|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 12:35:45 GMT -5
I don't accept the premise of your question. "Unfit" doesn't fit. I don't like him as a president, but as yet I don't think he's done anything impeachable. And it's not for want of hearing what people are accusing him of. I hear the accusations, then I look into it, and so far I haven't yet heard an accusation, the substance of which I agree with. Lar does and I don't agree with him and neither do you. It's not a clear cut dichotomy like you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 7, 2019 12:37:18 GMT -5
Impeachment is a political process. And it really won't succeed in removing him with the Senate needing a 2/3 vote for that to happen. So, though I agree that his worst actions need to see the light of day and be a part of the public dialog, I don't want to harm the REAL removal process which is the 2020 election.
I've said it before; when the Rs controlled the House during the Obama years, they voted 65 times to repeal Obama-care knowing full well there was not chance the Senate would ever agree. Politics is a stupid mess. It's really not worth while for anyone to waste time worrying about the validity of this or that political discourse.
Eat some chocolate. Stay informed without wasting much time on it. Vote when the time comes.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 7, 2019 12:45:03 GMT -5
I don't accept the premise of your question. "Unfit" doesn't fit. I don't like him as a president, but as yet I don't think he's done anything impeachable. And it's not for want of hearing what people are accusing him of. I hear the accusations, then I look into it, and so far I haven't yet heard an accusation, the substance of which I agree with. Lar does and I don't agree with him and neither do you. It's not a clear cut dichotomy like you suggest. Thanks for that clarification, John. We disagree on whether he's done anything impeachable, but that doesn't make you a bad person.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 12:57:26 GMT -5
We disagree on whether he's done anything impeachable, but that doesn't make you a bad person. Let me just say a heartfelt thank you for that. I'm finding fewer and fewer people capable of making that distinction these days.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 7, 2019 14:06:02 GMT -5
Seems to me that this is at least part of the problem. Maybe it even reflects just a bit of what has Lar so frustrated. You've built a very high, very impenetrable wall around your false dichotomy that unless you are for impeachment you are a "Trump supporter". Present company should dispel this to at least some degree. Lar, Jeff, and I are not Trump supporters. None of us voted for him and I don't know about Jeff, but I doubt that Lar or I will be voting for him in 2020. And yet, your go-to argument is this false dichotomy. Thanks for that reassurance that you-all aren't among the never-say-dies. But my point remains: either you believe Trump is unfit or you don't. If you believe the former, you must be for impeachment - how can you not be? May I ask, are you for impeachment? I'm uneasy about the impeachment. I don't agree with Trump that the impeachment is a witch hunt. By the same token I do believe that the impeachment is a pretext for a larger agenda on the part of Congressional Democrats. That does give me pause. To my way of thinking there are two considerations here. The first is the offense itself. We know that Trump talked to Zelensky. We know quite a lot about what was said. Boiled down, the conversation was; 1) The U.S. has been very good to Ukraine; 2) I need a favor; 3) Investigate Biden. And at some point it appears that Trump pressed for not only the investigation but a public announcement as well. When all of this started I made the point that I've been involved in hundreds of business meetings that were very similar in tone and content. At the highest level I see nothing wrong with that. Where things start to get iffy is really a matter of nuance. The quid pro quo part is business, nothing more. It's a common part of negotiations. Joe Biden threatened to withhold US aid unless the chief prosecutor in the Ukraine was fired. Quid pro quo. You can argue the merits of the quid and the quo. But you can't be both for it and agin it as a negotiating tactic. Investigate Biden. That's a bit trickier. I'm inclined to give Trump at least a little slack and assume he meant "investigate". Others read "investigate" as "dig up dirt". There's a fly in that ointment, though. Let's assume there's no dirt to dig up. Biden is clean. What happens then? Do we leave Ukraine to the mercy of the Russians? I'm sticking with "investigate". Does the request for a public announcement make a difference? Depends. If it's a purely political play then, yes. If it's for the purpose of showing the world that Ukraine is serious about eliminating corruption then, no. I don't think any of us can truly reach into Trump's mind and know exactly what he was thinking. But I expect no shortage