A Weekly Dose of President Trump - Trump Family Train 12/2/19 to 12/31/19.

To: JudyinCanada

What an effeminate mincing “ta-ta” Justin is!
Every time I see him, all I can picture is him in a tutu!

We are getting clobbered here from the snow storm!
So glad I didn’t have to work today!
That wind is so cold, it snatches your breath way!

341 posted on 12/03/2019 1:59:40 PM PST by MS.BEHAVIN (Women who behave rarely make history)

To: Rusty0604; sweetiepiezer

Thanks for the kind words and the prayers for the families.

They sure are helping all involved cope.

342 posted on 12/03/2019 2:02:06 PM PST by Lakeside Granny ( God's Word says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." Jeremiah 1:5))

To: Lakeside Granny

His Dorkness got elected for two reasons. First, his name is Trudeau and Canadians are stupid. Second, he legalized pot and Canadians are stupid. Oh, there’s a third. Canadians are stupid.

343 posted on 12/03/2019 2:02:32 PM PST by JudyinCanada

Glad you are home today and out of that NASTY weather, Ms. B.

But you will have to get out in it tomorrow, right?

344 posted on 12/03/2019 2:15:30 PM PST by Lakeside Granny ( God's Word says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." Jeremiah 1:5))

The Queen greets President Trump and First Lady at NATO reception in Buckingham Palace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnQ9dddBWAk

345 posted on 12/03/2019 2:15:34 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia

To: JudyinCanada

And smoking ALL that pot will make them even STUPID-ER.

Can he run for a 3rd term?

346 posted on 12/03/2019 2:17:21 PM PST by Lakeside Granny ( God's Word says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." Jeremiah 1:5))

Above video is best watched a full laptop screen ... for full effect. :)

347 posted on 12/03/2019 2:18:09 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia

To: Lakeside Granny

Good question. Let me find out.

348 posted on 12/03/2019 2:20:02 PM PST by JudyinCanada

To: Lakeside Granny

Nope!
I also have tomorrow off.
I work 3 days and then have two off all the time.

My scheduler does this to help me because of my RSD.
I am VERY lucky-so far

349 posted on 12/03/2019 2:20:07 PM PST by MS.BEHAVIN (Women who behave rarely make history)

To: Lakeside Granny

No term limits. He can run as often as his little fruitcake heart desires.

350 posted on 12/03/2019 2:21:36 PM PST by JudyinCanada

US President Donald Trump and other NATO Leaders Arrive at Downing Street in London

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5UEHJdcZiM

Donald and Melania Trump meet Prince Charles and Camilla in London

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMY1mXakxo

351 posted on 12/03/2019 2:28:31 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia

To: Right_in_Virginia

Queen Elizabeth hosts NATO world leaders at Buckingham Palace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvaySoF9AmE

(I’m so thrilled POTUS and FLOTUS are representing US!)

353 posted on 12/03/2019 2:32:53 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia

To: Right_in_Virginia

Kate Bennett

@KateBennett_DC

· 21m

. @FLOTUS tonight at Buckingham Palace reception with Queen Elizabeth. This is now the fifth event the two women have attended together since Melania Trump has been first lady.

354 posted on 12/03/2019 2:32:57 PM PST by exit82 (Democrats are unfit to govern--they hate America, the Constitution and those they don't agree with.)

To: jennychase; All

Page 3 cont.

Your letter also wrongly claims an equivalence between the procedure applicable to past impeachment inquires and the procedures adopted by H. Res. 660. Past inquiries, however, did not authorize one set of committees to conduct two rounds of hearings with witnesses (one round in secret and another in public) while prohibiting the President from any opportunity to participate. Nor did these past inquires continue to deny those rights to the President even in a THIRD round of hearings before yet another committee, the Judiciary Committee. In other impeachment proceedings, the President's counsel was not excluded from the hearings that took testimony from fact witnesses, nor was the President denied the right of cross examination during those hearings.

