VP Kackles Harris dishonors God and the US Constitution

[mark francis]

enemies? lol

I'm not saying democrat terrorists are considered enemies of God and America by democrats, just by law-abiding, Gon-honoring American patriots.

 

[pjmret]

I'm not saying democrat terrorists are considered enemies of God and America by democrats, just by law-abiding, Gon-honoring American patriots.

View attachment 2790

ah, right wing ***** appoints himself spokesperson for "patriots" lol

 

[mark francis]

without cause? proof?

Democrats impeached Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors without convicting him of a crime. This tactic was discussed in earlier debates, as recorded here:

High Crimes Without Law - Harvard Law Review

​

HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM

High Crimes Without Law

Responding to Laurence Tribe & Joshua Matz, To End a Presidency (2018)

Response by Nikolas Bowie

DEC 10, 2018

Imagine if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg resigned from the Supreme Court to serve as President Donald Trump’s lawyer. You now have a sense of the whiplash Capitol Hill experienced 150 years ago when former Justice Benjamin Curtis agreed to represent President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial. When Curtis accepted the position, he was best known for his dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford1×1. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). — a decision that so disgusted him that he quit the Supreme Court in protest.2×2. See STUART STREICHLER, JUSTICE CURTIS IN THE CIVIL WAR ERA 148–49 (2005). President Johnson, by contrast, was best known for embodying that decision’s observation that some white men would never respect a black person. A white supremacist3×3. President Johnson once proclaimed: “This is . . . a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.” ANNETTE GORDON-REED, ANDREW JOHNSON 112 (2011).Show More from Tennessee, President Johnson frequently clashed with members of Congress over what he termed “nigger equality.”4×4. JOHN SAVAGE, LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OF ANDREW JOHNSON 311 (New York, Derby & Miller 1865); see also GORDON-REED, supra note 3, at 12.Show More President Johnson vetoed civil rights laws.5×5. See, e.g., CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1679 (1866) (reporting President Johnson’s veto of a civil rights bill).Show More He accused senators of plotting with members of his Administration to undermine his policies.6×6. See MICHAEL LES BENEDICT, THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON 95–100 (1999); HANS L. TREFOUSSE, ANDREW JOHNSON 235 (1989).Show More And at campaign rallies across the Midwest, President Johnson drew jeers and laughter by issuing “loud threats and bitter menaces” against a Congress whose commitment to helping black people he regarded as “Radical.”7×7. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 4 (1868).

It was in part due to these Midwestern rallies that the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson in 1868. Many congressmen saw President Johnson as an embarrassment, a threat to the Republic whose unprecedented insults were unpresidential. Invoking the Constitution’s lone provision for prematurely ending a President’s term, the House called for the Senate to convict President Johnson and remove him for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.”8×8. Id. at Supp. 3; see also U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. Most of the eleven articles of impeachment the House drafted accused President Johnson of violating a criminal statute that prohibited him from removing certain cabinet officials, but two charged him with delivering such “intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues” that they rose to the level of high misdemeanors.9×9. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 4–5 (1868). Article X accused the president of bringing “the high office of the President of the United States into contempt” with his speeches. Id. at Supp. 4. Article XI accused him of “denying and intending to deny that the legislation of [the] Congress was valid or obligatory upon him.” Id. at Supp. 5.Show More One of these speech-related charges eventually became the focus of the subsequent impeachment trial and the first charge on which prosecutors asked the Senate to deliberate and vote.10×10. Id. at Supp. 4.

So why did Benjamin Curtis, Dred Scott dissenter, agree to defend such a racist demagogue? In his opening argument before the Senate, Curtis explained that a greater principle than President Johnson or even the presidency was at stake. Then as now, there was an ongoing scholarly debate over the meaning of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”11×11. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. Most people, including a majority of the House of Representatives, interpreted the phrase to refer not to literal crimes or misdemeanors but to any serious abuses of presidential power.12×12. See CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 411 (1868). This interpretation remains the dominant one 150 years later. In the words of Professor Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz, the majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds”13×13. LAURENCE TRIBE & JOSHUA MATZ, TO END A PRESIDENCY 42 (2018). that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency” — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.14×14. Id. at 38.

