|
Post by jdd2 on Dec 11, 2019 23:23:41 GMT -5
PS - How many of Trump’s former top bobos and/or coffee boys are watching these events from prison? I have lost track. Yeah, if trump had been serious about locking her up, he would have hired her.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Dec 11, 2019 23:48:12 GMT -5
Not bad ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 12, 2019 6:00:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Dec 12, 2019 7:04:38 GMT -5
That and I hope that after yesterday's Senate hearing everyone now knows that the Steele dossier really was a bunch of crap and this really has been a witch hunt that never should have started.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 12, 2019 7:47:48 GMT -5
One of the most telling facts about the whole Trump impeachment thing that has taken 4 years and is currently culminating in these hearings is that those testifying, the Democrats, many Republican politicians, the press, those involved from the previous administration, as well as the life-time employees who make up Washington government were all saying that Trump was an existential threat to our government before they ever had a scandal to attempt to prove that assertion with. They saw him as that threat while he was still campaigning in 2015, and said so.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 12, 2019 9:32:07 GMT -5
Ben Sasse is a "never-trumper"
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 12, 2019 10:13:17 GMT -5
![](https://i.redd.it/tc3h92huiu121.gif) ( ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I just had to post this somewhere)
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Dec 12, 2019 10:25:04 GMT -5
One of the most telling facts about the whole Trump impeachment thing that has taken 4 years and is currently culminating in these hearings is that those testifying, the Democrats, many Republican politicians, the press, those involved from the previous administration, as well as the life-time employees who make up Washington government were all saying that Trump was an existential threat to our government before they ever had a scandal to attempt to prove that assertion with. They saw him as that threat while he was still campaigning in 2015, and said so. That's because it was true then and remains true now.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Dec 12, 2019 10:28:09 GMT -5
Ben Sasse is a "never-trumper" No. He is not.
Young Ben claimed to be for a while, sure.
This is a never Trumper: Republicans are making a concerted effort to mislead. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is pointedly NOT about statutory crimes. In fact, the Constitution doesn’t provide for impeachment for ordinary crimes; they must be “high.” Impeachable wrongdoing must relate to abuse of office.- Justin Amash
Only Justin Amash among all elected Republicans has stood up long enough to say Never Trump and mean it.
He got kicked out the the party.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 12, 2019 11:07:47 GMT -5
One of the most telling facts about the whole Trump impeachment thing that has taken 4 years and is currently culminating in these hearings is that those testifying, the Democrats, many Republican politicians, the press, those involved from the previous administration, as well as the life-time employees who make up Washington government were all saying that Trump was an existential threat to our government before they ever had a scandal to attempt to prove that assertion with. They saw him as that threat while he was still campaigning in 2015, and said so. That's because it was true then and remains true now.
Exactly. Those holding the hearings are not objective enough to listen to evidence and THEN decide. They had their minds made up in 2015 and simply created a narrative by which they could rid America of this loathsome beast. And Horowitz's testimony is proving that the truly impeachable administration is the previous one who committed more crimes against an opposing party's candidate than Nixon could ever have dreamed up in his wildest partisan dreams. That's the irony of this whole thing. The very corruption for which all of Washington and its press is trying to ensnare and remove Trump was actually done by the previous administration. Everything. The previous administration spied on an opposing party's presidential candidate. The previous administration offered quid pro quo to foreign countries for political favors and personal gain. The previous administration colluded with two foreign governments to influence the American elections. And what's even more bizarre about all this is that we actually know that the previous administration did all this....but the very people who want Trump executed for it doesn't mind that Obama did it because Obama is a good person and Trump is a bad person. In other words, the entire thing swings, not on the evidence or the acts, but on who did them
|
|
|
Post by lar on Dec 12, 2019 14:32:29 GMT -5
Millring: "Exactly. Those holding the hearings are not objective enough to listen to evidence and THEN decide. They had their minds made up in 2015 and simply created a narrative by which they could rid America of this loathsome beast. And Horowitz's testimony is proving that the truly impeachable administration is the previous one who committed more crimes against an opposing party's candidate than Nixon could ever have dreamed up in his wildest partisan dreams.
That's the irony of this whole thing. The very corruption for which all of Washington and its press is trying to ensnare and remove Trump was actually done by the previous administration. Everything. The previous administration spied on an opposing party's presidential candidate. The previous administration offered quid pro quo to foreign countries for political favors and personal gain. The previous administration colluded with two foreign governments to influence the American elections. And what's even more bizarre about all this is that we actually know that the previous administration did all this....but the very people who want Trump executed for it doesn't mind that Obama did it because Obama is a good person and Trump is a bad person. In other words, the entire thing swings, not on the evidence or the acts, but on who did them."
