|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Feb 1, 2020 11:28:43 GMT -5
The divine right of the Democrats. The Obama administration was almost unthinkably corrupt in trying to spare us a Trump presidency. We all know this now. But anyone daring to make that corruption into a legal case to actually bring that previous administration to justice is corrupt. Because divine right of Democrats. "Divine right of Democrats." That's rich. If what you say is true, I would think Bill Barr would have zero compunction about bringing charges against and and all Obama officials who broke the law. Why has Barr not done so? Why has International Corruption Fighter Donald Trump not done so? It must be because, unlike these Democratic rascals, they have such respect for norms and precedent. Yeah. That has to be it.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Feb 1, 2020 9:35:10 GMT -5
I think that what the Democrat voters are missing is that none of the things leveled against Trump actually happened. Still, they believe in Unicorns so it's understandable. Several of the GOP Senators who voted for no witnesses acknowledged that, indeed, Trump did do the things he was charged with. Lamar Alexander- "There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a “mountain of overwhelming evidence.It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law."But...Trump’s misbehavior does “not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.”Rubio and Sasse echoed this rationale. He did it. We don't care. We don't want to hear from any witnesses who might make us squirm. So, we have a President not bound by laws or norms. Because conservative judges and tax cuts, I guess. More facts will drip out. Trump will keep on criming. The first line of the obituaries of the 51 Senators who looked the other way has been written.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 31, 2020 17:24:07 GMT -5
You folks want a dark, yet realistic prediction? I predict that going forward, the house impeaching any president from the opposition party will become the new normal. Toothpaste doesn’t get stuffed back into the tube, ever. Yup, that's exactly what the White House council has been saying-- to deaf ears. Ah, yes, the Ken Starr "we impeach too much" rationale. Trump really put an A-team together for this. Maybe it's hard to find lawyers who know that their client will end up stiffing them?
To suggest that any President should not face consequences for the abuse of power that some of Trump's own lawyers are admitting occurred is bizarre.
The GOP- Rubio, Sasse and Lamar at least- are now saying the quiet parts out loud. We know he is guilty, we don't think it matters.
That ought to be a winning issue in November.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 31, 2020 14:17:01 GMT -5
“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”- Marco Rubio. "Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors." Marco Rubio, translated.
Jesus. These people.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 30, 2020 16:26:21 GMT -5
Speaking of that, Trump's got another rally in Iowa tonight! Another wank-fest in front of a half-empty hall.
What a pathetic, needy p.o.s. he is.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 20:46:17 GMT -5
Feel free to do so. But if you told me you were taking Trump's word for anything, I'd be concerned. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I will leave being afraid to the Flaccid 53, the GOP Senators who live in fear of Dear Leader.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 20:10:14 GMT -5
When the facts of the case are against you. argue that you are winning on process. You'd know about that better than anybody. I'll take your word for it. Feel free to do so. But if you told me you were taking Trump's word for anything, I'd be concerned.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:52:44 GMT -5
Didn't the full house vote on the resolution before sending it to the Senate? Or are you saying they put the cart before the horse ? They're supposed to vote to authorize the committees to investigate in the first place. Which the lying sacks of shit apparently forgot. Which delegitimizes all requests to the WH for witnesses. When the facts of the case are against you. argue that you are winning on process.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:43:01 GMT -5
If International Corruption Fighter, Donald Trump, had genuine concerns about corruption in the Ukraine that might have involved the Bidens he had the Justice Department available to discuss or investigate his worries. His quid pro quo withholding of authorized aid was not the way to go about any sort of legit investigation. A shame we can’t hear from witnesses who might shed some light on why he decided to strong arm our ally rather than doing it as a legit non criminal might. How's that emoluments thing going? Funny- and telling- that you think emoluments are a joke. Just another pussy for Trump to grab. When you're a star, they let you get away with anything. But, to your question: pretty well for Dear Leader. He and his swamp-mates are cashing in on his office in a way that might make Boss Tweed weep with envy.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:38:41 GMT -5
Two GOP Senators lift the curtain on the snipe hunt of an idea that Trump has ever actually given so much as a fart about corruption unless the whiff of it was good for Trump: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) pitched President Donald Trump’s lawyers a curve ball Wednesday, asking a question that underscored the political motive behind Trump’s sudden interest in Ukrainian corruption. The senators asked if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to corruption in Ukraine BEFORE the former Vice President announced his candidacy for president in April 2019. Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin struggled to defuse the loaded question, spending some time explaining that his knowledge of what the President said comes only from the House’s limited inquiry and that some points were not “thoroughly pursued” in the record (he did not elaborate that the record was so curtailed because of the White House’s blocking of key administration figures from testifying). talkingpointsmemo.com/news/murkowski-collins-biden-ukraine
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:04:17 GMT -5
