I don’t have a ton of time right now, as I’ve just decided my night would be better spent watching Sidney Lumet’s Murder on the Orient Express than analyzing Pam Bondi’s performance today, but I wanted to at least note the fact that, this afternoon, during the Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, Alan Dershowitz made the claim that a U.S. president can’t be impeached for abuse of power so long as he believes that said abuse was for the good of the country. Or, in the words of Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, “Murder on the Orient Express than analyzing (Dershowitz) argued that a president who believes only he can fix it — who thinks his re-election is vital to the nation — can’t be impeached for abusing his power to corrupt the next election in his favor because by definition he’s doing what he thinks best for the country!” Here’s the actual footage.
Pres. Trump's counsel Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://t.co/8eDXJbxaT6 pic.twitter.com/SXR2Ms69Mi
— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 29, 2020
I know that none of us here are constitutional scholars, but does anyone reading this site… either those for impeachment, or those against it… really buy the logic that, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment”? I’d like to thing that we could all, at the very least, agree that’s fucking insane, right? I mean, do we really want to go down this path? Do we want to forgo our system of checks and balances, and make Trump our “Supreme Ruler,” trusting that he will just always do what’s best for the people of America? [note: I’m old enough to remember when “executive overreach” was something that the conservatives claimed to care about immensely, like the federal deficit.]
Oh, and here’s one more thing, while I’m waiting for the kettle to boil… How funny is it to see John Bolton, who was a paid contributor on Fox News for 11 years, and got his job as Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor in large part because Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch lobbied on his behalf, being called a “tool of the left” As Fox’s own Andrew Napolitano just said, “(Bolton was a) conservative icon until two days ago,” and now people on the right are essentially accusing him of being a backstabbing deep state plant doing the bidding of Hillary Clinton. The speed with which they attack those who threaten Donald Trump is absolutely astounding, and it goes a long way toward explain why, in spite of the fact that 75% of Americans want witnesses called, Republicans in the Senate are still refusing to do so. They are absolutely terrified of facing the wrath of Donald Trump and his base.
95 Comments
Oooooh, I have got you now. I have been waiting for years, but you have finally done it. With this post, you have invalidated every word you have ever written. You say that you are “waiting for you kettle to boil.” KETTLES DON’T BOIL! Water boils! I have you dead to rights. Every argument you have ever made has been invalidated!
Aloha what I find funny is how liberals think this is a legal proceeding rather than a political trial of strength.
I think everybody understands the political dimensions of the proceedings. That part is exhausting. We also understand that senate trials are not standard legal proceedings. Impeachment is rare but encoded in the constitution. It’s important. It’s weird to watch this knowing the predetermined (by politics) outcome. That makes it a show trial for sure. I’m not sure why so many liberals cling to the idea that the outcome will change. It won’t. Maybe they just want the public to have a chance to hear more of the evidence. Maybe they think that will sway public opinion. We have become so entrenched politically that we’re immune to evidence now. Of all the things to cling to, faith in evidence based reasoning seems like a good one. I mean if we give up on that, where does that leave us? Liberals aren’t nihilists. They are hopeful. Maybe foolishly so. We’ll see.
Just because the outcome of this show trial appears to be a foregone conclusion, we cannot give up the fight. We owe it to those who came before us, and fought so hard to get us to where we are today, and we owe it to future generations of Americans. It may be true that Senate will never vote to remove Donald Trump from office, but, with 75% of Americans in favor of calling witnesses, we’re clearly on the right side of history here, and we need to keep pushing. And, according to the most recent reporting, McConnell still doesn’t have the votes he needs to move forward and kill thing. So we can’t stop. We need everything on the record. And we need to leave the door open to the possibility of a miracle. Courage, as we know from history, can be contagious, and it’s possible that the dam my eventually break. We saw it with Watergate, and we may see it here. I’m doubtful that will be the outcome, given the current state of the Republican Party, but I refuse to give up hope.
Aloha over throwing a regime is hard work. Have you been paying any attention to France? Hope is clearly a virtue. Giving an autocratic individual the opportunity to assert even more power has nothing to do with hope. It is as stupid as hoping our invasion of Iraq would only last 6 weeks. Smart people told us the futility of impeachment. Hoping they were wrong is obviously misplaced.