But Curtis was not so convinced. Acknowledging that he was about to make an argument that had been rejected by most of the “learned dissertations” on the question of what should constitute an impeachable offense, Curtis thought the answer was actually pretty straightforward.15×15. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 134 (1868) (opening argument of Benjamin Curtis).Show More An impeachment proceeding is a trial, Curtis began, in which the House brings charges of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and the Senate judges whether the defendant is guilty.16×16. Id. at Supp. 123. It is a basic principle of impartial justice, Curtis continued, that a judge cannot declare something a crime or misdemeanor unless it was made so by some law at the time it was done.17×17. Id. at Supp. 134. But in President Johnson’s case, there was no law outlawing scandalous speeches. The House had declared President Johnson’s conduct a high misdemeanor only in retrospect. As Curtis put it, these charges asked each senator to say, “if I cannot find a law I will make one.”18×18. Id. And what Curtis was defending wasn’t President Johnson’s uncouth behavior but the principle of nullum crimen sine lege: “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law.”19×19. Id. ...

“Judge Curtis gave us the law, and we followed it,” Senator William Pitt Fessenden later wrote.27×27. STREICHLER, supra note 2, at 173. When the arguments ended and the House prosecutors asked the Senate to vote on one of the charges, they selected one of the speech-related charges on which they were certain the Senate would vote to convict — but Fessenden and six other Republicans surprisingly defected from their party’s position to acquit the President by a single vote.28×28. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 411 (1868) (roll call of Art. XI). The final tally was 35 “guilty,” 19 “not guilty” — one less than the two-thirds needed to convict. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3.Show More (A week later, the same seven Republicans also voted to acquit President Johnson of two of the other charges that accused the President of violating the criminal statute that forbade him from removing certain cabinet officials.29×29. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 414–15 (1868) (roll calls of Arts. II and III); see Tenure of Office Act of 1867, ch. 154, 14 Stat. 430 (repealed 1887).Show More ) These seven acquitters were no friends of President Johnson. They included Senator Lyman Trumbull, coauthor of the Thirteenth Amendment, and Senator James W. Grimes, coauthor of the Fourteenth.30×30. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 414–15 (1868); David B. Kopel, Lyman Trumbull: Author of the Thirteenth Amendment, Author of the Civil Rights Act, and the First Second Amendment Lawyer, 47 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 1117, 1119 (2016); Earl M. Maltz, The Fourteenth Amendment as Political Compromise — Section One in the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 45 OHIO ST. L.J. 933, 958 (1984).Show More But as Senator Grimes explained, “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President.”31×31. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 424 (1868) (opinion of Sen. James W. Grimes). Like Curtis, Senator Grimes refused to accept an interpretation of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as something that changed “according to the law of each Senator’s judgment, enacted in his own bosom, after the alleged commission of the offense.”32×32. Id. at Supp. 423–24. He wanted President Johnson out of office — but thought that a conviction for a crime without the violation of any law would be “construed into an approval of impeachments as part of future political machinery.”33×33. Id. at Supp. 424. But see GORDON-REED, supra note 3, at 138–39 (arguing that Senator Grimes was also persuaded by promises from President Johnson to cease interfering with Reconstruction).Show More

 

[Boris Norris]

Trump did not suspend due process in his own impeachment scheme, democrats did. Trump favored human and civil rights vouchsafed by the US Constitution. Democrats totally violated the Constitution in their zeal to crucify the popular republican president.

He did not oppose the constitution. He broke his constitutional oath.

Trump wouldn't know what human rights were. He was an illiterate big buffoon.

Trump violated the constitution with his impeachment and j6 riots.

You're completely wrong and totally ignorant.

 

[mark francis]

He did not oppose the constitution. He broke his constitutional oath.

Trump wouldn't know what human rights were. He was an illiterate big buffoon.

Trump violated the constitution with his impeachment and j6 riots.

You're completely wrong and totally ignorant.

What crime did you say Trump was impeached for having been convicted of committing?

 

[Boris Norris]

What crime did you say Trump was impeached for having been convicted of committing?

Trump was impeached for a quid pro quo with Ukraine and you know it. Stop playing dumb.
You're only a child so get some facts.

 

[mark francis]

Trump was impeached for a quid pro quo with Ukraine and you know it. Stop playing dumb.
You're only a child so get some facts.