of people who claim they can. All of this "shadow" diplomacy stuff involving Giuliani is unsettling. I don't know if it's illegal. If it is, hang 'em. Otherwise, it sounds kind of sleazy and not a very productive way to pursue diplomacy. But that ain't my call. The second thing I have to consider about the impeachment is the question is whether or not Trump would be impeached over the Ukraine issue if he wasn't so intensely disliked. Since I can't know that for sure, I'm going to have to go with my gut. I've often had the idea that some of the things Trump does aren't so terrible by themselves. What tends to make them terrible is Trump's rhetoric, his tweets, and his demeanor. I believe that if what's gone on here had involved a different president, I'd be inclined to censure the president or give him a good sharp rap on the knuckles.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 14:21:05 GMT -5
The first is the offense itself. We know that Trump talked to Zelensky. We know quite a lot about what was said. Boiled down, the conversation was; 1) The U.S. has been very good to Ukraine; 2) I need a favor; 3) Investigate Biden. There were more than five hundred words between point 2 and point 3, and the debate centers around the very point of whether point number 2 is the antecedent to point number 3, or to the very next comments about Crowdstrike. To accept that point 2 and 3 are connected is begging the question. It is the very heart of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 7, 2019 14:55:05 GMT -5
Republicans Demand Whistleblower Reveal Their Identity In A Wide Open Field Where There’s A Clear Shot
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 7, 2019 15:10:42 GMT -5
Anybody defending him knows exactly who he is. We all know exactly who he is. Drain the swamp? Both sides? I'm sorry. I just can't. www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/07/us/ap-us-trump-foundation-investigation.htmlJudge Orders Trump to Pay $2M for Charity Foundation MisuseNEW YORK — A New York judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to an array of charities to resolve a lawsuit alleging he misused his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests. Judge Saliann Scarpulla said Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Trump Foundation by allowing his campaign staff to plan a fundraiser for veterans' charities in the run-up to the 2016 Iowa caucuses. The event, which passed money through Trump's non-profit, was designed "to further Mr. Trump's political campaign," Scarpulla said. ... In the agreements, Trump admitted to personally misusing Trump Foundation funds and agreed to pay back $11,525 in the organization's funds he spent on sports memorabilia and champagne at a charity gala. He also agreed to restrictions on his involvement in other charitable organizations. ....
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 7, 2019 16:05:42 GMT -5
Lar wrote:
There is a qualitative difference about the size of the Grand Canyon between a quid pro quo when it is in the national interest, and a quid pro quo when it is in the personal, self-serving interest of a government official, in this case to twist government policy to go after a domestic political enemy. One is a legitimate exercise of government authority. The other is a corruption of authority, as practiced in despotic, third-world regimes around the world. For the life of me, I can't see how that distinction can be missed.
EDIT: As I understand it, Biden was trying to get rid of a corrupt government prosecutor who was not prosecuting crimes. I don't think anybody has claimed Biden's position on this had anything to do with advancing his personal political interests. It was done to advance U.S. policy in Ukraine. If some claim has been made otherwise, please enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 16:25:43 GMT -5
I don't think anybody has claimed Biden's position on this had anything to do with advancing his personal political interests. Yes, they have.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 7, 2019 16:34:13 GMT -5
I don't think anybody has claimed Biden's position on this had anything to do with advancing his personal political interests. Yes, they have. I must have missed that. But if the charge has been credibly made, it should be investigated to the hilt and prosecuted for the crime it would be. Have to wonder why AG Barr isn't all over this.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 16:35:44 GMT -5
I must have missed that. But if the charge has been credibly made, it should be investigated to the hilt and prosecuted for the crime it would be. Have to wonder why AG Barr isn't all over this. He is. And believe me, if he concludes it, the same people who think Trump guilty will disbelieve Barr.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Nov 7, 2019 16:37:19 GMT -5