And, by the logic of Dershowitz, a U.S. president could, to use Schiff’s analogy, withhold disaster aid from a state until such time that the the attorney general of that state agreed to launch an investigation into a Democratic nominee for the White House, so long as the president believes he’d be a better leader than his challenger. Just think about that for a minute… We are literally flying down the slippery slope toward authoritarian rule.
Wobblie, I don’t disagree that we need to be practical about this, and acknowledge the reality of the situation. I would argue, however, that we can both do that, and fight for witnesses in the Senate. The two are not mutually exclusive. But, yes, we need to take to the streets. That’s the only thing that will change this dynamic. People need to start exerting the power they have while they still have it. The question is when, and where.
Speaking of Fox News, here’s a nice piece of video showing the radical turnaround of Steve Doocey, who, at the beginning of all of this, felt as though it would be “really off-the-rails wrong” for the president to attempt to coerce a foreign government into launching a fake investigations into the Bidens. Now, of course, he doesn’t think it “a big story.” How any Fox News watchers can see this an not understand what’s happening is beyond me.
I listened to that part live. I had a common sense interpretation of what Dershowitz was saying. He was simply saying that a president can’t be impeached merely because some act he does also has a benefit to him. I realize Dershowitz did not word it very well but he was making the point that all acts that help a politician get re-elected are acts that are in that politicians self-interest. He was pointing to the irrelevancy of an act benefitting a politician because it would be absurd to think that a politician could only execute acts that also did not benefit himself.
Do you really think he meant what you claim he meant? If he meant what you claim he meant then it would not be an impeachable offense for Trump to poison everyone in the blue states and at CNN as long as he thought it was in the interest of the public to have less democrats. Come on man. Dershowitz is not in a desperate position to make such wild claims but you are in a desperate position evidenced by the fact that you feel the need to twist meaning into some silly spot to serve your purpose.
Mark,
“Fake investigation” is the key phrase you just used.
Schiff was going back into parody mode yesterday too. The truth is apparently not damning enough. It is necessary to make mischaracterize, apparently.
Why doesn’t Bolton just fill out a whistleblower complaint. Better yet Mark should fill out a whistleblower complaint as he has indicated that he is aware that “Bolton has conclusive evidence of Trump’s guilt”.
FF– I think the book qualifies as the same thing. Since Bolton does not work fr the US government anymore, how would he file a whistleblower complaint and with whom?
We don’t know what Bolton has to say because he hasn’t been allowed to testify along with any number of people with first-hand knowledge of the call and Trump’s withholding of aid. What exactly are you afraid of FF? I know plenty of Republicans who would like to see witnesses. Bring them on.
Aloha as we can see Trump supporters and Republicans will engage in any amount of sophistry. Logic, morality and the rule of law has never meant much to Them.
The Bridge and tunnel are obvious chock points that will put you into immediate confrontation with the Federal government.
19 Republican Senators need to be persuaded. I hope there will be no consequences of getting into a loosing fight. Though I don’t have much faith in that outcome.
Stephen Colbert:
https://twitter.com/richardhine/status/1222854167997362178?s=20
I was joking about the whistleblower complaint. I don’t think hearing witnesses would be a bad thing in itself although I think it would lead to the same inevitable conclusion. Of course we would need to put Hunter, Biden, Schiff, the whistleblower, Misko, the other whistleblower and others under oath too. Why didn’t the house fight Bolton and others on their refusal to give testimony? Maybe an evasion of a judgment on the refusal to testify was part of their orchestrated plan? What is Trump being impeached on? Testimony that has not occurred?
Does it not have the appearance of impropriety for the VP’s son to get money from a corrupt company in a corrupt country especially when dad was yanking them around with a billion in aid? I can only imagine the howling if the President was involved in something like this. It will get worse for you as exactly what happened is exposed to the public.
Would all the Democratic presidential candidates vote to prolong this hearing for a couple months of witnesses? I’m guessing McConnell has the votes, including a handful of Democrats. We’ll see tomorrow.
