The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
What political rival was he wanting the Ukraine to investigate, Mike?
UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED FACT: Grass is green.
TRUMP: *tweets* Grass iz purpil.
EVERYONE WHO HAS EYES: Is he saying that grass is purple? Um, no it’s not. It’s green.
FOX NEWS: Grass is purple.
CNN: Breaking news: New debate rages about whether grass is green or purple.
EVERYONE: I’m sorry, what? Grass is green. There’s no debate.
CNN: Well we have to be fair and legitimize both sides.
EVERYONE: Grass is green. There is no other side.
TRUMP: *addresses news media on White House lawn*
REPORTER: What about the green grass that you’re literally standing on?
TRUMP: You’re very rude. The fake news media is very unfair to me!
TRUMP BASE: *chanting* Grass is purple! Grass is purple!
KELLYANNE: The democrats are trying to shove green grass down your throats because they’re all SOCIALISTS.
RUSSIAN TROLL ONLINE: Hillary Clinton has child slaves underneath a pizza parlor in Queens stealing everyone’s purple grass and painting it green.
TRUMP: *retweets Russian troll*
NEWS MEDIA: *legitimizes retweet by airing footage of it all day*
TUCKER: The Democrats are coming for your grass! 2nd amendment!!!
JIM JORDAN: *screaming* THEY HAVE NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT GRASS IS GREEN! NONE!
SCIENTISTS: Um, actually, we have irrefutable scientific proo...
JIM JORDAN: *screaming louder than all the scientists* NONE!!
HANNITY: Anybody that tells you grass is green is part of the deep state.
YOU: But grass IS green.
JACKLEE: Are you part of the deep state?
READMIKENOW: *posts Breitbart meme on Facebook of cartoon frog smoking purple grass*
TRUMP: *tweets* Deep state! Socialists! 2nd amendment! I saw green grass the other day but it was artificial turf! That’s proof that all green grass is FAKE!
NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINE: Grass still green.
NOBODY: *reads newspapers*
RNC: *already mass producing purple hats with clever 2020 re-election slogan all made in China*
CHINA: *laughing in Chinese* Americans are assholes.
BARR: The report states that Trump is totally exonerated.
WILDERNESS: Comes on here to use Barr's statement as a proof to his beliefs.
EVERYONE: There is no report.
LANDSCAPER IN INDIANA: It’s against my religious beliefs to plant green grass.
TRUMP: *already onto the next scandal*
EVERYONE: Oh for fu**s sake. Sure. Grass is purple. This is too fucking exhausting. Who cares anymore.
UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED FACT: Grass is now both green and purple at the exact same time.
PLANET EARTH: *heats up to the point where grass no longer exists*- Onusonusposted 5 years ago
0The real reason Dems want to impeach Trump;
“We all need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 election. And so this is not just about something that has occurred, this about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.” AOC I missed this from Dr. Hill's testimony...but at the 9-minute mark, dang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiAYodC9jEsWhat is your "dang" Valeant, that Dr. Hill had heard Lev Parnas' name or that she had heard the reports of his indictment? Did I miss what you were referring to?
GA
So much for that damning IG report:
Specifically, Horowitz found discrepancies and bureaucratic mistakes in how the FBI applied for a warrant seeking the wiretap. The IG also found evidence that an FBI employee may have altered an email connected to the Page wiretap, but concluded that the employee's conduct had no effect on the overall validity of the application or on the bureau's overarching investigation.
However, Horowitz has reportedly requested that federal prosecutors look into the FBI lawyer's alteration of the email.
Broadly, the IG report finds that the surveillance of Page was legally justified and not driven by political bias, as Trump claims.
Trump recently predicted the anticipated IG report would reveal "perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country."
And conservatives have been on here talking this up, but at the end of the day, it shows that Page should have been under FISA surveillance.Trump apologists on here have been insisting for months that Horowitz would find proof of the Deep State.
I guess it's much ado about nothing. No surprise.No wonder Hannity took the day off!
He and Rush have been promising his faithful fans Comey, Strok, Paige and others would be jailed after the report came out. Only idiots believed him though.When the 9th rolls around and the Horowitz report is released will Hannity and Limbaugh do the honorable thing and commit harakari.
It turns out the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was warned several times the withholding of the Congressionally approved funds to Ukraine was probably illegal.
Trump isn't even a smart crook. Just a crook.The Justice Department's inspector general did not find any evidence that the FBI had tried to put undercover agents or informants inside Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general's report told The New York Times. - LOL
What do you say now Trump excusers?They'll dream up some other outlandish deep state plot to harp on for the next six months. The base eats that stuff up.
For real, Sandy! When Hannity returns he'll tell them what to think. It's apparent they cannot think for themselves.
I read this and am also eagerly awaiting the conspiracy theory that is sure to come. The op ed from former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer is not good for Trump either: "Trump “has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices,”
Do they really think this is turning out good for our nation? I'm not sure the US could take an extra four years of all this "winning."
At any rate, HAPPY THANKSGIVING to all the liberals and conservatives...despite Trump stating liberals have some sort of war on Thanksgiving now, lol.It'll be Obama's fault of the turkey gets overcooked.
No doubt they will call Horowitz, their former savior, a never-Trumper. Of course, one should be extremely proud to be called that.
Maybe someone can make up a meme of the following:
"We have a new word for the dictionary - TRUMP. It can take many forms, noun, verb, adj, etc, as in:
"That is an outright Trump (lie)"
"There you go Trumping (lying) again"
"You are a Trumper (liar)"
"Stop Trumping (f..king) with me"
"You are a total Trump (s..t) or Trumphead!!!"
Over 15,000 provable lies and falsehoods (22 a day now) qualify for the lying quotes while his actions qualify him for the others. A very versatile word - Trump.Outstanding memeable material. I wouldn't doubt such use of Trump will be understood by people around the world in a few short years. After even more people realized they've been Trumped.
And the forever-Trumpers will not be remembered fondly either. To my way of thinking they are enablers of a POTUS who has no regard for the law or the Constitution. Such people will be remembered a long time.
I hope the nation remembers them and what they have wrought on our wonderful country and never pay attention to them again.
There are some I pay no attention to now, Scott. I merely humor them...
I don't know why it took so long for me to realize this but since Trump supplicants believe everything that TraitorTrump says, they would have believed him, and put in practice, when he said ""Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening," Trump said. "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news."
And they took him at his word which is why they are so brainwashed.I was thinking about that as well, Scott. There's so much proof of Trump's wrongdoing I imagine they're having to really stick their heads further into the sand to avoid seeing the truth.
Trump is just like a snake hypnotizing his prey. He has put them under spell that they cannot come out of.
Then some will suffer from PTS, Post Trump Syndrome.
I suspect you may be right. Mental health professionals describe a noticeable uptick in patients suffering from trauma induced by Trump's election and subsequent actions.
Will Trump supplicants rush for counseling in order to deal with the loss of their cult hero?They'll eventually pretend they never liked him anyway, just like you can no longer find an Iraq War supporter. They mysteriously disappeared.
I am proud to say that I opposed that war from the get go. (Ironically, I thought about volunteering to go to Kuwait with his father's incursion there - would have been neat to have two campaign medals. Instead, I spent my surprise active duty status closing Army and Air Force bases.) Bush should have left it at the point where we were poised to go in but never pulled the trigger. We have today's mess as a result of that terrible decision.
That said, unlike Trump, I have no doubt Bush thought he was doing the right thing for America. It is a tragedy, however, that he was so wrong.I don't know if Bush was innocent of the Iraq fiasco, but Cheney--the ex-Haliburton CEO--saw dollar signs in the invasion.
Trump's only motivation for doing anything is to benefit himself.
Likely hanging out with the people who want Bill Cosby to tend bar.
You are right, they will latch on to TraitorTrump's other personal lawyer's, William Barr, the so-called AG, REAL witch hunt which will come up empty-handed as well (beyond the one low-level FBI lawyer Horowitz caught).
I don't know. Jimmy Swaggart, the televangelist and cousin of Jerry Lee Lewis, was forgiven for his sexual encounter with a hairy prostitute. Some of my idiot relatives continued to send him their hard earned money because they forgave him.
Ole PT had a point there...It'll be very interesting to see how the Donnie/Rudy compact evolves in the days to come, Scott. Two snakes fighting in a manure pile...
Shades of Cohen. I wonder if Giuliani and Cohen will share the same cell? Maybe, if there is any justice in this world, Trump will join them in a couple of years.
I am glad we finally have a starting point Ken - Quid pro quo isn't automatically a bad thing. Now, if we could just get some of the anti-Trumpers to also see it that way we might be able to have a realistic discussion.
However, that may be as far as we will get. From this point, we must be able to prove that Biden or Trump's intentions were corrupt to label either's actions as an abuse of power or bribery.
You say you did not waste your time listening to the Democrat witnesses or research their accusations. I have done both.
But I don't think I am naive. I accepted nothing as 'interpreted' by either 'for or against' advocates. In forming my opinion of what has been presented to me I made sure everything passed through your "big picture" filter before I accepted it for consideration.
My resulting bottomline was this:
I haven't found any evidence that Biden's "ask" was unethical or illegal. Of course, future information discovery could change that opinion, but at this point, I think my opinion of Biden's actions is valid.
Relative to Pres. Trump's "ask," I haven't seen any proof that would cause me to support removal from office, but, I have found and heard enough to form an opinion that he did just what he is being accused of doing; using the power of his office for personal political gain. It stinks Ken. So much so that I can support censure or official impeachment charges.
