is it possible to have two impeachment trials at once, one for Shithead and the other for Mother's Husband?

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/14/2019 at 10:38 PM, SPHASH said:

Is it possible to have two impeachment trials at once, one for Shithead and the other for Mother's Husband?

I honestly don't understand why they both wouldn't get booted.  All the illegal stuff that got Trump elected also got Pence elected.  It's not like we, the voters, chose a president and separately chose a vice-president.  They were on the ballot together, so they should leave together.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Mikey had his Gerald Ford moment...

 

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Mikey is such an idiot (second video):

 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.