Why might forces behind the scenes be pushing to have Bernie and Warren (and not Biden) stuck in trial for months at this crucial time?
Witnesses would not necessarily require months. That’s a bunch of GOP grandstanding. They can get through it in a few weeks with depositions etc. Now if Trump decides to block witnesses that could be a big court delay; it also might sink any hope of a second term.
For Wobblie– some good news re ERA
https://eracoalition.blog/2020/01/25/just-announced-house-floor-vote-week-of-february-10th/
Aloha thanks for the link JH. It makes sense. Just as we are ratifying that all are equal, the Republicans prepare to elevate the President above the law.
Yes Jean, we could get Bolton in and out in a week. If witnesses happen it is not going down like that that though. It should not go down like that either. How long ago was it when Dems chose to not fight Bolton on his refusal?
“The defendant wants to hide the truth because he’s generally guilty. The defense attorney’s job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth.” – Alan Dershowitz
FF– As you know, the house Dems assumed the witness would be dealt with in the Senate, where the trial is supposed to happen. The burden of proof for the house to issue articles of impeachment is lower than for the Senate to remove the president. WE need to see more unless you feel like buying that Dershowitz turd.
PS Lots of pressure on Senator Toomey (R) in my very conservative home area to get Bolton specifically on the stand. He’s proposed a one witness per side compromise. The GOP would probably call Hunter Biden. They believe this will confirm the FOX News narrative. Who are you to stand (even rhetorically) in the way of the truth?
There is no reason for the whistleblower to go on the stand and risk their life and livelihood. Every piece of the whistleblower complaint has been independently confirmed.
This is an impeachment trial of the president, no one else.
Independently confirmed by a handful of derps. Yovanovitch was involved in the corruption, watch. We already know aid money was flowing to preferred NGO’s of the US embassy. Aid to corrupt foreign countries > kickbacks to US politicians. It is ending now and your champs are holding the bag.
The whistleblower is highly relevant since he worked with the Bidens and coordinated with Schiff before making the whistleblower report. The Bidens participation in the corruption is highly relevant as their potential criminal activity was the driving force that prompted Trump to inquire about the investigation. Obama and Clinton need to answer questions about their money laundering activities through the Ukraine. A large number of peripheral government workers can provide supportive evidence.
There’s two choices for Republicans. Acquit Trump on Friday or spend the next 6 months or more in a public inquiry into deep state treasonous activities. It’s a win-win.
In other news: Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.
https://apnews.com/0475983f6c1e40628d2a3058e270a747
Schiff has stated under oath that he and his staff had no association with the whistle blower before the complaint was filed, EOS.
Repeating untruths does not make them true.
And none of that matters. The whistleblower complaint is no longer necessary to prove the allegation. We have the transcript and written testimony.
Look at how long it took to interview and prepare for Sondland, Vindman and Hill, and others. They are asking to open a whole new can of worms. Multiple cans of worms. So that John “I would lie if it served a greater purpose” Bolton (AKA the disgruntled employee) can say some stuff through his bizarre mustache?
Besides, I really think some of these people are going to be put on trial anyway in different circumstances. You will get your Truth Jean soon enough Jean.
These things take time :)
EOS– I would be all for a separate hearing to assess the legitimacy of all the bullshit allegations the GOP are bringing up as diversions.
This trial, however, is about Trump and his actions.
Let’s not forget China. Joe and Hunter travelled there via Air Force 2 then within weeks Hunter’s “fledgling startup” investment firm (!) got a billion and a half to play with. Something is extremely wrong. How could this be when our “leaders” are telling us there is no evidence? You can say conspiracy theory all you want but you can’t destroy common sense.
“Besides, I really think some of these people are going to be put on trial anyway in different circumstances. ”
Oh FF! let’s make a bet. $1000 says no one involved with Burisma etc goes on trial. $1000 says HRC never goes on trial. Another $1000 says there is no deep state upheaval.
Which will you meet me on? All three? C’mon put your money where your bullshittery is.
Under oath? Are you sure?