You may have a different perspective, but I don't think you can support it beyond the claim that it can't be proven either way. Perhaps it is your Big Picture perspective of the evils of political and cabal power, (which I agree with), that keeps you from admitting that there are rotten trees in that Big Picture forest, and they aren't all on the opposition's side of the trail.
GAIr will be as far as you get, GA, because as even you have pointed out the quid of qpq, the offer of an official act, is only part of the story. It is the quo, the ask as you called it, that determines whether you have a crime or not.
In Biden's case, the ask - fire a corrupt prosecutor which the whole Western world was asking for - was legal.
In Trump's case, the ask - investigate my political opponents - is illegal which makes it Official Bribery.GA, its more about me not giving a damn whether Trump did or didn't nudge another President to find answers about Biden or the DNC server or anything else.
Nor do I care if it is a breach of some political decency or rule that the petulant criminals in Congress expected him to go by.
I say that, hoping you realize that I am on the higher end of the 'deplorables' when it comes to sifting through political nuances and veiled truths in governmental dealings.
When I tell you the bottom line is economics to me, and I could care less what Congress finds him guilty of or what the media has to say about it, I hope I am representing a large part of the American voting block...
Congress has been the enemy of the American people for 30 years now... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If the economy is doing well in November 2020... I would expect most Americans will look at it that way, no matter how uncouth and deplorable Trump may seem.
If people do like I do, and stop watching all cable news, or paying attention to anything the media has to say about Trump... and focus solely on their jobs, their pay, their investments, and making life better for themselves, they'll realize what a great job President Trump has done.
Not since the 80s were opportunities and jobs so readily available to those looking for them as they are today.
A GOP group will be running this on Fox and Friends for the next few days...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sldmTBhCiA
...expect some angry tweets towards Fox News and an appearance by Barr with Murdoch, as per the norm when his propaganda network airs something critical of him.I think I am going to donate to https://www.ruleoflawrepublicans.com/
I already donated to John Walsh's campaign against Trump (yeah, I know I threw my money away, but it felt good - and WHO KNOWS?) https://www.joewalsh.org/
Apparently you are the judge, jury, and executioner. Nah, just a typical Trump supporter....
A bit obviously hypocritical. You certainly are ready to impeach the president with Zero evidence of any form. Although the people will once again speak loudly in 2020, and put you back in your place. It should be very interesting to watch so many here eat their words. Just like 2016, and the Mueller fiasco... Oh and the impeachment.
Zero evidence? I've shown you multiple times how over 1,000 former federal prosecutors already believe they could have convicted Trump for Obstruction based on what is already in the Mueller Report. This prior to any additional testimony.
He was named Individual-1 in a felony conviction for campaign finance violations, which means he was a co-conspirator. And in making the payments to Cohen, his organization committed fraud in doing so.
His foundation was shuttered because he illegally used money meant for veterans on his campaign, personal settlements and a nice big picture of himself.
And then ten witnesses came forward to confirm a quid pro quo in the Ukrainian scandal. Maybe you'd like to take a shot at this very simple question - Why was a public announcement of an investigation into Biden something that was necessary to get from Ukraine? Could they just have gone through regular legal channels to have done an investigation, and if criminality was discovered, announce the findings then?"....zero evidence of any form."
This is why there really is no point in engaging Trumpeters on the subject of their Dear Leader. They ignore their own eyes and ears to avoid toppling the big, beautiful wall of denial that enables them to sleep at night.In the end, there will be one score. 2016 +1 --- 2020 + 2
I just wonder what many here will say the day after the election?It'll be either 'hello, President Biden' or 'Thank God that's over.'
To believe Trump is sane and doesn't lie, you have to believe that:
"I think nobody know more about campaign finance than I do, because I am the biggest contributor"
"I know more about courts than any human being on Earth"
"Nobody knows more about trade than I do"
"Nobody knows more about taxes than I do"
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do"
"Nobody knows the system (gov't) better than I do"
"Technology - nobody knows more about technology than I do"
"I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have."
"I am the chosen one"
"Yeah, I get it, I'm pretty smart, okay?"
"I am a stable genius."
How do Trump defenders put up with such nonsense?John McCain wasn’t a hero according to Donald Trump, but Eddie Gallagher is.
That tells us exactly what we already knew about Donald Trump.
"Joe Walsh (far right conservative running for the Republican presidential nomination) on CNN this AM: "If I were still in the House of Representatives as a Republican … I would vote to impeach this president. It's not a close call."
It is ONLY your side Shar that sees no evidence. The rest of us see tons of it. I sure hope that one of these days those blinders you wear will come off.
All I have heard is opinions from several diplomates or Government officials? In fact, each of them admitted they knew nothing of any evidence of the president committing any crime. Their opinions mean very little to me.
They have to be so-called "opinions" to you, Shar. Otherwise, your belief in your chosen one would be destroyed. But, the hard truth is, those "opinions" as you call them would be admissible into any trial as circumstantial evidence (and I am only counting the 1st party accounts).
Another reason those "opinions" would be admissible is because they are Expert opinions.
There are several trials that lead directly to Trump, mainly through Sondland. There would be many, many more if Trump stopped Obstructing Congress (an impeachable offense) and Obstructing Justice (an impeachable offense) and let people like Mulvaney, Bolton, and McGahn testify.
We won't, so there will be at least two articles of impeachment that come of this.
Now, Randy, it's just opinion that Trump lies, just like all that testimony, under oath, describing Trump's words and actions is merely opinion to be ignored.
See how easy that is? Dear Leader is protected and the cult can sleep at night.Shar never answered the question as to why 60% of her gender wants to see Trump impeached and removed.
Nope, I just know un-American political trash when I see it.
You obviously do not. You buy into the Trump lies like others of your ilk. I feel bad for you...
Sort of like you, eh 'O'? You are about as unAmerican as they come in my 73 years of life.
You can say or believe what you want no matter how wrong you are. The real problem is that you can't justify to me your favorite liberal politicians breaking the law or being completely unscrupulous, greedy, backpedaling, liars who wipe their asses with the constitution because the Republicans do the same thing. That argument is null and void with me. In that way I am free and you are bound to your party.
Speaking of choirs - while the people I like may not be angels, they are clearly not the devil like your boy is.
Of course 'O's" meme omits the ONLY criminal out the group named DONALD J. TRUMP. Boy is 'O' gullible, perfect TraitorTrump fodder.
I'm not a Trump supporter. Liberals are just far worse.
And we'll remember it long after Trump is gone. Congrats for the best achievement of your life. You earned it.
"I'm not a Trump supporter. " AND YOU are a Trumper (liar).
You are anti everyone except for Trump.
That makes you a Trump defender by default.Yep, aa tries to play the" I'm no Trumper" game, but one can see right through him. He's like Gus, afraid to take a firm stand on anything.
It's going to be hard to see when one is as fanatical about your party as you are, that I can be a much more objective observer. You act as though Democrats / Republicans take a "firm stance" on any principal, except when the ball is in their court. You are pro or anti war when your party tells you to be, you are for or against the constitution when they want you to be, you are with or against the law when they tell you to be. You get to be told what to take a firm stance on by the people who are pandering to you and spinning the truth for your convenience. YOU ARE THE ONE PLAYING THE HOKEY POKEY, not me.
Check out your own stolen memes and see who they support or attack. It's easy...
From another Thread:
David Rothkopf
@djrothkopf
“There are no by-standers in America today. You either are actively fighting to save the country from Trump and Trumpism or you are supporting both either directly or via your passivity in the face of their racism, misogyny, nativism, religious intolerance, corruption and abuses.“The political binaries love it when you conclude that there is no other option than the left or the right. But you think that it is pacifism to be a free thinker, it's not. It's a system of checks and balances, without which one side or the other would usurp as much power as they could. You say the liberals are there to keep the conservatives in check and they say the same. The truth is it's nothing more than a ruse to trick the people into giving them more power.
So while you debate which side hates minorities or white people the most they are busy taking all your money.
Ouch! That hurt. If I agree to follow your lead would you let me be part of your crew?
GAThey certainly would let you in their crew. All you need to do I learn to put your fingers in your ears and start humming. Stay away fully reading an article. Oh, and to pick up keywords from certain media networks, and make sure to repeat those keywords frequently in an abundance.
Oops, judging by the last couple pages it looks like I have stumbled into the choir room. You folks need any tissues or paper towels before I leave?
GA ;-)No, but you may need some toilet paper before you leave, Gus
Just my luck, even with a basket I still can't carry a tune.
GA
Feeling left out?
Maybe it's time to take a stand that means something.
I say that with all the affection I can muster. ;-)I feel the same, Sandy. Some good people are caught up in this cretin's schemes. If he remains in office for another four years, he'll try to remain even longer.
Some people have biases where they always lean toward not believing something if they think the majority believes that way. Others are the opposite. The fact is that the truth doesn't care how many people are for, or against it. The truth is not rebellious or conforming. I think everyone knows this, but many don't act accordingly.
One man's truth is another's lie. When all such "truths" are but opinion (as in the political arena) how could it be otherwise?
I don't think all such truths are opinions in the "political arena."
For example, Trump states "Out of 67 counties (in Florida), I won 66, which is unprecedented." No, it's not unprecedented, and this can be verified...Kerry won 67, Bush won 67, Dole won 66.
Now, even if my facts are wrong, they are still not opinions, they are just wrong facts. Of course, many things in politics are opinions, but I think this idea that EVERTYHING is an opinion is insane and hurts us as a nation.