He was not convicted of any quid pro quo, but he was falsely accused of that by a lying dirtbag traitor in collusion with Adam Schiff. Biden clearly held US money back from Ukraine for personal reasons and he was never convicted of that clear evidence of a quid pro quo. What is the law Biden broke or Trump was alleged to have broken in quid pro quo examples?

 

[Boris Norris]

He was not convicted of any quid pro quo, but he was falsely accused of that by a lying dirtbag traitor in collusion with Adam Schiff.

Stop being an idiot. Here's the reason for his impeachment so I'll expect an apology.

Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry found that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony

Biden clearly held US money back from Ukraine for personal reasons and he was never convicted of that clear evidence of a quid pro quo. What is the law Biden broke or Trump was alleged to have broken in quid pro quo examples?

If Biden has done what you say he would have been impeached. That's means he didn't do it and your god is watching you lying again.

No alleged Trump broke the law. IT'S A FACT DICKHEAD.

You have reversed both scenarios purely to score points in your tiny brain. Cut the crap and do some research.

 

[pjmret]

Democrats impeached Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors without convicting him of a crime. This tactic was discussed in earlier debates, as recorded here:

High Crimes Without Law - Harvard Law Review

​

HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM

High Crimes Without Law

Responding to Laurence Tribe & Joshua Matz, To End a Presidency (2018)

Response by Nikolas Bowie

DEC 10, 2018

Imagine if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg resigned from the Supreme Court to serve as President Donald Trump’s lawyer. You now have a sense of the whiplash Capitol Hill experienced 150 years ago when former Justice Benjamin Curtis agreed to represent President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial. When Curtis accepted the position, he was best known for his dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford1×1. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). — a decision that so disgusted him that he quit the Supreme Court in protest.2×2. See STUART STREICHLER, JUSTICE CURTIS IN THE CIVIL WAR ERA 148–49 (2005). President Johnson, by contrast, was best known for embodying that decision’s observation that some white men would never respect a black person. A white supremacist3×3. President Johnson once proclaimed: “This is . . . a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.” ANNETTE GORDON-REED, ANDREW JOHNSON 112 (2011).Show More from Tennessee, President Johnson frequently clashed with members of Congress over what he termed “nigger equality.”4×4. JOHN SAVAGE, LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OF ANDREW JOHNSON 311 (New York, Derby & Miller 1865); see also GORDON-REED, supra note 3, at 12.Show More President Johnson vetoed civil rights laws.5×5. See, e.g., CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1679 (1866) (reporting President Johnson’s veto of a civil rights bill).Show More He accused senators of plotting with members of his Administration to undermine his policies.6×6. See MICHAEL LES BENEDICT, THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON 95–100 (1999); HANS L. TREFOUSSE, ANDREW JOHNSON 235 (1989).Show More And at campaign rallies across the Midwest, President Johnson drew jeers and laughter by issuing “loud threats and bitter menaces” against a Congress whose commitment to helping black people he regarded as “Radical.”7×7. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 4 (1868).

It was in part due to these Midwestern rallies that the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson in 1868. Many congressmen saw President Johnson as an embarrassment, a threat to the Republic whose unprecedented insults were unpresidential. Invoking the Constitution’s lone provision for prematurely ending a President’s term, the House called for the Senate to convict President Johnson and remove him for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.”8×8. Id. at Supp. 3; see also U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. Most of the eleven articles of impeachment the House drafted accused President Johnson of violating a criminal statute that prohibited him from removing certain cabinet officials, but two charged him with delivering such “intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues” that they rose to the level of high misdemeanors.9×9. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 4–5 (1868). Article X accused the president of bringing “the high office of the President of the United States into contempt” with his speeches. Id. at Supp. 4. Article XI accused him of “denying and intending to deny that the legislation of [the] Congress was valid or obligatory upon him.” Id. at Supp. 5.Show More One of these speech-related charges eventually became the focus of the subsequent impeachment trial and the first charge on which prosecutors asked the Senate to deliberate and vote.10×10. Id. at Supp. 4.