Either way I think Schiff might have reasons for not wanting whistleblower to testify.
Everyone please witness how JH seems to be pretending she knows what is and is not necessary. There are a lot of assumptions based upon little behind those pretensions.
I don’t believe in betting Jean. Putting your ignorance on display is a reward in itself.
Nice discourse though! Jean who does not believe in winning, or debate, who wants to call someone a bullshitter, as if refusing a $1000 bet is evidence she is already winning. Discourse indeed!
You are a mega fraud Jean. Face the truth.
Is that your new thing, FF? Calling people frauds because you disagree with them? Even when you change, you stay the same. LOL. It doesn’t matter though if you are calling people liars or frauds, we can see right through that BS :) You still have no credibility.
I placed that bet knowing you have bought into a FOX News generated counter-narrative. (And the outlets for those narratives are more than FOX, but the messaging to conservatives is remarkably consistent and counter to the prevailing narratives at more mainstream news outlets. They are reliably false. Most mainstream media are about making money most of all and good stories pay. They don’t care what the story is. None of them are digging deeper into these conspiracies you all put so much faith it. The mainstream conservative papers don’t even give them much time beyond making the occasional political counterpoint when not much else is avilable. Why are the Washington Examiner and the Wall Street Journal not exploring these theories further?
At some point, you can assess the lay of the land and make an educated guess based on what is likely to be true or untrue.
The interesting thing about conspiracy theorists of any kind– anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, Qanon folks– all of them really do know a lot about the subjects at hand– but only on one side of the issue. And so they can both be very informed and very wrong. They are more likely to believe misinformation. They are more likely to emphasize small kernels of truth and extrapolate those out to much larger and much less likely conclusions and most effectively, they will simply ignore any possibilities counter to their narrative. They will even ignore demonstrated facts that undermine their narrative. The more facts are presented opposing their point of view, the more they dig into their beliefs. We see it here every day.
So the more you believe, the less likely it is to be true. I’m really ok with relying on the media to ferret this stuff out on a national scale, especially if its juicy and domestic news. They chase the money first of all. And the money is in a good story. Great stories like the ones you propose about a grand unveiling of deep state corruption– those would be jumped on by all media outlets.
Hasn’t happened.
Sometimes common sense and the simplest answer from multiple sources is a better gage of objective reality than a well informed but biased opinion.
I make strong exception to this rule around common myths on both political sides– like ignoring the power of supply and demand on housing prices on the left and the belief in low taxation paying for itself, but those are systemic myths that feed into media and other narratives, not media stories themselves. –That’s probably way too much subtlety of a distinction for anyone to follow. Let’s put it this way, I believe that the intelligence community does some really corrupt and many illegal things that they justify in complex but fucked up ways. My core narrative bias would incline me to be suspicious of the CIA and FBI and their wisdom and capacity and especially their fair play. BUT I also believe them to be committed to nonpartisanship and to the value and wisdom of existing isntitutions (more so than I am). They are institutionalists. Nothing is more important to them than the integrity of their institutions. They are simply not cynical enough about this country (v other places) and their organizations to undermine them with anti-institutionalist and anti-democratic coordination for powerful elites. That would be really super anti-American and can’t be reasonably justified by most prevalent biases, like those against POC or immigrants for instance, or political biases. The number of people who would willingly engage in such endeavors is small and they usually are either cornered into it or well rewarded financially.
It’s just not reasonable to think what you all believe is true. Look some guy called out Trump on that phone call! You really think there would be no whistleblowers on the deep state. Edward Snowden did it and he paid the price but he hasn’t been disappeared at all, has he?
I reject your narrative about the deep state like I reject 9-11 truther conspiracies– on the sole basis of lack of strategic value or necessity and lack of probability of successful implementation. ie common sense.