When debating politics, I so often get a tort reply "That's your opinion." The truth is that no, often times, it's not my opinion. It's a fact. They still teach kids the difference in kindergarten and preschool, so I'm not sure why this notion is so widespread? I put much of the blame on Breitbart/Trumpian type propaganda. That is my opinion.Really?
Trump is destroying the country
Liberals are destroying the country while Trump rebuilds.
Trump is a racist because he wants a wall
The wall has zero to do with race or racism
Pelosi is too old to be in the House
Pelosi is doing a great job!
Partisanship exists because Republicans are idiots
Partisanship only happens because Dems are idiots.
Need I go on? The thing is, that politics does not operate on facts. It operates on opinions and emotional reactions, and those are not "truths" except to the individual repeating them.Wilderness: Here is a timeline of Trump facts that can serve as a great history lesson.
1970s - After college, works with his father on apartment complexes in Queens and Brooklyn.
1973 - Trump and his father are named in a Justice Department lawsuit alleging Trump property managers violated the Fair Housing Act by turning away potential African-American tenants. The Trumps deny the company discriminates and file a $100 million countersuit, which is later dismissed. The case is settled in 1975, and the Trumps agree to provide weekly lists of vacancies to black community organizations.
1976 - Trump and his father partner with the Hyatt Corporation, purchasing the Commodore Hotel, an aging midtown Manhattan property. The building is revamped and opens four years later as the Grand Hyatt Hotel. The project kickstarts Trump's career as a Manhattan developer.
1983-1990 - He builds/purchases multiple properties in New York City, including Trump Tower and the Plaza Hotel, and also opens casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, including the Trump Taj Mahal and the Trump Plaza. Trump buys the New Jersey Generals football team, part of the United States Football League, which folds after three seasons.
1985 - Purchases Mar-a-Lago, an oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Florida. It is renovated and opens as a private club in 1995.
1987 - Trump's first book, "Trump: The Art of the Deal," is published and becomes a bestseller. The Donald J. Trump Foundation is established in order to donate a portion of profits from book sales to charities.
1990 - Nearly $1 billion in personal debt, Trump reaches an agreement with bankers allowing him to avoid declaring personal bankruptcy.
1991 - The Trump Taj Mahal files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
1992 - The Trump Plaza and the Trump Castle casinos file for bankruptcy.
1996 - Buys out and becomes executive producer of the Miss Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants.
October 7, 1999 - Tells CNN's Larry King that he is going to form a presidential exploratory committee and wants to challenge Pat Buchanan for the Reform Party nomination.
February 14, 2000 - Says that he is abandoning his bid for the presidency, blaming discord within the Reform Party.
January 2004 - "The Apprentice," a reality show featuring aspiring entrepreneurs competing for Trump's approval, premieres on NBC.
November 21, 2004 - Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
2005 - Establishes Trump University, which offers seminars in real estate investment.
February 13, 2009 - Announces his resignation from his position as chairman of Trump Entertainment Resorts. Days later, the company files for bankruptcy protection.
March 17, 2011 - During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Trump questions whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States.
June 16, 2015 - Announces that he is running for president during a speech at Trump Tower. He pledges to implement policies that will boost the economy and says he will get tough on immigration. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're sending people who have lots of problems," Trump says. "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."
June 28, 2015 - Says he's giving up the TV show "The Apprentice" to run for president.
June 29, 2015 - NBCUniversal says it is cutting its business ties to Trump and won't air the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants because of "derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants."
July 8, 2015 - In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Trump says he "can't guarantee" all of his employees have legal status in the United States. This is in response to questions about a Washington Post report about undocumented immigrants working at the Old Post Office construction site in Washington, which Trump is converting into a hotel.
July 22, 2015 - Trump's financial disclosure report is made public by the Federal Election Commission.
August 6, 2015 - During the first 2016 Republican debate, Trump is questioned about a third party candidacy, his attitude towards women and his history of donating money to Democratic politicians. He tells moderator Megyn Kelly of Fox News he feels he is being mistreated.
August 7, 2015 - The controversy continues, as Trump tells CNN's Don Lemon that Kelly was singling him out for attack, "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."
September 11, 2015 - Trump announces he has purchased NBC's half of the Miss Universe Organization, which organizes the annual Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants.
December 7, 2015 - Trump's campaign puts out a press release calling for a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
May 26, 2016 - Secures enough delegates to clinch the Republican Party nomination.
July 16, 2016 - Introduces Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate.
July 19, 2016 - Becomes the Republican Party nominee for president.
September 13, 2016 - During an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says his office is investigating Trump's charitable foundation "to make sure it's complying with the laws governing charities in New York."
October 1, 2016 - The New York Times reports Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995 which could have allowed him to legally skip paying federal income taxes for years. The report is based on a financial document mailed to the newspaper by an anonymous source.
October 7, 2016 - Unaired footage from 2005 surfaces of Trump talking about trying to have sex with a married woman and being able to grope women. In footage obtained by The Washington Post, Trump is heard off-camera discussing women in vulgar terms during the taping of a segment for "Access Hollywood." In a taped response, Trump declares, "I said it, I was wrong and I apologize."
October 9, 2016 - During the second presidential debate, CNN's Cooper asks Trump about his descriptions of groping and kissing women without their consent in the "Access Hollywood" footage. Trump denies that he has ever engaged in such behavior and declares the comments were "locker room talk." After the debate, 11 women step forward to claim that they were sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by the real estate developer. Trump says the stories aren't true.
November 8, 2016 - Is elected president of the United States. Trump will be the first president who has never held elected office, a top government post or a military rank.
November 18, 2016 - Trump agrees to pay $25 million to settle three lawsuits against Trump University. The deal keeps the President-elect from having to testify in a trial in San Diego that was set to begin
November 28. The settlement ends a suit brought by Schneiderman, as well as two class action suits in California. About 6,000 former students are covered by the settlement.
December 24, 2016 - Trump says he will dissolve the Donald J. Trump Foundation "to avoid even the appearance of any conflict with my role as President." A spokeswoman for the New York Attorney General's Office says that the foundation cannot legally close until investigators conclude their probe of the charity.
January 10, 2017 - CNN reports that intelligence officials briefed Trump on a dossier that contains allegations about his campaign's ties to Russia and unverified claims about his personal life. The author of the dossier is a former British spy who was hired by a research firm that had been funded by both political parties to conduct opposition research on Trump.
January 20, 2017 - Takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts during an inauguration ceremony at the Capitol and delivers an inaugural address centering on the populist themes that fueled his candidacy.
January 23, 2017 - Trump signs an executive action withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration and awaiting congressional approval.
January 27, 2017 - Trump signs an executive order halting all refugee arrivals for 120 days and banning travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days. Additionally, refugees from Syria are barred indefinitely from entering the United States. The order is challenged in court.
February 13, 2017 - Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigns amid accusations he lied about his communications with Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Flynn later pleads guilty to lying to the FBI.
February 28, 2017 - Nominates Neil Gorsuch to replace late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
May 3, 2017 - FBI Director James Comey confirms that there is an ongoing investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during a hearing on Capitol Hill. Less than a week later, Trump fires Comey, citing a DOJ memo critical of the way he handled the investigation into Clinton's emails.
May 2017 - Shortly after Trump fired Comey, the FBI opens an investigation into whether Trump "had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests," citing former law enforcement officials and others the paper said were familiar with the probe.
May 17, 2017 - Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is appointed as special counsel to lead the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including potential collusion between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein makes the appointment because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in March from investigations into Trump's campaign.
May 19, 2017 - Departs on his first foreign trip as president. The nine-day, five-country trip includes stops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Vatican, a NATO summit in Brussels and a G7 summit in Sicily.
June 1, 2017 - Trump proclaims that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord but adds that he is open to renegotiating aspects of the environmental agreement, which was signed by 175 countries in 2016.
July 7, 2017 - Meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in person for the first time, on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany.
August 8, 2017 - In response to nuclear threats from North Korea, Trump warns that Pyongyang will "face fire and fury like the world has never seen." Soon after Trump's comments, North Korea issues a statement saying it is "examining the operational plan" to strike areas around the US territory of Guam.
August 15, 2017 - After a violent clash between neo-Nazi activists and counterprotesters leaves one dead in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump holds an impromptu press conference in the lobby of Trump Tower and declares that there were "fine people" on both sides.
August 25, 2017 - Trump's first pardon is granted to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt for disregarding a court order in a racial-profiling case. Trump did not consult with lawyers at the Justice Department before announcing his decision.
September 5, 2017 - The Trump administration announces that it is ending the DACA program, introduced by Obama to protect nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Trump calls on Congress to introduce legislation that will prevent DACA recipients from being deported. Multiple lawsuits are filed opposing the policy in federal courts and judges delay the end of the program, asking the government to submit filings justifying the cancellation of DACA.
September 19, 2017 - In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Trump refers to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as "Rocket Man" and warns that the United States will "totally destroy North Korea" if forced to defend itself or its allies.
September 24, 2017 - The Trump administration unveils a third version of the travel ban, placing restrictions on travel by certain foreigners from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. (Chad is later removed after meeting security requirements.) One day before the revised ban is set to take effect, it is blocked nationwide by a federal judge in Hawaii. A judge in Maryland issues a similar ruling.
December 4, 2017 - The Supreme Court rules that the revised travel ban can take effect pending appeals.
December 6, 2017 - Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and announces plans to relocate the US Embassy there.
January 11, 2018 - During a White House meeting on immigration reform, Trump reportedly refers to Haiti and African nations as "shithole countries." He reportedly says that the United States should get more people from countries like Norway.