John, I understand the part about spying on an opposing party's presidential candidate. But I either missed the other stuff or have forgotten it. Can you provide more info on the Obama administration's quid pro quo with foreign countries for political favors and personal gain, and collusion with 2 foreign governments to influence the election?
I'm not questioning your veracity. At the moment, though, I'm unable to to recall what you're talking about.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 12, 2019 14:38:27 GMT -5
Can you provide more info on the Obama administration's quid pro quo with foreign countries for political favors and personal gain, and collusion with 2 foreign governments to influence the election? I'm not questioning your veracity. At the moment, though, I'm unable to to recall what you're talking about. Thanks. The outrage over the alleged witholding of aid to Ukraine is being felt by folks who didn't care that Obama withheld it while Ukraine was actually invaded and Crimea fell. But Biden was part of the Obama administration. Turns out he was actually vice president at the time he was using aid as a threat to manipulate Ukraine to the Obama administration's will....and giving contracts of millions to his son's company. And it was the Clinton campaign that was working with Steele and Russia to come up with opposition propaganda to use against Trump. Then the Obama administration actually dared to use that fake document -- acquired by the DNC and Clinton -- to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign ... wire tap them, send spies in with recording devices ... the whole nine yards.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Dec 12, 2019 15:31:23 GMT -5
Can you provide more info on the Obama administration's quid pro quo with foreign countries for political favors and personal gain, and collusion with 2 foreign governments to influence the election? I'm not questioning your veracity. At the moment, though, I'm unable to to recall what you're talking about. Thanks. The outrage over the alleged witholding of aid to Ukraine is being felt by folks who didn't care that Obama withheld it while Ukraine was actually invaded and Crimea fell. But Biden was part of the Obama administration. Turns out he was actually vice president at the time he was using aid as a threat to manipulate Ukraine to the Obama administration's will....and giving contracts of millions to his son's company. And it was the Clinton campaign that was working with Steele and Russia to come up with opposition propaganda to use against Trump. Then the Obama administration actually dared to use that fake document -- acquired by the DNC and Clinton -- to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign ... wire tap them, send spies in with recording devices ... the whole nine yards. Yeah, I saw Lindsey Graham's walk through of the events and timelines of who did what to who and the IG agreed it was all true, he just couldn't prove bias so he was laying out the facts and would let people decide if there was bias. Oh, there was bias. They couldn't have made "Mistakes" like those. The original FISA request was shot down by the DOJ lawyers because there wasn't anything there so they brought in the Steele dossier, swore it was legitimate and got the go ahead. They had known for months that it was all made up out of bar room jokes and wet dreams. They never told the FISA court that the only time Carter Page talked to a Russian he was working for the CIA. All the things I had heard, a few years ago, turned out to be true. The IG also said that no one, Comey on down, was vindicated by his report.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Dec 12, 2019 15:32:04 GMT -5
Can you provide more info on the Obama administration's quid pro quo with foreign countries for political favors and personal gain, and collusion with 2 foreign governments to influence the election? I'm not questioning your veracity. At the moment, though, I'm unable to to recall what you're talking about. Thanks. The outrage over the alleged witholding of aid to Ukraine is being felt by folks who didn't care that Obama withheld it while Ukraine was actually invaded and Crimea fell. But Biden was part of the Obama administration. Turns out he was actually vice president at the time he was using aid as a threat to manipulate Ukraine to the Obama administration's will....and giving contracts of millions to his son's company. And it was the Clinton campaign that was working with Steele and Russia to come up with opposition propaganda to use against Trump. Then the Obama administration actually dared to use that fake document -- acquired by the DNC and Clinton -- to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign ... wire tap them, send spies in with recording devices ... the whole nine yards. Thanks, John. I understand now. I recall being very surprised at the lack of a strong and forceful response from the US and the other NATO members when Russian invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member but it's location should be of serious interest to NATO. Because of that I've never understood Obama's resistance to supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons. The entire incident was much too reminiscent of my childhood memories of watching TV as Russian tanks rolled into Budapest. My fear is that Putin's successful invasion of Ukraine might serve to motivate him to invent pretexts to invade other countries. And the inability of NATO to deal with the invasion of Ukraine makes that organization look week and ineffective. That makes Trump's criticism of NATO a lot more understandable. It has also occurred to me that despite Trump's much vaunted wooing of Putin, Trump is enough of a maverick and a loose cannon that Putin might think twice about any additional expansionist goals. I'm reluctant to rush to judgement with regard to the Bidens. Hunter's election to the Burisma board while his father was vice president and had an interest in Ukraine looks bad. It certainly merits investigating regardless of whether Joe Biden is running for president or not. I guess I'm lacking knowledge about the Steele dossier. My understanding is that it was actually started by Republicans who were concerned about whether or not Trump might actually win the Republican nomination. That effort was abandoned and the Democrats took over funding. What I recall reading is that Steele used contacts in Russia to develop a lot of innuendo and rumors but that none of the "dirt" could be verified so the inquiry died out. It was then made available to the FBI who used it in their application for a FISA warrant. The IG says they shouldn't have done that and that other information in the FISA warrants was falsified but it doesn't appear there is any appetite within the FBI to punish the people responsible. This is the first time, however, that I've heard a suggestion that the Russian government may have had a direct hand in the compilation of the Steele dossier.