Relevant text for all commenters here. I ordered a copy form the library:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/review-paul-krugman-arguing-with-zombies/603052/
“Is that your new thing, FF? Calling people frauds because you disagree with them? “—Lynne
If you compare what Jean says she believes about “discourse” Vs. “debate” against her actual conversation style within discussions it is obvious that Jean is a mega-fraud. I am reaching that conclusion based upon the standards Jean herself has set. It’s not debatable and also not an example of me calling somebody a fraud merely because I disagree with them. Question: Is it Lynne’s new thing to say that I call people fraudulent liars because I merely disagree with them? Answer: No, Lynne has, like a broken record, been making that accusation for a long time; I shoot it down every time; and unfortunately for Lynne people are not so dumb as to fail to notice that there are reasons far beyond mere disagreement that explain why someone might be deserving of the label “mega fraud” or “liar”.
Perhaps missed the last discussion regarding debate/ discourse? Perhaps Lynne has very low reading comprehension?
Jean,
I don’t have time to read your very long post. I skimmed the first few paragraphs and I will say I don’t even know what you are talking about when you list all these conspiracy theories that I am unaware of… The red flags are everywhere within the primary sources. Denying the red flags in the Horowitz report is lunacy.
We are all in the same ship. Many of us were not passed out asleep in our cabins as we approached the iceberg. The Horowitz report caused a huge jolt in the ship while you were asleep. The fact that you and others did not feel it is highly interesting but it does not change the fact that it is highly highly unlikely that what our ship just hit was NOT just a piece of floating ice. Whether or not it sinks the ship is another story…
I will try to read your long post later. My instincts tell me it is a pile of garbage post.
JH: “Oh FF! let’s make a bet. $1000 says no one involved with Burisma etc goes on trial. $1000 says HRC never goes on trial. Another $1000 says there is no deep state upheaval.”
I share Jean’s confidence that “no one involved with Burisma etc goes on trial. I’m ultra-confident “HRC never goes on trial.”
The Trump administration is trying now to stop Bolton’s book from being published. I expect it will be published and the re-election campaigns of some GOP Senators will be damaged.
I read the Horowitz report. FF
We came to diffferent conclusions.
We always will.
I don’t care if you read my post. Even if I reply to you, you are not the only audience here. Many who read never comment at all. I don’t care what you think one way or another. Please don’t confuse my reply with interest in what you think. I’m just thinking out loud here.
iRobert,
Do you share that opinion because corruption at the highest levels rarely goes unpunished or because there are no red-flags of wrong doing in the Horowitz report and/or around Burisma? I do not know much about Burisma. On its face it seems odd and worthy of investigation. The Horowitz report is more complicated but red-flags are plentiful.
I have talked with people who have shared my concerns of the red flags regarding the Horowitz report and they have shared your view that nothing will happen to anybody. They were older people who had a deep cynicism about Justice being carried out at high levels.
I think Jean is content being ignorant and content just assuming everything that is outside of what she is fed by msnbc, CNN, NYT, Vox is some sort of conspiracy theory.
Fun stuff here for Berners. The right is coming for Sanders in a way the Dems never did. THe Dems went gentle on Bernie because they needed his followers to vote Clinton in the general. The right has no such motivation. They have a big thick opposition book of stupid shit Bernie said. And no they don’t want Biden to win the primary. They want to permanently disable all Dem viability, one candidate at a time. Call it the Putin approach.
“Seven years after Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to George Wallace as “perhaps the most dangerous racist in America today,” a young Bernie Sanders praised the segregationist Alabama governor. In an interview with the Brattleboro Reformer in 1972, Sanders, then 31, said Wallace “advocates some outrageous approaches to our problems, but at least he is sensitive to what people feel they need.”
PS I checked and the quote is legit.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bernie-sanders-praised-george-wallace-as-sensitive-in-1972
Jean “discourse” Henry!
No, I never went gentle on Bernie. No presidential candidate deserves kid gloves treatment.
It’s going to be super interesting to see when the populist left realizes the populist right wants nothing at all to do with their solutions or their empathy.
I think I’ve spent enough time on serious discourse with you, FF.
Don’t you agree?
People are amazed I spend any time engaging you. They say things to me in real life.
Which means other people are in this conversation even if they sit at the back of the room. And that is who discourse with assholes with you is for. Public discourse does not happen for the sole benefit of those engaged in it.
FF, corruption at high levels is almost never punished.