January 12, 2018 - The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump had an alleged affair with a porn star named Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels. The newspaper states that Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment for a nondisclosure agreement weeks before Election Day in 2016. Cohen denies that Trump had a relationship with Clifford.
March 13, 2018 - Trump announces in a tweet that he has fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and will nominate CIA Director Mike Pompeo as Tillerson's replacement.
March 20, 2018 - A New York Supreme Court judge rules that a defamation lawsuit against Trump can move forward, ruling against a July
2017 motion to dismiss filed by Trump's lawyers. The lawsuit, filed by Summer Zervos, a former "Apprentice" contestant, is related to sexual assault allegations.
March 23, 2018 - The White House announces that it is adopting a policy, first proposed by Trump via tweet in July 2017, banning most transgender individuals from serving in the military.
April 9, 2018 - The FBI raids Cohen's office, home and a hotel room where he'd been staying while his house was renovated. The raid is related to a federal investigation of possible fraud and campaign finance violations.
April 13, 2018 - Trump authorizes joint military strikes in Syria with the UK and France after reports the government used chemical weapons on civilians in Douma.
May 7, 2018 - The Trump administration announces a "zero tolerance" policy for illegal border crossings. Sessions says that individuals who violate immigration law will be criminally prosecuted and warns that parents could be separated from children.
May 8, 2018 - Trump announces that the United States is withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. "This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made," he says in remarks that, at times, misrepresent the international agreement's provisions.
May 31, 2018 - The Trump administration announces it is imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imported from allies Canada, Mexico and the European Union.
June 8-9, 2018 - Before leaving for the G7 summit in Quebec City, Trump tells reporters that Russia should be reinstated in the group. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 led to Russia's suspension. After leaving the summit, Trump tweets that he will not endorse the traditional G7 communique issued at the end of the meeting. The President singles out Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for making "false statements" at a news conference.
June 12, 2018 - Trump meets Kim in person for the first time during a summit in Singapore. They sign a four-point statement that broadly outlines the countries' commitment to a peace process. The statement contains a pledge by North Korea to "work towards" complete denuclearization but the agreement does not detail how the international community will verify that Kim is ending his nuclear program.
June 14, 2018 - The New York attorney general sues the Trump Foundation, alleging that the nonprofit run by Trump and his three eldest children violated state and federal charity law.
June 26, 2018 - The Supreme Court upholds the Trump administration's travel ban in a 5-4 ruling along party lines.
July 16, 2018 - During a joint news conference with Putin in Helsinki, Trump declines to endorse the US government's assessment that Russia interfered in the election, saying he doesn't "see any reason why" Russia would be responsible. The next day, Trump clarifies his remark, "The sentence should have been, 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia." He says he accepts the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia meddled in the election but adds, "It could be other people also."
August 21, 2018 - Cohen pleads guilty to eight federal charges, including two campaign finance violations. In court, he says that he orchestrated payments to silence women "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office." On the same day, Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort is convicted on eight counts of federal financial crimes. On December 12 Cohen is sentenced to three years in prison.
October 2, 2018 - The New York Times details numerous tax avoidance schemes allegedly carried out by Trump and his siblings. In a tweet, Trump dismisses the article as a "very old, boring and often told hit piece."
November 20, 2018 - Releases a statement backing Saudi Arabia in the wake of the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a Virginia resident, killed in October at a Saudi consulate in Turkey. Khashoggi was a frequent critic of the Saudi regime. The Saudis initially denied any knowledge of his death, but then later said a group of rogue operators were responsible for his killing. US officials have speculated that such a mission, including the 15 men sent from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to murder him, could not have been carried out without the authorization of Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In the statement, Trump writes, "Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event, maybe he did and maybe he didn't!"
December 18, 2018 - The Donald J. Trump Foundation agrees to dissolve according to a document filed in Manhattan Supreme Court. The agreement allows the New York attorney general's office to review the recipients of the charity's assets.
December 19, 2018 - Trump declares that the US has defeated ISIS and orders a "full" and "rapid" withdrawal of US military from Syria.
December 20, 2018 - Secretary of Defense James Mattis resigns in the wake of the Syria announcement, submitting a resignation letter that says "Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position."
December 22, 2018 - The longest partial government shutdown in US history begins after Trump demands lawmakers allocate $5.7 billion in funding for a border wall before agreeing to sign a federal funding package.
January 16, 2019 - After nearly two years of Trump administration officials denying that anyone involved in his campaign colluded with the Russians to help his candidacy, Trump lawyer and former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, says "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. I said the President of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the President of the United States committed the only crime you can commit here, conspiring with the Russians to hack the DNC."
January 25, 2019 - The government shutdown ends when Trump signs a short-term spending measure, providing three weeks of stopgap funding while lawmakers work on a border security compromise. The bill does not include any wall funding.
February 15, 2019 - Trump declares a national emergency to allocate funds to build a wall on the border with Mexico. During the announcement, the president says he expects the declaration to be challenged in court. The same day, Trump signs a border security measure negotiated by Congress, with $1.375 billion set aside for barriers, averting another government shutdown.
February 18, 2019 - Attorneys general from 16 states file a lawsuit in federal court challenging Trump's emergency declaration.
March 22, 2019 - Mueller ends his investigation and delivers his report to Attorney General William Barr. A senior Justice Department official tells CNN that there will be no further indictments.
March 24, 2019 - Barr releases a letter summarizing the principal conclusions from Mueller's investigation. According to Barr's four-page letter, the evidence was not sufficient to establish that members Trump's campaign tacitly engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government to interfere with the election.
April 18, 2019 - A redacted version of the Mueller report is released. The first part of the 448-page document details the evidence gathered by Mueller's team on potential conspiracy crimes and explains their decisions not to charge individuals associated with the campaign. The second part of the report outlines ten episodes involving possible obstruction of justice by the president. According to the report, Mueller's decision not to charge Trump was rooted in Justice Department guidelines prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. Mueller writes that he would have cleared Trump if the evidence warranted exoneration."If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," Mueller writes. "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."
May 1, 2019 - The New York Times publishes a report that details how Giuliani, in his role as Trump's personal attorney, is investigating allegations related to former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential Trump opponent in the 2020 presidential race. Biden's son, Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings. In 2016, the elder Biden pressured Ukraine to oust a prosecutor who had investigated Burisma for corruption. Giuliani suggests that Biden's move was motivated by a desire to protect his son from criminal charges. Giuliani's claims are undermined after Bloomberg reports that the Burisma investigation was "dormant" when Biden pressed the prosecutor to resign.
May 30, 2019 - Trump threatens to impose new tariffs on Mexico if the country does not step up its immigration enforcement actions, saying in a White House statement that a round of tariffs would begin on June 10 at 5% "on all goods imported from Mexico." The statement warned further that if Mexico does not act as Trump demands, tariffs would continue to increase up to a permanent level of 25% by October.
June 7, 2019 - Trump says tariffs on Mexican goods are "indefinitely suspended" after negotiators from the US and Mexico were able to reach a deal on immigration enforcement.
June 12, 2019 - Trump says he may be willing to accept information about political rivals from a foreign government during an interview on ABC News, declaring that he's willing to listen and wouldn't necessarily call the FBI.
June 16, 2019 - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveils a sign at the proposed site of a Golan Heights settlement to be named Trump Heights.
June 18, 2019 - Trump holds a rally in Orlando to publicize the formal launch of his reelection campaign.
June 21, 2019 - In a series of tweets, Trump explains that he canceled a retaliatory attack on Iran in response to an American drone getting shot down. The president writes that he called off the strike after being told that 150 people could have been killed, reasoning that the response was not proportional since the downed American aircraft was unmanned.
June 28, 2019 - During a breakfast meeting at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman reportedly discuss tensions with Iran, trade and human rights.
June 30, 2019 - Trump becomes the first sitting president to enter North Korea. He takes 20 steps beyond the border and shakes hands with Kim, the leader of the hermit kingdom. Although the American and North Korean governments tout the historic nature of the meeting, their talks do not appear to have yielded any new commitments to denuclearization.
July 4, 2019 - Trump delivers a patriotic speech during an Independence Day celebration featuring military flyovers, displays of tanks and fireworks.
July 14, 2019 - Via Twitter, Trump tells Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Illhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley to "go back" to their home countries. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley are natural-born US citizens; Omar was born in Somalia, immigrated to the US and became a citizen.
July 16, 2019 - The House votes, 240-187, to condemn the racist language Trump used in his tweets about Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley.
July 17, 2019 - During a campaign rally in North Carolina, Trump criticizes Omar. In response, crowd members chant, "Send her back." The president later says he was unhappy with the chant.
July 24, 2019 - Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.
July 25, 2019 - Trump speaks on the phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump asks Zelensky for a "favor," encouraging him to speak with Giuliani about investigating Biden. In the days before the call, Trump blocked nearly $400 million in military and security aid to Ukraine.
July 27, 2019 - Trump rails against Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings on Twitter, describing the Baltimore lawmaker's district as a "rat and rodent infested mess."
August 7, 2019 - In the wake of two separate mass shootings, Trump visits first responders and victims in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.
August 12, 2019 - A whistleblower files a complaint pertaining to Trump's conduct on the Zelensky call.
August 29, 2019 - Trump announces the establishment of the Space Command, a military unit that will oversee security of satellites.
September 10, 2019 - House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) sends a letter to Joseph Maguire, acting Director of National Intelligence. Schiff demands that Maguire share the whistleblower complaint with Congress.