I think I understand irony as much as the next guy (as long as it doesn't go over my head). It bothers me somewhat that the ones wanting to cast DJT out of office and nullify the past and future votes of half the country are the same ones who have put on blinders and PRETENDED not to see the blatant corruption of Joe Biden. I also don't think that Hunter and the Trump kids are apples and apples but I'm not inclined to get down in the weeds arguing about it. So you see what you see and I see what I see. No biggie. If International Corruption Fighter, Donald Trump, had genuine concerns about corruption in the Ukraine that might have involved the Bidens he had the Justice Department available to discuss or investigate his worries. His quid pro quo withholding of authorized aid was not the way to go about any sort of legit investigation. A shame we can’t hear from witnesses who might shed some light on why he decided to strong arm our ally rather than doing it as a legit non criminal might.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 18:58:11 GMT -5
Since democrats like late term abortion, in your opinion is it too late to abort Schiff? I haven't been watching today but every time I've tripped over it, he's up there telling the same lies he's been telling for 3 years. Nobody “likes” late term abortion. Hard to think of a more painful choice that a woman might be forced to make. Hope you don’t smoke near that straw man.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 17:22:17 GMT -5
As this topic is so toxic I have avoided it for the most part. I won't say a whole lot because there are several here that I have a genuine affection for and they are on the other side of the divide. There are a lot of details to the tale: dates, statements, opinions, unpronounceable names, motivations, perceptions of motivations, yadda, yadda, yadda. I have filtered it down to this simplistic statement. If you think DJT committed an impeachable offence then you must believe that Joe Biden did nothing wrong by putting his crack head son on that board. If you believe that JB did nothing wrong then we really don't have anything to discuss and I will let it go as a difference of opinion. Any defense of Trump that presumes nepotism is, in and of itself, a serious offense, suggests the person putting forth that defense has never heard of Don. Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Jared - or irony.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 17:13:54 GMT -5
Hearsay ? ? ? ? Really ? ? ? ? His own people are saying one after another that he said and intended that. I'll grant you it's not conduct that is going to get him removed from office. And probably others (many others?) have done similar things throughout American History. But it ain't Hearsay. The only person in his own administration that denies it is Trump. And we know what a truth teller he is. Name one of the people who has said that (and actually would be in a position to know). John Bolton.
Better to keep him under a rock, though.
According to Dear Leaders's morning tweet, Bolton's testimony would be, simultaneously, a total lie and a threat to our national security.
That's a pretty neat trick, if you think about it for a second.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 17:06:50 GMT -5
Trump attorney 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."
New Constitutional scholar Alan (not really his area, he studied up and read a bunch of books recently, he explained to the Senate) tells us that any sitting POTUS can cheat in an election in any way they like as long as they believe their re-election is in the public interest.
How can you beat that kind of hand?
We might as well pack up and go home.
Free and fair elections were nice while they lasted.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 21, 2020 13:12:03 GMT -5
Bill Hammond does a great version of this song. Thanks, Todd, you are very kind. Funny thing about that song, vis a vis Lonnie. It was not unusual for him to call me the day before or the day of one of his local gigs, inviting me to show up, and "come armed," as he would say, meaning I should bring a guitar, so I could join him for two or three songs. Between those occasions and my years of hosting an open mike at the Coffee Grounds we probably played "Louise" a couple dozen times, and he always found a wonderful counterpart to my guitar line. I can't remember where we were or when, but I do recall it was at a table with a few friends, and somehow that tune came into the discussion, and Lonnie said, "Yeah, I've always hated that song." That so totally sounds like something Lonnie would say. Whenever I tipped him to something that he liked I'd feel like I'd won a prize or something. He could be a piercing critic.
True story: I was totally excited when the first Dire Straits album came out back in '78. I brought it over to Lonnie's place on Penn Avenue late one night and played it for him.
I thought nobody had ever played anything like Mark Knopfler!
Lonnie was not especially impressed.
"Sounds like he's learned every lick Chet Atkins ever played." Then he proceeded to prove his point by pulling out and playing several Atkins cuts. Of course he was right.
But, obviously he kept an open mind.
Over the years he heard what I'd heard, and admitted that there was more there than had first met his ears. But he also heard what I didn't hear. Typical.
Damn. I miss him.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 13, 2020 12:34:40 GMT -5
Yes, I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Nostalgia city, baby. I especially liked the moment in which Jakob Dylan was interviewing David Crosby on his veranda. Crosby is opining about some recording session from 55 years ago and says, "Then Dylan showed up..." "You'll have to be more specific." Great response from Jakob.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 11, 2020 11:15:05 GMT -5
Four embassies supposedly were under threat of “imminent attack.”
But none of them were warned? On the very outside chance that Trump is not lying, the people of those embassies were damn lucky. But that’s a very outside chance. Had Bin Laden been killed on 9/10, 9/11 would have still happened.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 8, 2020 20:21:15 GMT -5
As long as you're memory is still working, you should recall that the lies were based on "Intelligence" from the Clinton CIA. There never was “Clinton CIA.” The CIA has never belonged to one administration or another. I don’t really have to explain the DEEP STATE to you, do I?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 8, 2020 13:36:22 GMT -5
I never thought I'd say this, but I have new respect for the last Republican administration that lied us into a war.
Say what you like, they made a real effort to puff up the threat, scare Americans into thinking there was a rationale and trot out Very Serious People to make their case.
Trump knows that Fox News Nation will buy his b.s. and that the rest of America is wise to his con, so it's like he's not even trying to make a case.
That speech was a sniffling, mispronouncing, slurring joke.
|
|