I do think the money paid to Hunter Biden was nothing but a payoff. If Biden has any sense he would have all of that money donated to a worthy charity.
Aloha JH. Wallace was a racist shit. But given the choice between war monger criminal Nixon and war monger Humphrey, he was a reasonable choice to some. His campaign pledged to end the war or withdraw from Vietnam within 90 days of election. You lesser evil people should realize that for many he was a lesser evil. Of course another million dead Vietnamese isn’t that important to liberals.
There are only two parties the imperialist or anti imperialist.
Does anyone think Pence will not go to war?
Will the Senate follow the House vote today and resend the 2002 AUMF and demand any President must come back to Congress prior to any additional hostilities.?
Trump derangement syndrome could send us into WWIII. I’m November we can bring this nightmare to an end.
“Which means other people are in this conversation even if they sit at the back of the room. And that is who discourse with assholes with you is for. Public discourse does not happen for the sole benefit of those engaged in it.”
Wow! I believe this statement to be true. (Not the FF is an asshole part but in general this is a very true statement from Jean.).
iRobert,
I agree unfortunately. What about the Horowitz report? Regarding documented FISA abuse, Horowitz said he was of the opinion that the abuses occurred as a result of either “gross incompetence” or “intentionality”. These are not incompetent people so do you think it is reasonable to assume FISA abuses occurred as a result of intentionality? If so, is it unreasonable to wonder why they had that intent? Wondering why is certainly not evidence that one is a conspiracy theorist right?
I believe there was intentionality among some, and incompetence among others. I doubt a serious investigation will be completed and lead to any consequences to anyone or positive changes to law.
Jean just calls everyone conspiracy theorists in an attempt to make herself feel and look less crazy. She’s as much of a conspiracy theorist as anyone here is.
The impeachment of Trump is the diversion, intended to fatigue the public and make them averse to following a prolonged investigation of the Obama administration.
That’s OK. Because the investigation into the Democrats hasn’t been political theater. The investigations have been methodical and the courts will be supplied with more than sufficient evidence to bring the wrongdoers to justice.
However, you are welcome to feed on MSM sources exclusively while chanting, “It’s all a conspiracy”
Jean thinks Tulsi is being “groomed” by the Russians, for example. That’s pure conspiracy theory.
There isn’t going to be much investigation of the Obama Administration, and won’t be any members of that administration going to jail.
A number of Trump associates have gone to jail, however. I expect a few more, but I doubt cabinet members will be among them.
Jean’s major assumption of course is that the people sitting quietly in the back of the room are all in support of her nonsense. Of course some people support your views against mine. So what? Is this another example of Jean”discourse not debate” Henry keeping score? You and they are the unknowing representatives and supporters of corruption and stupidity. How many points is that worth?
The investigation has been ongoing for some time.
Welcome back EOS. I was wondering if you were ok.
I agree that the Mueller investigation and the impeachment is some sort of smoke screen. IMO it can’t simply be the result of only hating Trump. These people at the top are most likely trying like hell to cover something up. The support they are given is the result of many people being under informed. The documented FISA abuse is the probable tip of the iceberg. I hope we figure it out and that Justice is served like you predict. It would be awesome!
I never said that about Tulsi iRobert. How would any of us know that. I think she’s a shill for Putin (not the same thing) and a populist isolationist which doesn’t hew with my form of progressivism. There is nothing about her that appeals to me.
My only true conspiratorial suspicion, which is really just for fun as these things should be is my own: that Kushner is the cultivated Russian asset.
It’s just a good twist.
Also— That guy is a robot person. He’s like one of those old talking dolls and when you pull his string he spews propaganda. The guy is unreadable.
Ff and EOS have drink a lot of kookaid.
(Leaving that typo…)
FTR, I never think anyone agrees with me which is true most of the time. Even in liberal enclaves like Ann Arbor.
I do better in Whitmore Lake where ppl expect you to have an opinion and also have no expectation of agreement.