So why did Benjamin Curtis, Dred Scott dissenter, agree to defend such a racist demagogue? In his opening argument before the Senate, Curtis explained that a greater principle than President Johnson or even the presidency was at stake. Then as now, there was an ongoing scholarly debate over the meaning of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”11×11. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. Most people, including a majority of the House of Representatives, interpreted the phrase to refer not to literal crimes or misdemeanors but to any serious abuses of presidential power.12×12. See CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 411 (1868). This interpretation remains the dominant one 150 years later. In the words of Professor Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz, the majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds”13×13. LAURENCE TRIBE & JOSHUA MATZ, TO END A PRESIDENCY 42 (2018). that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency” — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.14×14. Id. at 38.

But Curtis was not so convinced. Acknowledging that he was about to make an argument that had been rejected by most of the “learned dissertations” on the question of what should constitute an impeachable offense, Curtis thought the answer was actually pretty straightforward.15×15. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 134 (1868) (opening argument of Benjamin Curtis).Show More An impeachment proceeding is a trial, Curtis began, in which the House brings charges of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and the Senate judges whether the defendant is guilty.16×16. Id. at Supp. 123. It is a basic principle of impartial justice, Curtis continued, that a judge cannot declare something a crime or misdemeanor unless it was made so by some law at the time it was done.17×17. Id. at Supp. 134. But in President Johnson’s case, there was no law outlawing scandalous speeches. The House had declared President Johnson’s conduct a high misdemeanor only in retrospect. As Curtis put it, these charges asked each senator to say, “if I cannot find a law I will make one.”18×18. Id. And what Curtis was defending wasn’t President Johnson’s uncouth behavior but the principle of nullum crimen sine lege: “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law.”19×19. Id. ...

“Judge Curtis gave us the law, and we followed it,” Senator William Pitt Fessenden later wrote.27×27. STREICHLER, supra note 2, at 173. When the arguments ended and the House prosecutors asked the Senate to vote on one of the charges, they selected one of the speech-related charges on which they were certain the Senate would vote to convict — but Fessenden and six other Republicans surprisingly defected from their party’s position to acquit the President by a single vote.28×28. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 411 (1868) (roll call of Art. XI). The final tally was 35 “guilty,” 19 “not guilty” — one less than the two-thirds needed to convict. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3.Show More (A week later, the same seven Republicans also voted to acquit President Johnson of two of the other charges that accused the President of violating the criminal statute that forbade him from removing certain cabinet officials.29×29. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 414–15 (1868) (roll calls of Arts. II and III); see Tenure of Office Act of 1867, ch. 154, 14 Stat. 430 (repealed 1887).Show More ) These seven acquitters were no friends of President Johnson. They included Senator Lyman Trumbull, coauthor of the Thirteenth Amendment, and Senator James W. Grimes, coauthor of the Fourteenth.30×30. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 414–15 (1868); David B. Kopel, Lyman Trumbull: Author of the Thirteenth Amendment, Author of the Civil Rights Act, and the First Second Amendment Lawyer, 47 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 1117, 1119 (2016); Earl M. Maltz, The Fourteenth Amendment as Political Compromise — Section One in the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 45 OHIO ST. L.J. 933, 958 (1984).Show More But as Senator Grimes explained, “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President.”31×31. CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Supp. 424 (1868) (opinion of Sen. James W. Grimes). Like Curtis, Senator Grimes refused to accept an interpretation of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as something that changed “according to the law of each Senator’s judgment, enacted in his own bosom, after the alleged commission of the offense.”32×32. Id. at Supp. 423–24. He wanted President Johnson out of office — but thought that a conviction for a crime without the violation of any law would be “construed into an approval of impeachments as part of future political machinery.”33×33. Id. at Supp. 424. But see GORDON-REED, supra note 3, at 138–39 (arguing that Senator Grimes was also persuaded by promises from President Johnson to cease interfering with Reconstruction).Show More

the fact that trump wasn't convicted due to republican votes in the senate doesn't prove that there wasn't a "cause" to impeach him. duh.

or are you saying that republicans voted impartially and without respect to the party of the president?
hahahahahahahhah

 

[pjmret]

He was not convicted of any quid pro quo, but he was falsely accused of that by a lying dirtbag traitor in collusion with Adam Schiff. Biden clearly held US money back from Ukraine for personal reasons and he was never convicted of that clear evidence of a quid pro quo. What is the law Biden broke or Trump was alleged to have broken in quid pro quo examples?

no, it wasn't for "personal reasons" *****, it was because the prosecutor was corrupt and not prosecuting corruption.

yes, it was a quid pro quo, but on behalf of the country, not personally.

god you're stupid. lol.