September 11, 2019 - The Trump administration lifts its hold on military aid for Ukraine.
September 18, 2019 - Schiff announces that Maguire has agreed to testify before the Intelligence Committee.
September 24, 2019 - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces the beginning of an impeachment inquiry related to the whistleblower complaint.
September 25, 2019 - The White House releases notes from the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. The readout contains multiple references to Giuliani and Barr. In response, the Justice Department issues a statement that says Barr didn't know about Trump's conversation until weeks after the call. Further, the attorney general didn't talk to the president about having Ukraine investigate the Bidens, according to the Justice Department. On the same day as the notes are released,Trump and Zelensky meet in person for the first time on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. During a joint press conference after the meeting, both men deny that Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Biden in exchange for aid. Trump says the notes from the call exonerate him: "Impeachment for What? When you have a wonderful meeting or you have a wonderful phone conversation?"
September 26, 2019 - The House releases a declassified version of the whistleblower complaint just before a hearing with Maguire. According to the complaint, officials at the White House tried to "lock down" records of Trump's phone conversation with Zelensky. The complaint also alleges that Barr played a role in the campaign to convince Zelensky that Biden should be investigated. Trump describes the complaint as "fake news" and "a witch hunt" on Twitter.
September 27, 2019 - Pompeo is subpoenaed by House committees over his failure to provide documents related to Ukraine. Kurt Volker, US special envoy to Ukraine, resigns. He was named in the whistleblower complaint as one of the State Department officials who helped Giuliani connect with sources in Ukraine.
October 3, 2019 - Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump says both Ukraine and China should investigate alleged corruption involving Biden and his son. CNN reports that the president had brought up Biden and his family during a June phone call with Xi Jinping. In that call, Trump discussed the political prospects of Biden as well as Elizabeth Warren. He also told Xi that he would remain quiet on the matter of Hong Kong protests. Notes documenting the conversation were placed on a highly secured server where the transcript from the Ukraine call was also stored.
October 6, 2019 - After Trump speaks on the phone with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the White House announces that US troops will move out of northern Syria to make way for a planned Turkish military operation. The move marks a major shift in American foreign policy and effectively gives Turkey the green light to attack US-backed Kurdish forces, a partner in the fight against ISIS.
October 9, 2019 - Turkey launches a military offensive in northern Syria.
October 17, 2019 - During a White House press briefing, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney announces that the 2020 G7 summit will be held at the Trump National Doral Miami golf resort. Mulvaney tells reporters the president's club is "far and away the best physical facility for this meeting." He also stresses that Trump will not profit in "any way, shape or form" from the event. A section of the Constitution called the emoluments clause bars presidents from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments. On the same day, Pence and Pompeo meet with Erdogan in Turkey. The men announce a ceasefire in Syria.
October 19, 2019 - Trump says via Twitter that the G7 will not be held at the Doral as planned. "I thought I was doing something very good for our Country," Trump writes. "I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA. But, as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY!"
October 24, 2019 - During a ceremony at the White House, Trump presents the Medal of Freedom to auto racer and entrepreneur Roger Penske.
October 27, 2019 - In a televised speech, Trump announces that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died during a military raid in Syria.
October 31, 2019 - Trump says via Twitter that he is changing his legal residency from New York to Florida, explaining that he feels he is treated badly by political leaders from the city and state.
November 7, 2019 - A judge orders Trump to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit against his charity filed by the New York state attorney general. According to the suit, Trump breached his fiduciary duty by allowing his presidential campaign to direct the distribution of donations. In a statement, Trump accuses the attorney general of mischaracterizing the settlement for political purposes.
November 13, 2019 - Public impeachment hearings begin and Trump meets Erdogan at the White House.Wonderful synopsis of Trump's failed life.
What is your point Dan? I clearly stated there are opinions in politics. See: "Of course, many things in politics are opinions,"
But, there are also facts, which are getting ignored. Your response highlights that nicely.
One again. What Trump said here is an untrue fact, not an opinion: "Out of 67 counties (in Florida), I won 66, which is unprecedented."
Do you deny that this is an untrue fact?Also, another untrue fact that Trump said was his father was born in Germany. Are you telling me Trump didn't bold-face lie for no reason? Isn't that a sign of an unstable mind or do stable minds lie as much as Trump does?
- The Minstrelposted 5 years ago0
The reality is this: Schiff, Pelosi, and crew are scrambling to extricate themselves from the impeachment debacle they got themselves into. They already hinted that they may censure rather than go for impeachment. This sham impeachment initiative has literally blew up in their faces and exposed some of the deep state scum bags like Vindman (I'm sorry it is Lt Col Vindman), Sondland, Volkner, Hill, and others. They shined the light in the dark corners of our government and exposed some really big roaches! Their testimonies were laughable! None of them brought up anything close to an impeachable offense! What a damn waste of time! They shared their opinions. Who gives a flying rip about their opinions! However, what will they censure him for: Doing his job? Hopefully the real criminals will be brought to justice and sent to jail for illegally falsifying information on a FISA document, for illegally spying on the Trump campaign, for using their positions to gain financial favors, and for many more crimes committed by the swamp creatures in DC. Judgment day is coming and the big alligators are feeling the heat! Bring on the fire! It's gonna get real hot!
The cray-cray is really strong with this one. Sometimes it's best to not go all-in on the propaganda.
THE MINSTREL: You can put down your crack pipe now!
You folks are too much. It's interesting. If people don't agree with you, they put down your character. This shows me that the opposing side doesn't have an argument. You can call me cray cray or crack head or whatever, but the truth is this: if what Trump's actions were impeachable, they would have taken a vote a long time ago and there would be bipartisan support. None of these things have happened. The mere fact that they are hesitating shows me and the rest of the country that the Democratic leadership is scrambling right now to find a way out of the mess they created.
No, but you are probably in the hire of the Russian Internet Research Agency and probably a Lt. Col. in the Russian Security Service.
Hey, I am a Hawaiian living on a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I would not even register a blip on the Russian Security radar system as a potential Russian asset undermining forums on Hub Pages. However, I think Lt Col Vindman is not an honest man. For him to be offered the position of Defense Secretary for the Ukrainian government while still being in the employment of the USA should set off some alarm bells. What did the jerk do to get this type of offer?
I think you are un-American as Trump has your soul. There are no facts that can change your mind about anything that Trump does. You've made that more than clear. Maybe that's why people resort to attacking your character.
Just because you may live in Hawaii (Trump probably doesn't believe it since he didn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii) doesn't mean you aren't in the employ of the Russians, wittingly or unwittingly.
The liars from the liberal or progressive left have your soul. After reading your stuff, I wouldn't want to follow your type of America. Guys, I think the chasm is too wide for us to agree on anything. Aloha!
America without Trump, is no America at all...I understand.
Lol, history will not be kind to Trump and his supporters.
History will make the correct comparison with Hitler's ability to fool the masses leading to the destruction of Germany to Trumps ability to fool enough people leading to the destruction of America.
Brown Shirts vs the Red Hats - hard to tell the difference.
There is no chasm. There are just average Americans versus Trump extremists who believe the propaganda they read and hear.
And to show you just how off the rails these so-called Republicans are, consider this latest Economist/YouGov online poll. 53% of self identified "Republicans" think Donald Trump is a better president than - wait of it - Abraham Lincoln!!!!! Loony Toons.
I think the chasm is between those who remember the importance of character, decency, and the rule of law and those who have forsaken all of that in favor of Dear Leader.
It is time for us to write them off, trivialize them as they have trivialized honor, duty, and integrity. Laugh at their idiocy and spurn them at the ballot box.
Trump was a reality TV star, a failed businessman, a philanderer, a liar, a cheat, a hateful bully, a leering pervert, a draft dodger, a childish narcissist who bragged about the size of his package. What have I left out? These people knew all these things before they elected him. They judged him as f it to hold the highest office in the land, and they continue to do so no matter what he says or does.
They should be ignored now. The 40% who still defend and support the lying POS are not worth the effort. Let's spend our time doing good things in our communities, supporting intelligent candidates with good ideas, and stop giving these people any credence whatsoever. Let them scream in their little corner of the world where Trump is their savior and Russia our ally.Eloquently said. Unfortunately, I don't think we can write them off or ignore them easily.
They are undermining our laws and Constitution. I worry that if the decline gets worse, we could see more violence on top of the mass murders we have already seen that target Jews, blacks and Hispanics.I saw the move the Irishmen. It's about the mafia, Jimmy Hoffa and a hit man. The movie is centered around the hit man who operates behind the scenes and takes out mafia bosses who are competing for territory. He finally ends up being the muscle behind Jimmy Hoffa.
The story reminds me of how Trump embodies those characteristics. He uses his counter-punching against his opponents like a mafia hit man would to kill people. Only Trump's killing is metaphorical, but yet he wants to annihilate his opponents. His base has the solidarity of a well oiled labor union as he pitches his message of MAGA, much the way Hoffa did with the Teamsters Union. He and his allies refuse to appear before the courts and plead the 5th amendment, just like the mafia.
Here is one example as to what he is doing to Lisa Page who was involved in the Trump conspiracy about Trump's election.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/02/politics … index.html"Eloquently said. Unfortunately, I don't think we can write them off or ignore them easily" - The reason being is we can never let them hurt America again.
Just chiming in here to give credit for the "eloquent," truthful, and motivating words. While I do agree with you, promisem, I also think that we need more of this type of honest evaluation. I think this type of bluntness may be what Democrats need to fire up the base and sway the few pole sitters.