Jean,
It’s not access to the same koolaid bowl that leads us to similar conclusions/ suspicions. It is access to the same facts and reasoning skills. It is likely, imo, that Mark, for example, gets many of posting ideas and analysis from political comedy shows. Those shows can be funny but they are rarely the result of reasoning. If I had to bet I would say you are heavy consumer of opinion pieces and you enjoy yourself some political comedy too.
I am listening to Senate questions now: The latest question involved the dossier and whether or not the steel dossier would, under the house managers standards, be considered as foreign interference and or an impeachable offense? Jeffries answer predictably was horribly laughable! Facts Jean. Not koolaid. Facts.
What is an “anti-vaxxer”? Someone who does not want to be injected with vaccines? That would be a non-vaxxer. I doubt they would stop you if you insisted on taking them. Vaxxers on the other hand want to force people to be injected. You promote mandatory violation of the human organism itself and try to ridicule people who wish to control what they put into their bodies.
Bwahaha
The idiot laughs. You have no rationale. It’s just like how I smoked you once again yesterday. You had no ability to back up what you say at all.
Not surprised to see you feel threatened by a strong woman of color. That’s typical of privileged white rednecks such as yourself, Jean.
My point about the dubious existence of anti-vaxxers is self-evident. Not taking something is not the opposite of trying to force someone to take it. You can’t believe something so simple destroys your beliefs so easily.
If vaccines in the US didn’t have so many toxins in them, there would be a lot less opposition.
It is 9:00. I hope you guys are listening to the impeachment hearings. The Dems are losing a grip as they get tired. Fatigue and trying to hold onto a narrative that is barely in touch with truth is not a good combination. It is hilarious to listen to.
Get ready, Jeannie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3hPvN_6yNU
Schiff lies every time he opens his mouth. President Trump said this, Dershowitz said that. No they didn’t, dick. He is knowingly lying to the American people. Can’t wait till he gets busted.
The term anti-vaxxers is not one I made up and it refers to the personal refusal of some folks to vaccinate their kids, not the imposition of. that on others.
Conversations here are inane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
Most of Europe has been banning GMOs, so I guess it’s a continent caught up in conspiracy theory.
When the questions end, the Chief Justice should rule that no evidence has been presented to support the charges and end the impeachment without further votes.
Subsequently, charges should be filed against Schiff and the two low level intelligence employees who used confidential material in a plot to overthrow the President. Let’s see the transcript of the 18th witness.
From The Washington Post (opinion):
Republican senators are being set up by the House
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/30/republican-senators-are-being-set-up-by-house/
Yes iRobert. it is.
There are reasons to dislike GMO’s that relate to corporate malfeasance and monopolization of our food supply, but not because of health concerns or concerns for pollinators for that matter.
I bought all that nonsense for a while too. It’s just not legitimate.
Europeans are conspiracy theorists. They don’t have your sophistication, Jean.
By the way, what studies have you seen regarding GMOs that show there are no health concerns?
…or is that another statement direct from your common sense?
“The term anti-vaxxers is not one I made up and it refers to the personal refusal of some folks to vaccinate their kids, not the imposition of. that on others.”
I didn’t say you made it up, dumbass. The point which is extremely clear is the term is inaccurate. Non-vaxxer would be accurate.
Vaxxer would be accurate though for people like you who want to force others: ‘Vaxxer Jean’.
Ahhh, let me get a nice cup of glyphosate to wake me up. It’s a good thing we have GMO foods that are designed to be sprayed with that wonderful stuff that doesn’t cause cancer. If you drink it straight you will never get cancer. Did you know that, Jean? They sell it in the store so it is definitely safe.
I think a solution to our vaccination issues is to acknowledge that there is a quantifiable value to herd immunity. We can then pay people that amount to get vaccinated.
What if herd immunity through vaccines is a fiction? The science of vaccination is far from “settled”. What are the ingredients? Are adjuvants safe? What makes you think you know? There are lots of things people can and should do to boost their immune system without resorting to injecting dangerous substances and hoping it helps, not hurts.
Vaccines aren’t harmless. There is risk involved every time you inject a foreign substance into your body. It is the individual’s right to determine whether they feel the benefit exceeds the risk.
