Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,299
|
Post by Dub on Oct 1, 2019 16:08:14 GMT -5
An example of a truly rotten act involving an American election and a foreign power (if true): Even if peace talks then and later were a sham, the Nixon's intent to sabotage peace talks to gain advantage in an upcoming election is an impeachable action (if he had been in office at the time). Nixon deserved what he got. (and I wish we had someone with Nixon's vision, intelligence and pragmatism in office right now, a Nixon without Nixon's insecurity, meanness, and paranoia. A cross between Nixon and Obama. Obama's personality, Nixon's competence. No need to mention the Reagan campaign’s “October surprise” since it was denied by Reagan so… nothing to see there. www.nytimes.com/1991/04/15/world/new-reports-say-1980-reagan-campaign-tried-to-delay-hostage-release.html
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2019 16:37:41 GMT -5
Nixon not relevant, what you parroted never happened. Trump didn't claim executive privilege, There was nothing sinister in the conversation or how the conversation was stored.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 1, 2019 17:03:50 GMT -5
Trump raised $125 million in the 3rd quarter including $13 million in the 24 hours after Pelosi's announcement. I think that first number is a record.
Nice job guys. Keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 17:13:23 GMT -5
I can understand some skepticism when polifact is the given link. better?OrMaybe there is more smoke than fire. Regardless, my suspicion is that if we knew all there is to know about under-the-radar self-serving conversations presidents have had with foreign leaders that could have had an effect on our national security, Trump's petty, self-serving bumbling mumble with the Ukrainian guy would be, by comparison, small potatoes. But, that isn't the point. Congress has the right to investigate this deal by law and Trump better cooperate with the law. And lay off on his idiot tweets. Without his gasoline there is no fire.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 1, 2019 18:03:53 GMT -5
I can understand some skepticism when polifact is the given link. better?OrMaybe there is more smoke than fire. Regardless, my suspicion is that if we knew all there is to know about under-the-radar self-serving conversations presidents have had with foreign leaders that could have had an effect on our national security, Trump's petty, self-serving bumbling mumble with the Ukrainian guy would be, by comparison, small potatoes. But, that isn't the point. Congress has the right to investigate this deal by law and Trump better cooperate with the law. And lay off on his idiot tweets. Without his gasoline there is no fire. With his gasoline there's no oxygen left for the other idiots. Of course he'll keep pouring it on.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2019 18:07:18 GMT -5
I can understand some skepticism when polifact is the given link. better?OrMaybe there is more smoke than fire. Regardless, my suspicion is that if we knew all there is to know about under-the-radar self-serving conversations presidents have had with foreign leaders that could have had an effect on our national security, Trump's petty, self-serving bumbling mumble with the Ukrainian guy would be, by comparison, small potatoes. But, that isn't the point. Congress has the right to investigate this deal by law and Trump better cooperate with the law. And lay off on his idiot tweets. Without his gasoline there is no fire. Well, Trump was investigating the 2016 election and what Ukraine had to do with it. Since he's in charge of the justice department, seems within reason. He's interested in the UK, Australian and Italian involvement in it too. All within his job description.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Oct 1, 2019 18:16:00 GMT -5
[truncated version] I still wonder how what appears from the transcript to be a fairly ordinary business conversation is worthy of an impeachment inquiry. [/font] [/font][/quote][/quote] Using the resources of the US government to search for dirt on a political rival doesn't resemble an ordinary business conversation. You and I both know that Trump envies Putin and Kim's abilities to just have opponents killed.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2019 18:49:45 GMT -5
[/font] [/font][/quote][/quote] Using the resources of the US government to search for dirt on a political rival doesn't resemble an ordinary business conversation. You and I both know that Trump envies Putin and Kim's abilities to just have opponents killed.[/quote] You're stuck on CNN too huh? Pay closer attention to Lar on how business works. Trump doesn't have to like or envy either one of those guys, he just has to have them not hate him so he can talk them into what he needs for us. I think Lar called it buttering up the opposition. It's part of the art of the deal although I don't know if it's in the book because I never read the book. I have been in a lot of office politics though. Lar knows of what he speaks. Trump's just doing business.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2019 19:03:53 GMT -5
... Lar knows of what he speaks. Trump's just doing business. Well, Lar also said that Trump is three chords short of a polka. [paraphrasing]
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 1, 2019 19:11:57 GMT -5
1. Biden and his scandalous behavior wasn't the principle issue of the phone call. But that he is running for president shouldn't stop from investigating him. Incidentally, he's not running against Trump. He hasn't won the primary. In fact, he likely won't. 2. Government resources are required to investigate the Obama administration's meddling in the 2016 election.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 2, 2019 8:34:35 GMT -5
[/font] [/font][/quote][/quote] Using the resources of the US government to search for dirt on a political rival doesn't resemble an ordinary business conversation. You and I both know that Trump envies Putin and Kim's abilities to just have opponents killed.[/quote] What I've been told about Trump's envy of the powers of some foreign leaders and what I know are different things. I've searched the transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky and I am unable to find where Trump asked Zelensky to get dirt on Joe Biden. Trump said, "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me." That's not the same as asking Zelensky to dig up dirt. From my point of view the important words here are ". . . if you can look into it . . ." My reading of this is that Trump had heard rumors about Biden's actions in Ukraine and he was asking Zelensky to look into it. I see no indication that Trump is expecting a pre-determined outcome. For that reason I am of the opinion that casting this as searching for dirt on a political rival or that Trump attempted to use the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 elections is a bit of a stretch. In the end, it may turn out that both of those accusations are true. Until the what happened is what happened not what we might wish had happened.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 2, 2019 8:37:52 GMT -5
Well, Lar also said that Trump is three chords short of a polka. I stand by that!