 

[mark francis]

Stop being an idiot. Here's the reason for his impeachment so I'll expect an apology.

Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry found that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony

If Biden has done what you say he would have been impeached. That's means he didn't do it and your god is watching you lying again.

No alleged Trump broke the law. IT'S A FACT DICKHEAD.

You have reversed both scenarios purely to score points in your tiny brain. Cut the crap and do some research.

Democrats accused him of seeking foreign help but democrats did not prove he sought foreign help in the 2020 election. American patriots did prove democrats like Ted Kennedy regularly appealed to foreigners for help in US elections.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ed_the_soviets_for_help_defeating_reagan.html

HomeArchivesCartoonsAboutSearchLoginSubscribeDonateMore

July 27, 2016

Remember when Ted Kennedy asked the Soviets for help defeating Reagan?

By Thomas Lifson

The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.

But Betsy Newmark of Betsy’s Page remembers: (hat tip: Instapundit):

As the Democrats struggle to turn the story of the DNC hacks into an attack on Trump by arguing that the Russians are behind the hack and that Putin is trying to help Trump get elected, let's remember when a prominent Democrat actually went to the Soviets for help in defeating Reagan. In 1984 Ted Kennedy approached the Soviets who were then led by the former KGB head, Yuri Andropov, and tried to negotiate help in opposing Reagan. We found out about Kennedy's efforts when Yeltsin opened up the Soviet archives in 1991. Sean Davis links to the story as reported in Forbes.

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.

 

[mark francis]

the fact that trump wasn't convicted due to republican votes in the senate doesn't prove that there wasn't a "cause" to impeach him. duh.

or are you saying that republicans voted impartially and without respect to the party of the president?
hahahahahahahhah

He wasn't impeached because there were not enough Senators willing to join with vengeful democrats in their unjust 'screw-the-Constitution' seditious assault on the just President of the US.

 

[mark francis]

no, it wasn't for "personal reasons" *****, it was because the prosecutor was corrupt and not prosecuting corruption.

yes, it was a quid pro quo, but on behalf of the country, not personally.

god you're stupid. lol.

The prosecutor was not corrupt. That is the lie the corrupt leftists propagate to hide their own wicked corruption in the affair.

 

[Boris Norris]

The prosecutor was not corrupt. That is the lie the corrupt leftists propagate to hide their own wicked corruption in the affair.

I'm sick of hearing your diatribe that everything the democrats is wicked etc.
Why do t you grow up or keep your it immature ignorant mouth shut. You won't accept the fact and use anything to smear democrats because you hate them.

Get your own house in order before instructing others what to do. Get those paedophile priests out of the system you godbothering republicans allow.

Go away and get some facts.

 

[Boris Norris]

Democrats accused him of seeking foreign help but democrats did not prove he sought foreign help in the 2020 election. American patriots did prove democrats like Ted Kennedy regularly appealed to foreigners for help in US elections.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ed_the_soviets_for_help_defeating_reagan.html

HomeArchivesCartoonsAboutSearchLoginSubscribeDonateMore

July 27, 2016

Remember when Ted Kennedy asked the Soviets for help defeating Reagan?

By Thomas Lifson

The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.

But Betsy Newmark of Betsy’s Page remembers: (hat tip: Instapundit):

As the Democrats struggle to turn the story of the DNC hacks into an attack on Trump by arguing that the Russians are behind the hack and that Putin is trying to help Trump get elected, let's remember when a prominent Democrat actually went to the Soviets for help in defeating Reagan. In 1984 Ted Kennedy approached the Soviets who were then led by the former KGB head, Yuri Andropov, and tried to negotiate help in opposing Reagan. We found out about Kennedy's efforts when Yeltsin opened up the Soviet archives in 1991. Sean Davis links to the story as reported in Forbes.

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.

Trump asked Ukraine to dig dirt on Biden before he handed over the aid money. They refused and that is why he backed Russia during the current war. Pure revenge because they stood up to the dickhead.
.
So cut the lies you fabricate to protect the worst POTUS the country ever had.

And who gives a rat's about Harris ungodlyness? How will that affect any govt policy? You're the only dope pushing your hypocritical god propaganda. Forget about her. At least she's not raping little kids nor does she approve of it but you do.