Anybody defending him knows exactly who he is. We all know exactly who he is. Drain the swamp? Both sides? I'm sorry. I just can't. www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/07/us/ap-us-trump-foundation-investigation.htmlJudge Orders Trump to Pay $2M for Charity Foundation MisuseNEW YORK — A New York judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to an array of charities to resolve a lawsuit alleging he misused his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests. Judge Saliann Scarpulla said Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Trump Foundation by allowing his campaign staff to plan a fundraiser for veterans' charities in the run-up to the 2016 Iowa caucuses. The event, which passed money through Trump's non-profit, was designed "to further Mr. Trump's political campaign," Scarpulla said. ... In the agreements, Trump admitted to personally misusing Trump Foundation funds and agreed to pay back $11,525 in the organization's funds he spent on sports memorabilia and champagne at a charity gala. He also agreed to restrictions on his involvement in other charitable organizations. .... Earlier you responded- rightly- that what Biden did with and for his son stinks... which it does but yet you reject the notion that both swamps need draining. I'm not going to defend the Trump Foundation or DJT here but I am curious about your thoughts on another foundation. Before the election Bill, Hill, and Chel were traveling the globe giving speeches for fees that sometimes approached a half mil. As everybody just "knew" she was going to be the next POTUS I saw this as nothing more than naked bribery/pay-to-pay. I also view the Press' thundering silence on that as.... well, I'm not going to say it. Let's just say it spoke to me.... in no uncertain terms. I also see her server in the same light as the Clinton Foundation donations. A few of the emails that survived her purge contained instructions to State Department personnel to "take care of so-and-so as he was important to us". That so-and-so happened to be a major CF donor also spoke to me. She never wanted those emails to see the light of day or be subject to FOIA requests. It is also very telling that those donations have dwindled to be almost non-existent. So what say you Mr.Paul. What are your thoughts on the CF? Not part of a swamp?
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 7, 2019 16:47:24 GMT -5
I must have missed that. But if the charge has been credibly made, it should be investigated to the hilt and prosecuted for the crime it would be. Have to wonder why AG Barr isn't all over this. He is. And believe me, if he concludes it, the same people who think Trump guilty will disbelieve Barr. If he comes up with something, it will be up to a jury, and so it should be. For now, I would only say it sounds out of character for Biden. But maybe there's a side of Joe that he's been hiding all these years. To Barr: Go for it, man.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 7, 2019 16:50:36 GMT -5
He is. And believe me, if he concludes it, the same people who think Trump guilty will disbelieve Barr. If he comes up with something, it will be up to a jury, and so it should be. For now, I would only say it sounds out of character for Biden. But maybe there's a side of Joe that he's been hiding all these years. To Barr: Go for it, man. But at least you can now understand why the Trump impeachment stinks to high heaven for so many of us.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 7, 2019 16:54:44 GMT -5
If he comes up with something, it will be up to a jury, and so it should be. For now, I would only say it sounds out of character for Biden. But maybe there's a side of Joe that he's been hiding all these years. To Barr: Go for it, man. But at least you can now understand why the Trump impeachment stinks to high heaven for so many of us. Yes, I do understand. EDIT: To clarify, I understand you think this is all about partisan politics, and so I understand you think it stinks. I think Barr flying all over the world trying to find something incriminating on the Bidens is motivated by politics, but so what? If there's something there, let it come out.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Nov 7, 2019 17:15:48 GMT -5
He is. And believe me, if he concludes it, the same people who think Trump guilty will disbelieve Barr. If he comes up with something, it will be up to a jury, and so it should be. For now, I would only say it sounds out of character for Biden. But maybe there's a side of Joe that he's been hiding all these years. To Barr: Go for it, man. Hiding in plain sight from a disinterested press is how I would characterize it. Same as with the Clinton Foundation. Democracy dies in darkness and Union is divided by selective illumination.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 7, 2019 20:04:00 GMT -5