It is also demonstrably false for you to claim the procedures provided in H. Res. 660 for the Judiciary Committee's hearings are "consistent with these used by the Committee in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment." First and foremost, nothing in the procedures for those impeachment inquiries permitted the Chairman to deny the President the ability to participate or to deny any other procedural rights as a punishment for asserting Ececutive Branch constitutional privileges. Both Presidents in those proceedings had asserted numerous privileges, but it never even occurred to the Judiciary Committee that offering the President to abandon the longstanding constitutional rights and privileges of Executive Branch. This would cause significant and lasting institutional harm. Second, in both of those proceedings, the minority party had co-equal subpoena authority. Here, by contrast, the ranking member of this Committee cannot force a vote on subpoenas that you choose to issue, but you can force committee votes on the ranking member's subpoenas. All of this is an unprecedented and extremely troubling denial of basic due process that destroys the legitimacy and credibility of your inquiry.

Lastly, what past impeachment proceedings make clear that the Judiciary Committee must hear and assess evidence for itself. In 1998, you pointed out the Committee cannot simply receive a report compiled by another entity and proceed on the basis of that report. That, you explained."would be to say that the rold of this committee of the House is mere transmission belt or rubber stamp." At the time, President Clinton was allowed to call fourteen witnesses. Here, with the hearings before the Committee set to begin a mere five days from the date of your latest letter, it still remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee actually intends to permit the President or your Republican colleagues to call witnesses at all. In fact, you have not even provided simple notice of the process that will be followed or the schedule for the Judiciary Committee's hearings.

Page 4 cont.

It is too late to cure the profound procedural deficiencies that have tainted this entire inquiry. Nevertheless, if you are serious about conducting a fair process going forward, and in order to protect the rights and privileges of the President, we may consider participating in future Judiciary Committee proceedings if you afford the Administration the ability to do so meaningfully. As you have acknowledged, the House's"power of impeachment...demands a rigorous level of due process," and in the context "due process mean{s}...the right to confront witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel." So far, all of these rights have been violated. Even at the late date, it is not clear whether you will afford the President at least basic, fundamental rights or continue to dent them.

As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.

We will respond separately to your letter of November 29 by the deadline you indicated of Friday, December 6. In the meantime, and in order to assess our ability to participate in future proceedings, please let us know at least the following:(i) whether you intend to allow for fact witnesses to be called, including the witnesses requested by HPSCI Ranking Member Nunes on November 9, 2019 (whom Chairman Schiff, without explanation, declined to call) as well as other witnesses we may choose to call; (ii) whether you intend to allow members of the Judiciary Committee and the President's counsel the right to cross examine fact witnesses (including those who have already testified and any others called before the Judiciary Committee); and (iii) whether your Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee will be allowed to call witnesses of their choosing. Other procedural protections to which the President would be entitled will depend on the scope and nature of the proceedings that will be held in your Committee. As of yet, however, you have failed to provide this basic information to us. We stand ready to meet with you to discuss a plan for these proceedings at your conveniences. As you know, it is your responsibility as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to ensure that due process rights are protected and to conduct a fair and just process.

Page 5 cont.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Pat A. Cipollone

(Counsel to the President)

cc: The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member

NIKK...as you can see I didn't break up a paragraph and go to the next page. I started the next page after a paragraph. I thought it helped to read better. Again sorry for all the mistakes. Plumber just left. Not through with the job.

355 posted on 12/03/2019 2:37:22 PM PST by STARLIT (Hope is standing in the dark looking out at the light in Jesus Christ.)

To: JudyinCanada

I only saw that he had on brown shoes..and NO ONE else!

356 posted on 12/03/2019 2:39:02 PM PST by STARLIT (Hope is standing in the dark looking out at the light in Jesus Christ.)

Didn't Melania wear yellow the last time she was at Buckingham Palace? She always looks beautiful.

Melania wore yellow for a gala dinner with PM May and her husband. It wasn't at the Palace and the Queen wasn't in attendance. They met at Windsor Castle earlier in the day and Melania wore a suit (The first trip was at the height of the "we hate Trump" nonsense) ...

On the second trip (official state visit) Melania wore this suit when she met with the Queen at Buckingham Palace:

357 posted on 12/03/2019 2:43:29 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia

To: Right_in_Virginia

358 posted on 12/03/2019 2:48:51 PM PST by jennychase

To: Right_in_Virginia

359 posted on 12/03/2019 2:48:51 PM PST by jennychase

To: Right_in_Virginia

I knew the Ladies could set me straight. All I know is she is elegance personified. Proud to have her representing the USA.

360 posted on 12/03/2019 2:51:33 PM PST by weston (As far as I'm concerned, it's Christ or nothing)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794