Promisem and hard sun, you both have good points. I spent my morning going around to businesses in my town to encourage them to decorate for the holidays (I work with my local Chamber of Commerce). Yesterday morning, I spent time talking with two smart women about running for local office (to replace the petty Trump-like bullies we currently have on the City Council. The day before, I donated money to a Democratic candidate for President. Saturday, I'm handing out free cookies and cider at our town tree lighting ceremony.
In between, I pop into Hubpages to see how the debate is going. I've slowly come to realize that, for me, the way to beat these fearful, fact-challenged Trump defenders is to stop legitimizing their positions, to stop conversing with them as though they have something legitimate to say. Parroting Russian propaganda or claiming any professional criticism of Trump arises from the Deep State are not reality-based positions. To be clear, I am only referring to Trump-related conversations. I live in a county that went 67% for Trump in 2016, so I interact with Trumpeters every day about all sorts of things, just not Trump.
I think the way to eventually win is to stop responding to their delusional nonsense and spend time advancing our own reality-based goals. Find good, honest people to work with and get stuff done. Bypass the ignorant and just keep moving forward without them. They will kick and scream, and put up roadblocks, and distract and lie, just like they always do. In the end, progress always wins and the ignorant always lose.
Now, all that said, I do believe Trump and his supporters pose a real threat to our country. They must be defeated, and defeated soundly, in 2020. We cannot be a country where a man like Trump can get re-elected. I am worried that Russian interference, GOP voter suppression, gerrymandering, and right-wing propaganda will combine to give Trump another minority victory. For that reason, we must focus defeating him so soundly that the interference is negated. It should be something we work on every day or as much as we can.
Okay, I'm done proselytizing.
What do you do when you meet good honest folks that support Pres. Trump for what appear to be very valid reasons for them? I am not talking about the partisan ideologues that would accept him shooting somebody on 5th Ave, but folks that genuinely have a different perspective than you.
I have run into such people, and although I don't agree with them, I do understand that they are not 'cult members' and their perspective is as valid as mine.
GAYou say perspective, but to me at least, it's a choice to live in a different reality.
One in which they have accepted that grabbing women by the pu$$y is not abhorrent.
Where winning is put above the law.
Where dictators who murder innocents are something to aspire to and allies that have fought with us are allowed to be slaughtered.
Where supporting a candidate with a questionable history of preying on children is not shied away from (in both Roy Moore and Donald J. Trump's background).
That reality is reached by motivation through fear of immigrants or a fear of using tax revenues to help more Americans reach the middle class and break free from government assisted programs.
Where acceptance that members of the LGBT community do not deserve the right to marry or to adopt children.
Where openly racist statements are shrugged off as nothing to be concerned with.
Where environmental protections are stripped away without a care in the world about the future that's being left to their children.
One that is filled with conspiracy theory as opposed to fact and where there exists no truth, except the one being fed by the leader of the cult and his propaganda tools.
To me, that is one selfish, hate-filled, fake reality and those that have bought into it are, indeed, part of a very large cult.Of course, it is just my opinion Valeant, but that you can't accept that there are other valid honestly believed perspectives that differ from yours is a statement that is to your detriment.
I know it is an over-used cliche' by now, but you sound like you are of the opinion that the dress was blue, and the folks that saw a different color are idiots.
GAComparing support for someone who makes openly racist statements, boasts about sexually assaulting women, and breaks laws to win to a dress really just proved my point completely. You're right, I cannot believe any valid perspective could excuse those things aside from being in a cult.
Did you really think I was comparing it to a dress?
GAI understand that you were comparing an optical illusion to the skew given to the various sides.
Now, I don't feel much skewing can be done when Trump's own words are heard as he boasts that he sexually assaults women by grabbing their pu$$ies.
Where his own words tell four minority Congresswomen to 'go back to their countries' or he doubles down on the Central Park Five after they were exonerated in clear displays of racism.
And I don't see an optical illusion in someone breaking campaign laws, cheating to get elected as a skew such as soliciting a foreign government to get involved in 2020 after he did the same with Russia in 2016 and actually received their help then. Committing the same crime he managed to elude prosecution for in 2016 is pure idiocy.
I'm sorry, but I do not have any tolerance for people that can excuse or support someone who has done these things.Well then, It seems we agree. You are short on tolerance.
GA:-)
" but that you can't accept that there are other valid honestly believed perspectives that differ from yours is a statement that is to your detriment." - I HAVE to agree with something Valeant said earlier which basically said that those other perspectives must be based in some reality. I think yours are, I do not, however, think Ken's are. His perspective is based on a set of facts that do not exist in the real world.
So in other words, all you listen to or watch is the extreme left media agencies, and write off anything not from extreme left news sources.
I have a news flash for you, that means you are the one with a closed mind, and limited perspective, not those that consider all information sources... including non-left sources.
And this is why there is very limited dialogue between you and I, it is true that one of us is not dealing with reality. One of us is on a crusade, one of us can only see one viewpoint. And if someone were to go look at your collection of articles, and then go look at mine... it would be easy to see which of us is obsessed and on a crusade, and which is not.No, I don't watch MSNBC. I watch the news which presents all of the facts fairly.
If I found a far-right source that dealt in facts, I would probably watch that as well. Problem is, there aren't any.
This is an example of hyperbolic nonsense.
Trump is not a dictator, he has not murdered innocents... in fact, Clinton as SoS was responsible for far more innocents being murdered than anything Trump has done. The Obama administration alone was responsible for hundreds of thousands dying when they decided to work to overthrow the governments of Libya and Syria.
That is reality, and if that is reality, then what you are working with is delusional, fictional, non-reality. Make believe. Which is what we have seen take over most of our media, and a good chunk of the 'liberal' landscape.Trump is trying to be a dictator and clearly would be if allowed.
Trump has caused the killing of innocents and probably the murder of several Kurds.
Obama did not decide to overthrow (this is where your factless unreality world comes in) either Syria or Libya. He did, however, chose to support the people of each nation.
The only people who I have seen, that aren't brainwashed (like my step-sister and her husband), that sill want to support Trump are those who are 1) conservative and 2) think that the only thing that matters in life is the economy and that so long as Trump maintains Obama's record, they don't want to rock the boat.
I have met folks just as I described to PrettyPanther. I can't declare that my opinion is more valid than theirs—even if I were to think so
GA.
"What do you do when you meet good honest folks that support Pres. Trump for what appear to be very valid reasons for them?"
It's hard for me to.imagine a "valid" reason for supporting a man of such low character and unethical behavior for any position, much less president. What could be so "valid" that it justifies overriding one's basic values of human decency?"Today, you are being asked to consider whether protecting those elections requires impeaching a President. This is an awesome responsibility. But everything I know about our Constitution and its values, and my review of the evidentiary record, tells me that when President Trump invited — indeed, demanded — foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the 'republic' to which we pledge allegiance. That demand constituted an abuse of power. Indeed, as I want to explain in my testimony, drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself," she said. (Constitutional expert)
"“You may have the votes. You may have the muscle. But you do not have the legitimacy of a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative. This partisan coup d’etat will go down in infamy in the history of this nation,” Collins said, quoting directly from Nadler’s 1998 speech."
And regarding Clinton, Nadler was correct. There were no real grounds for impeachment, unlike what there is with TraitorTrump"Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said Trump has attacked the US's "safeguards" against monarchy.
"After reviewing the evidence that's been made public, I cannot help but conclude that this President has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country."I can think of many hypothetical 'people', but they would all boil down to a description of someone that would criticize the man's character flaws but likes his policies and presidential actions, hates our previous, (current?), politics-as-usual, and is concerned about the direction our country was taking under previous presidents.
I may not agree with all of their rationalizations, but I can see their perspective as being valid from their world-view.
GAWell, looking at it that way, one could say that a white supremacist's position is valid, from their world view, couldn't you? They certainly are concerned about the direction of the country, and support policies that address that concern, so unless I'm missing something, your description would apply to them, too, wouldn't it? Who would it not apply to?
As well as Nazis, Communists, and the unibomber. There must be a reasonable set of truths that form a baseline. Making these truths up, lying about them, living in a made-up world simply isn't a reasonable world view. Instead, it is an alternate, personalized, normally paranoia-based world view.
Yes, my first reaction was to say that Germans who supported Hitler had valid reasons for doing so from their worldview. They turned a blind eye to the abuses of the Hitler regime because they saw him as saving their country from serious threats and most would be considered "good people." Those abuses escalated because the people allowed them to, not realizing how horrific those abuses would eventually become. GA dislikes Hitler comparisons, but I cannot help but see parallels in the way Trump defenders ignore such dangerous abuses because they believe Trump is defending their world for them. They seem to have decided they don't care what methods he uses as long as it benefits them.
That's rather funny, as the Democrats repeatedly throw the entire weight of the United States justice system in attempting to find dirt that will remove Trump from the next election. Any method, as long as it benefits them.
The facts of the impeachment inquiry are not in dispute. You and other Trumpeter s spend your time complaining about the process, yet the process has been legitimate and conducted according to the constitution and our laws. Contrast that with Trump and his cronies, who have ignored every subpoena, abusing his power to retain it.
You're on the wrong side in this, wilderness, and in a few years, you will probably feel embarrassed."The facts of the impeachment inquiry are not in dispute."
All except the only one that matters: the intent and motive behind the events. All else is just icing on the cake - that motive is the only thing that matters and all the claims of supernatural knowledge doesn't make the Democrat assumption true.
Of course the process has been legitimate...if the goal is to remove Trump from the next election rather than to find truth. Were it truth that was searched for we would have seen as many Republican chose witnesses as Democrat, but we didn't, did we?