|
|
|
Post by david on Dec 12, 2019 15:48:47 GMT -5
I wonder what will happen with a senate trial? Right now those who only follow the national press don't even know the players beyond their narrative. John, we have previously discussed our differing perceptions based upon the news sources and acquaintances. You seem to be surrounded by or pay attention to liberal media and friends. I seem to be surrounded by conservative media, family and friends. I don't know if your observation that "those who only follow the national press don't even know the players beyond their narrative' is intended to mean that liberal media controls the narrative or that the conservative and liberal media are so dogmatic that the facts are not disclosed. As to liberal vs conservative, the news media does not seem to be controlled by either. According to Forbes, (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/12/11/fox-news-ends-2019-with-highest-rated-prime-time-ratings-ever/#13f3eb303347) the the order of TV News ratings is: Fox 2.5 million viewers MSNBC 1.753 million CNN 972,000 Largest US newspapers in order of circulation: The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com. ... USA Today. usatoday.com. ... Los Angeles Times. latimes.com. ... The New York Times. nytimes.com. ... Houston Chronicle. chron.com. ... Chicago Tribune. chicagotribune.com. ... Tampa Bay Times. tampabay.com. ... Washington Post
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 12, 2019 15:59:43 GMT -5
I wonder what will happen with a senate trial? Right now those who only follow the national press don't even know the players beyond their narrative. John, we have previously discussed our differing perceptions based upon the news sources and acquaintances. You seem to be surrounded by or pay attention to liberal media and friends. I seem to be surrounded by conservative media, family and friends. I don't know if your observation that "those who only follow the national press don't even know the players beyond their narrative' is intended to mean that liberal media controls the narrative or that the conservative and liberal media are so dogmatic that the facts are not disclosed. As to liberal vs conservative, the news media does not seem to be controlled by either. According to Forbes, (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/12/11/fox-news-ends-2019-with-highest-rated-prime-time-ratings-ever/#13f3eb303347) the the order of TV News ratings is: Fox 2.5 million viewers MSNBC 1.753 million CNN 972,000 Largest US newspapers in order of circulation: The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com. ... USA Today. usatoday.com. ... Los Angeles Times. latimes.com. ... The New York Times. nytimes.com. ... Houston Chronicle. chron.com. ... Chicago Tribune. chicagotribune.com. ... Tampa Bay Times. tampabay.com. ... Washington Post You forget that around here anyone who watches Fox News is a mouth breathing conspiracy theorist retard. That skews all the statistics.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 12, 2019 16:35:14 GMT -5
I wonder what will happen with a senate trial? Right now those who only follow the national press don't even know the players beyond their narrative. John, we have previously discussed our differing perceptions based upon the news sources and acquaintances. You seem to be surrounded by or pay attention to liberal media and friends. I seem to be surrounded by conservative media, family and friends. I don't know if your observation that "those who only follow the national press don't even know the players beyond their narrative' is intended to mean that liberal media controls the narrative or that the conservative and liberal media are so dogmatic that the facts are not disclosed. As to liberal vs conservative, the news media does not seem to be controlled by either. According to Forbes, (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/12/11/fox-news-ends-2019-with-highest-rated-prime-time-ratings-ever/#13f3eb303347) the the order of TV News ratings is: Fox 2.5 million viewers MSNBC 1.753 million CNN 972,000 Largest US newspapers in order of circulation: The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com. ... USA Today. usatoday.com. ... Los Angeles Times. latimes.com. ... The New York Times. nytimes.com. ... Houston Chronicle. chron.com. ... Chicago Tribune. chicagotribune.com. ... Tampa Bay Times. tampabay.com. ... Washington Post We're talking about two different things. But a Washington press corp that votes 90% Democrat is where everyone in America is getting their news about the impeachment hearings. And one cannot simultaneously claim that it is balanced by the alternative press while at the same time ignoring that alternative press.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Dec 12, 2019 17:34:49 GMT -5
One nice thing about this thread is that it's kept all the recent gun violence off the board here.