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Oct 2, 2019 8:43:58 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, aren’t you guys done yet?
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Oct 2, 2019 10:13:42 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, aren’t you guys done yet? I am.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 2, 2019 10:28:56 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, aren’t you guys done yet? I am. 58. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 2, 2019 13:32:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 2, 2019 15:47:18 GMT -5
Quite a story. I looked for the dirty trick but couldn't find it. As far as I am able to tell the whistle-blower had information that in his estimation constituted a misuse of office on the part of the president. It sounds as if he was uncertain how to proceed so he talked to a C.I.A. lawyer and later to a House aide who advised him to talk to the inspector general about how to properly lodge his complaint. In a similar situation I might have done the same thing if I was unsure of how to proceed. If the House aide worked for Schiff it's hard to imagine that he/she wouldn't have mentioned it to his boss. So far I don't see anything wrong with what happened. If it turns out the whistle-blower didn't go through the proper channels that's another matter. But I don't know that right now. Now that we're a couple of weeks into this we know that attempts were made to insure that the whistle-blower's report was never delivered to Congress. What we don't know is exactly why. The idea that the report didn't fall within the purview of intelligence seems like a flimsy excuse to me and a corruption of the intent of the whistle-blower law. But I'm an infant in these woods and I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 2, 2019 15:53:04 GMT -5
Quite a story. I looked for the dirty trick but couldn't find it. As far as I am able to tell the whistle-blower had information that in his estimation constituted a misuse of office on the part of the president. It sounds as if he was uncertain how to proceed so he talked to a C.I.A. lawyer and later to a House aide who advised him to talk to the inspector general about how to properly lodge his complaint. In a similar situation I might have done the same thing if I was unsure of how to proceed. If the House aide worked for Schiff it's hard to imagine that he/she wouldn't have mentioned it to his boss. So far I don't see anything wrong with what happened. If it turns out the whistle-blower didn't go through the proper channels that's another matter. But I don't know that right now. Now that we're a couple of weeks into this we know that attempts were made to insure that the whistle-blower's report was never delivered to Congress. What we don't know is exactly why. The idea that the report didn't fall within the purview of intelligence seems like a flimsy excuse to me and a corruption of the intent of the whistle-blower law. But I'm an infant in these woods and I could be wrong. I think, believe if it helps you, that the DOJ looked at the whistle blowers complaint, it was all hearsay legally and not backed by first hand fact so they didn't consider it actionable. Now that the transcript is out, they were right.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 2, 2019 16:16:15 GMT -5
Quite a story. I looked for the dirty trick but couldn't find it. As far as I am able to tell the whistle-blower had information that in his estimation constituted a misuse of office on the part of the president. It sounds as if he was uncertain how to proceed so he talked to a C.I.A. lawyer and later to a House aide who advised him to talk to the inspector general about how to properly lodge his complaint. In a similar situation I might have done the same thing if I was unsure of how to proceed. If the House aide worked for Schiff it's hard to imagine that he/she wouldn't have mentioned it to his boss. So far I don't see anything wrong with what happened. If it turns out the whistle-blower didn't go through the proper channels that's another matter. But I don't know that right now. Now that we're a couple of weeks into this we know that attempts were made to insure that the whistle-blower's report was never delivered to Congress. What we don't know is exactly why. The idea that the report didn't fall within the purview of intelligence seems like a flimsy excuse to me and a corruption of the intent of the whistle-blower law. But I'm an infant in these woods and I could be wrong. Additionally, if the whistle blower is CIA, Schiff isn't in his or her chain of command. CIA is Justice, Justice is Executive, Schiff is Legislative. It smells bad.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 2, 2019 16:21:10 GMT -5
Trump unhinged.
@oliver willis (twitter) i just want to note that they attacked obama with racism, smeared his wife and kids, demanded his birth certificate, questioned his faith, and not once did obama stoop to the level of screaming expletives and accusing the opposition of treason. not once. not a single day in 8 yrs similarly they have accused hillary of literal serial murder, questioned her faith, said she committed multiple crimes -- and never, ever this kind of public meltdown. ever.
|
|