Too frequently government requires vaccines for risks that are minimal. Each child in the US gets multiple injections against diphtheria. Nobody has contracted diphtheria in the US in about 50 years. They should stockpile the vaccine until there is an outbreak. Instead, they combine it with a tetanus shot, which many would consider beneficial and worth the risk. However, the addition of the diphtheria increases the risk for minimal benefit.
Other vaccines don’t provide immunity or if they do, it is short-lived. The majority of individuals who contract measles have been vaccinated. The influenza vaccine provides less than a 30% protection most years. It is even less effective in the elderly an immune compromised.
This year, the US government authorized the use of a high dose influenza shot for those over 65. This shot has adjuvants added. Adjuvants are chemicals that they hope will trigger a stronger immune response. The adjuvant used in this FDA approved vaccine contains squalene. Squalene was added to the anthrax vaccine given to soldiers and multiple studies showed it was the likely cause of Gulf War Syndrome. They are testing this substance on the elderly and are protected from lawsuits by the Federal government.
Herd immunity is an unproven hypothesis.
Polio vaccine contaminated with monkey virus injected into Americans from 1953-1963. How does everyone not know this? Can you understand the implications? Imagine understanding something like this your whole life and then seeing people like Jean and Dirty saying the most ignorant things to the contrary; actually trying to demean people who tell the awful truth.
https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-9378-2-13
Review
Open Access
Published: 09 July 2007
Simian virus 40 in humans
Fernanda Martini, Alfredo Corallini, Veronica Balatti, Silvia Sabbioni, Cecilia Pancaldi & Mauro Tognon
Infectious Agents and Cancer volume 2, Article number: 13 (2007) Cite this article
40k Accesses
37 Citations
24 Altmetric
Metrics details
Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a monkey virus that was administered to human populations by contaminated vaccines which were produced in SV40 naturally infected monkey cells.
Recent molecular biology and epidemiological studies suggest that SV40 may be contagiously transmitted in humans by horizontal infection, independently from the earlier administration of SV40-contaminated vaccines.
SV40 footprints in humans have been found associated at high prevalence with specific tumor types such as brain and bone tumors, mesotheliomas and lymphomas and with kidney diseases, and at lower prevalence in blood samples from healthy donors…
SV40 highly associated with certain human tumors. Read carefully and consider exactly how SV40 made footprints in humans:
SV40 footprints in humans have been found associated at high prevalence with specific tumor types such as brain and bone tumors, mesotheliomas and lymphomas and with kidney diseases, and at lower prevalence in blood samples from healthy donors.
Sorry HW. If it isn’t on MSM they won’t believe it, regardless of the enormity of facts.
Hey HW is the Coronavirus an escaped genetic experiment or a Chinese plot? Or both?
I heard a local bar owner talking about it?
Is it true that Q-Anon is telling people to drink bleach for protection from the virus?
Just about an entire generation was infected with SV40: the baby boomers. That article said there is evidence it spreads horizontally without the vaccine. Horizontally…hereditarily? Not sure if it passes to children of the infected or not. What a slap of reality though huh? Mega bitch slap. We are beating that ass, EOS and FF. Every day!
The three Amigos!
Who knows? If there is a patent on it from the last couple of years that would be pretty wild. Seems like I came across something like that. Good thing to follow up on do you think or no, you’d have to be crazy to BELIEVE something like that? I don’t believe shit. I just gather information and sort it the best I can. See the difference?
I think Q has made posts in the past alluding to biowarfare but I would have to check. Hahah, who said that about the bleach? Trying to get Q people to drink it because they believe anything??? Kind of funny but not really because people who read Q tend to be relatively intelligent. We are the ones exposing the lies gullible people like the maynardites believe.
Three friends defending against all of you and we beat the crap out of you every day. With style I might add.
It’s true. I read it on the internet!
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/qanon-supporters-are-drinking-bleach-to-fend-off-coronavirus.html
I didn’t know Jordan Sather is Q. I’m going to have to rethink this now.
They were way too quick in declaring the virus came from a market. The work they do with the most deadly viruses in the country is in a lab 20 miles away from the market.