If being on the side of honesty, truth and fact is the wrong side then so be it. I shall neither change nor be embarrassed, for regardless of Trump's guilt or innocence (that I've never addressed) the only thing I'm concerned with in this (second) attempt at finding dirt is that it be done ethically and fairly. It hasn't - instead it has been a return to the days of J Edgar when the might of the government is repeatedly thrown against a person that is simply disliked and/or threatens the established power mongers of congress."If being on the side of honesty, truth and fact is the wrong side then so be it."
Okay, I take it back. If you're not embarrassed to make that statement,you will never be embarrassed to support Trump, no matter what he says or does.I'm embarrassed aout promoting truth far less than you must be to repeatedly claim I support Trump. After all, he has, and is, taking steps to address some of our biggest problems, problems that Congress has ignored for many years. You apparently don't; you would rather keep the status quo with dishonest politicians ignoring or actively retaining those problems as vote getters. Aren't you ashamed of doing that?
Wilderness: Fox News and right wing propaganda = Pravda. Why does Trump have a need to call all main stream news, fake news and the enemy of the people, just like dictators do when they are taking over a country.? Why does he say his truth is the only truth when he has lied and mislead over 10,000 times? But yet his people don't care like you or they just look the other way.
Fox news is Trump's state run propaganda machine with Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Carlson, et al as his propaganda ministers. CNN has professional journalist and lawyers who present both sides of issues, but you and other Trumpers won't allow yourself to watch it because it would destroy your agenda.
What do you call it when Trump and his aides have been subpoenaed and refuse to show up for the hearings? Trump even wrote a letter to Pelosi before the hearings started and said he and his cohorts were not going to participate. Is that fair and ethical? I call it an admission of guilt.
If they have nothing to hide and consider themselves innocent whey don't they honor their subpoena's? The GOP says the hearings have all been one sided, but they are the ones who are making it that way. They have been given an invitation, but their RSVP is go screw yourselves.
If you really want to see one sided, watch the GOP trial, when Trump will get a pass from the GOP majority in the Senate and a Chief Justice who is on Trump's side. The problem is the highest authority in the land has abused his power and there is no one to stop him from doing it again, not even SCOTUS."Fox News and right wing propaganda = Pravda."
LOL And CNN and left wing propaganda = Hitler. That's what you're really saying, isn't it? That anything you don't like to hear is the same as the vilest from the world's past?
What do you call it when Democrats in congress repeatedly use the might of the country to go after one man in order to clear the election ballot of his name?
"If they have nothing to hide and consider themselves innocent whey don't they honor their subpoena's?"
Is this another effort to make up reasons and declare guilt when no one gives you one that you find acceptable (read: attacks Trump)? I've commented on that strategy many times, but here it is again: Your unanswered questions indicate ignorance of an answer (that you like), but that is NOT the same as guilt. Wish you and the others would at least attempt to understand that; it's really quite simple. In this case, as well, refusal to self-incriminate is NEVER an indication of guilt. Any trial lawyer or judge will tell you that.
For sure the GOP is making it one-sided...as they are denied any opportunity to call witnesses and, for a long time, were not even allowed to ask questions of witnesses.
I expect the Senate trial to be extremely one-sided. That's how our politics is supposed to work, isn't it? We certainly have a clear demonstration of that after the dog and pony show in the House. Perhaps the Senate will refuse Democrats to call witnesses - that would be reasonable, wouldn't it?Wilderness: So you don't believe Trump has abused his power? The only reason he is still in power is because of the OLC ruling that states a sitting president can't be indicted. As soon as he is out of office, there are 10 instances of obstruction of justice that he can be indicted on. He knows it and that is what behooves him to get re-elected.
Dan and his ilk will never accept they've elected a criminal as POTUS. Even if they saw a live feed of him purposely violating his oath of office, they would close their eyes and stuff their fingers in their ears. They've already had a lot of practice doing so.
Why the adamant support of Trump? Under the standard impeachment inquiry Trump and his failure to cooperate has to be seen as a sign of guilt on his part. It is that the rightwing side of this discussion wants to maintain Trump as their reactionary white knight at any cost.
These people would not accept the facts even if Trump confesses or the evidence is proved as overwhelmingly against him, they would move on to another narrative that I am hearing in certain quarters already, "what he did is not so bad to deserved to be impeached", or," if Biden could get away with it"......
This is Plan B and it is waiting in the wings.It amazes me what contortions the right has to go through to believe obstruction of justice isn't committed by Trump while he's ignoring congressional subpoenas.
Trump is the first POTUS to do this with success...if you want to think of him getting away with it as success.
So you don't believe CNN is biased in their presentation of the news? You don't believe they insert their own spin rather than give just the story, the whole story and nothing but the story?
So you don't believe the impeachment is a Democrat run endeavor, with Republicans mostly excluded?
So you believe that an unanswered question gives you the right to make up what ever answer you would like to see? And declare it to be true? You actually believe that?
(Wow - you're on to something here. It's fun to put words into other mouths, words that they never spoke or even thought!)Did you bitch about the proceedings when HRC was investigated , Dan? And would you ignore a subpoena from congress? Is Trump better than you and above the law? Do you believe we have 3 separate branches of govt.?
Nope, they don't, not on their news portion.
On their opinion pieces, they clearly lean one direction. But unlike the Trump propaganda media, Fox, they include the other side of the argument and let them have free reign. Fox ought to try it sometime.
Show me where the Republicans are "mostly excluded". This is only true in your made-up world of unreality where lies are OK and truth doesn't matter to you.Perhaps I'm confused; their "opinion section" you reference seems to take 28 of the 30 minutes, and is all about Trump. The rest of the news is generally news, although a bias towards liberals is still apparent.
How many witnesses were the Republicans allowed to call? How many hours have Democrats secluded themselves behind closed doors to discuss the matter? If you don't see that is "mostly excluded" you are fooling yourself. No one else, but certainly yourself.If the Republicans had called exculpatory witnesses that could speak to the crimes Trump apparently committed, they would have been allowed, I suspect - BUT THEY DIDN'T, Did They?
No, they try to call distractions that have zero to do with Trump trying to bribe Ukraine or abusing his power or obstructing Congress or obstructing Justice. They could have called McGahn, why didn't they? They could have called Bolton, why didn't they? If they wanted the truth, why didn't they call Mulvaney, why didn't they?
No, instead they tried to call useless witnesses that have no bearing on Trump's guilt or innocence in order to divert attention away from Trump's crimes.
Reality check, Wilderness, Hitler is on your side of the aisle
Did you just say that you were on the side of honesty, truth and fact?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
It's unbelievable that you cannot see how using the power of one's office to illegally solicit a foreign government to announce an investigation into the chief political rival is an abuse of power as it undermines the citizen's right to a free and fair election.
What's more, your false claim that this is about removing Trump is another example of you falsely understanding the motives of this action.
The Russia investigation was as much about finding out what happened when a hostile foreign government intervened in our elections. It is a clear national security issue to ensure that their preferred candidate was not compromised. You claiming this was about removing Trump, instead of being prudent in national security concerns is a treasonous thought.
If you believe calling yourself honest about why these things were, and are necessary, then I'd say you're more disconnected to American values than ever.
This is an opinion from Garry Kasparov, the world champion chess player who lived in the Soviet Union comparing it to Trump's world today. The parallels are very disturbing.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBXK49G?m=en-us&a … InAppShareFrom your link: "Trump and his supporters instead try to shift the debate into an alternate universe where the truth is whatever they say it is today."
I'd say he needs to watch the Democrats as they desperately search for something, anything, to remove Trump from the next election. He will see a whole world of "alternate universe where the truth is whatever they say it is today." Trump's shenanigans pale when compared to those of Democrats seeing their power base erode.
Although deflecting into another topic and claiming truth is whatever promotes a win in the next election is nothing new to our representatives, it has become not just a sometimes thing but a major portion of anything a politician says. All that matters to them (all of them) is keeping and growing their power and their pocketbooks.Yet, we repeatedly hear from Trumpeters hat Trump has done nothing wrong, while the Trump administration refuses to supply materials and testimony that have been lawfully subpoenaed in accordance with the constitution. Materials and testimony that, presumably (if you believe Trump did nothing wrong), would prove his innocence and make the Democrats look.like rabid idiots. If Trump is innocent, it would be that easy to "win" the partisan battle that you proclaim this to be.
Why has he not done this?""Trump and his supporters instead try to shift the debate into an alternate universe where the truth is whatever they say it is today."" - AND THAT is not true??? Of course it is the truth, the truth Democrats seek.
Republicans on the other hand, so scared for their jobs more than they love America, lie out their ass. Just like Sen. lol Kennedy keeps lying about the fake Ukrainian interference.
So you found an opinion you like.
"What's the truth? In the era of regionalized facts, it depends on where you stand, what channel you're watching, and what party you belong to. But there cannot be a red state reality and a blue state reality any more than there should be one world map inside of Russia and a different one outside. Trump is finally facing the music, and that must begin with everyone facing the facts."
I like it too. Thanks for the link.
GA
"Democrats repeatedly throw the entire weight of the United States justice system in attempting to " - And how are they doing that, Wilderness, by using the courts to overcome Trump's obstruction of Congress and Justice?? BTW, they don't need to "attempt to find dirt" on Trump, he leaves it laying around for everybody but the brainwashed to see.