::rolleyes::
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Dec 12, 2019 18:59:56 GMT -5
One nice thing about this thread is that it's kept all the recent gun violence off the board here. Its also kept the UK Parliamentary elections out of sight. If early reports prove out, what was advertised as a razor close, no way to tell, anything could happen election is shaping up to be a decisive election for Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party, and Brexit. Which gets me to John's observation: We're talking about two different things. But a Washington press corp that votes 90% Democrat is where everyone in America is getting their news about the impeachment hearings. And one cannot simultaneously claim that it is balanced by the alternative press while at the same time ignoring that alternative press. While I agree with him about the persistent and obvious slant in the coverage, I disagree with the inference that that slant accrues to the Democrats' advantage. I think its the exact opposite. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that, absent that 90% slant, the Democrats would not have misread the country in such a manner that ended up with Trump's election. I think they are vulnerable to a thought process along the lines of "The whole country agrees with me. I heard it on NPR!" It has already been said by many that there is some common thread to the popular discontent that lead to both Trump and Brexit. Unpacking and dissecting that isn't important at the moment, other than to say if your view of the world comes from that 90% blue Washington press corps, you were probably shocked by both. Tying that together, all the headlines yesterday regarding the UK election spoke of how close it expected to be. In 2016, the headlines were that Trump had virtually no chance. Then the results came in. Trump won. And (again, assuming early reporting holds), Johnson/Brexit is winning in a landslide not seen since Thatcher. Which leads me to impeachment. That effort is dead. It was dead from the start, but as the process has unfolded, it has gotten weaker, not stronger. This is where the left-leaning press has done the Democrats no favors. I genuinely believe that if you are from New York or California, and live in Washington, you may very well sincerely believe that the country is clamoring for impeachment. Why wouldn't you? What institutional voice, that you trust, exists that could tell you otherwise? Impeachment has become the Democrats' "Frankenstein's Monster": They no longer control it. It controls them. What I wonder is whether it even makes it out of the House at this point. What would it take, something like 18 or 20 defections to kill it on the floor? Yesterday there were already a few red-state Democrats making noises about "censure not impeachment". I wonder how many of them see the results in the UK and wonder if they are walking off a cliff? I'm not delusional. I think the chances of Pelosi failing to hold her caucus is well under 10%. But I also wonder if somewhere in that caucus a consensus isn't emerging along the lines of "This thing is a loser, and the sooner we kill it, the sooner it will be forgotten". If the House follows through, all of the sudden the center of gravity is in Mitch McConnell's hands. Do they really think they are going to out-maneuver Cocaine Mitch? Never have before. Forget that he would schedule things in the most inconvenient manner possible for the Democratic Senators running for President, that's a given. What McConnell is going to do is put Joe Biden and the entire Obama Administration DOJ on trial, and based on what we learned from the IG report yesterday, there is an awful lot there worth talking about. This all comes down to the perils of having a non-adversarial press. The core mistake the Democrats made is steadfastly refusing to understand that Trump got elected for a reason. It wasn't the Russians. It wasn't collusion. It wasn't Ukraine. I don't think they'd make that mistake if the press didn't encourage it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 12, 2019 19:30:55 GMT -5
One nice thing about this thread is that it's kept all the recent gun violence off the board here. ::rolleyes:: Well, I was going to mention the Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdiction craze (just like sanctuary cites but not enforcing gun laws instead of immigration laws) unfolding here but I was trying to not pile on to delicate liberal sensibilities. But since you mentioned it- it's kind of nuts. Some of these little towns literally get 10,000 people in support and don't have buildings big enough to accomodate them. My county approved it a couple nights ago and pretty much the whole western 2/3s of the state is moving to enact it also. It's hilarious and the talk of everywhere you go. Is that what you were looking for?
|
|