Anybody defending him knows exactly who he is. We all know exactly who he is. Drain the swamp? Both sides? I'm sorry. I just can't. www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/07/us/ap-us-trump-foundation-investigation.htmlJudge Orders Trump to Pay $2M for Charity Foundation MisuseNEW YORK — A New York judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to an array of charities to resolve a lawsuit alleging he misused his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests. Judge Saliann Scarpulla said Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Trump Foundation by allowing his campaign staff to plan a fundraiser for veterans' charities in the run-up to the 2016 Iowa caucuses. The event, which passed money through Trump's non-profit, was designed "to further Mr. Trump's political campaign," Scarpulla said. ... In the agreements, Trump admitted to personally misusing Trump Foundation funds and agreed to pay back $11,525 in the organization's funds he spent on sports memorabilia and champagne at a charity gala. He also agreed to restrictions on his involvement in other charitable organizations. .... Earlier you responded- rightly- that what Biden did with and for his son stinks... which it does but yet you reject the notion that both swamps need draining. I'm not going to defend the Trump Foundation or DJT here but I am curious about your thoughts on another foundation. Before the election Bill, Hill, and Chel were traveling the globe giving speeches for fees that sometimes approached a half mil. As everybody just "knew" she was going to be the next POTUS I saw this as nothing more than naked bribery/pay-to-pay. I also view the Press' thundering silence on that as.... well, I'm not going to say it. Let's just say it spoke to me.... in no uncertain terms. I also see her server in the same light as the Clinton Foundation donations. A few of the emails that survived her purge contained instructions to State Department personnel to "take care of so-and-so as he was important to us". That so-and-so happened to be a major CF donor also spoke to me. She never wanted those emails to see the light of day or be subject to FOIA requests. It is also very telling that those donations have dwindled to be almost non-existent. So what say you Mr.Paul. What are your thoughts on the CF? Not part of a swamp? Fair question. I will do my best to give an honest and complete answer. First, Hillary was never my favorite Democrat or my first choice to be the candidate in 2016. (Though I thought she was qualified, and, yes, I would vote for getting venereal disease before I'd vote for Trump.) I thought and still think that the "lock her up chants," were fascistic. Evidence of questionable practices? Sure. Evidence of criminality? Sorry. Comey tried. Comey failed. And we have not heard a peep since. Clinton foundation donations? They have been going down for a while*- "contributions to the foundation totaled $26.6 million in 2017, down from $62.9 million in 2016, $108.9 million in 2015, and $172.6 million in 2014" ( * philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/donations-to-clinton-foundation-fell-57.8-percent-in-2017)I would also like to tell you of my (very limited) first hand knowledge of what the impact of the CF: in my work I sometimes review resumes of college students. I sometimes see an entry that reads something like, "Presented at Clinton Foundation round table on research I conducted regarding how to provide safe drinking water to 3rd world communities." That sort of thing. I ask about the experience and the student lights up, explaining what they see as the transformational possibilities of their work, and how inspiring it was to present it in such a setting. So, some good work is being done. Can we agree to that? And, so far at least, they have not been caught to the tune of a two million dollar fine. I think we can agree to that. As for the press' 'thundering silence?" The press dutifully reported every baseless "lock her up" accusation that Trump peddled in 2016. You can look it up. So, maybe the CF and- maybe the Bidens- have some 'splaining to do. But if there were evidence of criminality, we ought to have- by now, one would think!- at least half as much of the hard core testimony that we have against Trump in the first month alone of his Ukraine criminality being exposed. And, geez, maybe at least a few hundred thousand in fines for abusing charity regulations? Much less 2 mill Trump has to pay. Even after seeing their tax returns? Not a speck of dirt determined to be illegal? (Trump's returns are still being audited, I guess.) So, if the Clintons are actually criminals, they are an amazing combo-platter of being dumb enough to lose to Donald Trump, but slippery enough to evade all legal consequences. So, respectfully, no. I can't "both sides" this.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 7, 2019 20:34:50 GMT -5
I can't either. If Biden sinned, punish him. That's not a defense for Trump.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 7, 2019 20:49:12 GMT -5
I can't either. If Biden sinned, punish him. That's not a defense for Trump. Meanwhile- every now and then even Twitter is 1000% correct: @charlesppierce- I think we all should take a step back and ponder the fact that the president* of the United States just admitted in a court finding that he’d looted a charity.
|
|