"Yes, my first reaction was to say that Germans who supported Hitler had valid reasons for doing so from their worldview. " - AND THAT is the difference, up to a point. Unlike today, the German people had good reason to feel put upon because the Allies took the phrases "to the victor goes the spoils" and the Treaty of Versailles put the German people into servitude (not that they didn't deserve it, btw). But the outcome was predictable - Hitler.
Trump supporters today have no such excuse. In fact, they have plenty of hindsight to draw lessons from on what happens when a deranged narcissistic psychopathic (Hitler was a sociopath) demagogue is elected.
Trump supporters have no Treaty of Versailles to fall back on as justification for their worldview. Instead, they make one up and live in an alternate reality.
Hitler supporters also "decided they don't care what methods he uses as long as it benefits them."You are right PrettyPanther, Hitler comparisons are a negative in my mind.
When you consider the history of Hitler's regime it is clear that the average citizen, whether a supporter or an opponent, was realistically relegated to a non-voice or force in his actions. So, for me, Hitler comparisons are arguably nonsense.
But, I have a harder time arguing that Trump supporters care about the methods. I can only argue that their support is sincere.
GA
As a reply to both you and PrettyPanther, of course when you bring in the extremes my point is weak. But, what if you left out the extremes; the White Supremacists, the Neo-Nazis, and simply considered the bedrock of our citizens—the average Joe Blows that get up and go to work every morning?
Are you saying that because they have a different perspective than you that they are ignorant and uninformed?
Why is it that your "baseline" only includes political minds like our own?
GAIf they cannot see Trump's ignoring of congressional subpoenas as OJ, then they have no clue as to the power of the three branches of government, Gus. in that case, they are indeed "ignorant and uninformed."
The House (Democrats) is a biased political entity, using its authority to try and subvert the Constitution and the outcome of the last election.
The Democrats have been hunting for Trump's head from the outset. The talk has been to impeach him from the outset. They have compared him to Hitler since before he took the Oath of Office.
To many American's POV they have watched a Democratic Party, and even some obtuse Republicans in Congress, denigrate and determinedly try to destroy Trump since day one.
Its just a matter of what side of the aisle you sit on... one side has seen a never ending assault on Trump, one effort after another to find a way to impeach him, to remove him from office.I agree Ken, "The Democrats have been hunting for Trump's head from the outset. "
But do you disagree that Pres. Trump has provided plenty of fodder for their arguments?
GAI think the bigger question is:
Is Trump the ignorant fool he can appear to be... … or is he a man very calculatedly playing that role?
Has he provided the Democrats "plenty of fodder" because he wants them to pursue this course?
Does this not prove his points? Does this not make him the martyr?
The Mueller Investigation, the Kavanaugh hearings, and now this Impeachment over Trump asking about Biden's questionable dealings in the Ukraine?
You think all this is going to go over well with 'Joe Public' … who distrusted (and perhaps despised) D.C. politics enough before Trump ever came along?I disagree, the bigger question is if Trump recognizes Congress has oversight re his actions.
Trump is the ignorant fool (he doesn't have the temperament to formulate a strategy)
Why would ANY sane person "wants them to pursue this course?"?
No, it does not prove his points, it only makes him (and America) look like a fool.
50% of "Joe Public" (61% of Jane Public) want to see Trump impeached and removed. Somewhat higher than those who wanted Nixon impeached and removed and significantly higher than those who wanted Clinton impeached and removed.I just checked, those are BS percentages. Its roughly 40% for 40% against and 20% don't give a crap. And that's just Impeachment, not removal, though you could infer that if you want to, since probably half of Americans don't know the difference.
His approval rating is still above 40%. I don't really put much stock in polls, they have become a tool for media talking points, and are manipulated for those purposes.
It would be great if they do Impeach, then it gets sent to the Senate and the real facts will come out.Do you think Trump will allow Bolton to testify in the Senate trial? I'll be surprised if he does.
Ken, As well they should, after a few months to see if he could actually be a president. This is a man who proved during his campaign that he should not be President; that he neither had the ethics, morality, intelligence, ability, character, nor temperament to be President.
Through a combination of an incompetent Clinton campaign, Comey (granted unintentional), the electoral college (which I still support), and massive Russian interference, Trump unfortunately ended up as President.
On day one, Trump proved he shouldn't be in office. Just like the Republicans before them (although they had no good reason to oppose Obama so vehemently) the Democrats have every good reason to oppose Trump.
That said, their opposition for the first two years didn't even come close to the unreasonable hate Republicans showed for Obama. But after it became clear Trump was a criminal (from two-years of Republican sponsored investigation of Trump), the Democrats started their constitutional duty to remove him from office
"The House (Democrats) is a biased political entity, using its authority to try and subvert the Constitution and the outcome of the last election." - THE ONLY group trying to subvert the Constitution is Trump and his follower and the no-balls Republican Senators.
Unlike the Republicans before them who actually did abuse their power in trying to "get Clinton" for fake crimes, the Democrats are using the one tool the Constitution gives them to get rid of a criminal in the White House.
Trump's despicable character makes him deserving of destruction. He has been destroying other people for his whole life.Lying to Congress, while under oath, is not a crime? When was perjury taken off the law books?
It is statements like this that make your posts so sad.Do you believe Trump is above the law, Dan? And more importantly, do you believe Congress has oversight according to the Constitution?
Even I agree with Dan for once. Part of how we got here is that the Democrats in the Senate let Clinton skate for his clear criminal act.
On the flip side, I understand the thought that lying about an extramarital affair was not an impediment to his handling of the country. Lying about an extramarital affair as a high crime - I would like to see the case made for that.Supposedly, and as I understand it, the crime was not the affair or even the lie that he didn't participate. It was solely that he lied to Congress while under oath. The topic or even the specific lie was not the problem; it was that he lied.
Not sure I would agree that lying to congress should be impeachable - congress men and women lie every day to all of us, including the president - but at the same time a president that lies under oath to congress is not a good thing. It isn't even in the same ballpark as Trump's "lies" in his tweets or outbursts. It is one thing to exaggerate, spin and make remarks without adequate research, it's quite another to intentionally lie when he (Clinton) absolutely knew the truth. It wasn't error, it wasn't exaggeration, it wasn't political spin, it wasn't laziness; it was an out and out intentional lie to try and salvage his political standing.I guess you didn't study up on it did you Wilderness.
Article II, obstruction of justice, I just laid out.
Article I is perjury, specifically:
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[27]
- The nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- Prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- Prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
- His attempts to tamper with witnesses
I don't see the world Congress in there, do you?? Facts are a terrible thing for the factless.
It wasn't Democrats in the Senate, it was many Republicans as well - the votes for conviction weren't even close. 50 - 50 on one Article and 45 Yea to 55 No on the other.
Unlike Trump, whose actions clearly violate his oath of office to defend the Constitution, Clinton lied to a grand jury about sexual activity. In nobody's book, other than vengeful Republicans, does that constitute a High Crime or Misdemeanor toward the office of the presidency (which is what the founders were most worried about).
What Clinton did falls into the category "mal-administration". George Mason suggested that as a reason to impeach a president, but it was rejected for Madison's (I think) much more restrictive High Crimes and Misdemeanors. (Treason and Bribery were always part of the mix).
Was Clinton's lying a clear criminal act - yes. But its resolution was in the courts (as are several of Trump's many other crimes).
The one "impeachable" article was Obstruction of Justice, a potentially impeachable offense. It consisted of:
- Encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- Concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- Attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
- Attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie
- Making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
Pretty weak (and debatable) stuff when compared to the vast evidence of true obstruction by Trump. Talk about a false equivalency.
That said, it was this article that picked up five more Republican votes. So if 50 Republicans can see that as obstruction, shouldn't all Republicans see what Trump has done as obstruction (if they didn't love their job more than they love America)?
IF NOT, WHY NOT??"Unlike Trump, whose actions clearly violate his oath of office to defend the Constitution, Clinton lied to a grand jury about sexual activity. In nobody's book, other than vengeful Republicans, does that constitute a High Crime or Misdemeanor toward the office of the presidency"
Really? "After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice."
It seems that congress did not agree that it was not an impeachable offense.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his … -impeachedSo NOW you tell the truth with "lying under oath to a federal grand jury" - WHY did you change your mind? Was it after I gave you proof it wasn't Congress (or do you think Congress and a Grand Jury are one in the same?)
Are trying to falsely claim Clinton lied to Congress??? Go back and read your history. Talk about sad posts, you can't even get your facts straight.
Clinton NEVER testified to Congress.
This is the same argument that Dan made earlier and that is a big talking point. I guess we have to make the same point to Ken.
Ken, has it not been proven that Russia interfered in the 2016 election? Was it not proven that that interference assisted Trump and hurt Clinton? Do you consider a Russia run by Putin, one that interferes in our elections, hostile to US interests? As their preferred candidate was elected, does it not make sense from a national security interest to investigate the depth of that interference and whether the candidate they assisted is beholden to them in any way?
If you call protecting the national security of the US by looking into those issues, trying to destroy Trump, I call that a gross miscarriage of what actually occurred. If Trump didn't want to be tied to Russia, he should not have accepted their assistance. Instead, he had a campaign manager that fed them internal polling data. He had a confidant in touch with Wikileaks, who was disseminating the stolen data from the DNC. His actions demanded investigating.
Then, after trying to stop the investigation by firing Comey, he committed ten more acts considered obstruction of justice to thwart the investigation, in some part protecting Russia. In Helsinki, he stood next to Putin and took his word over the findings of all of his intelligence services that briefed him on how Russia interfered in our elections. To many of us, that right there was treason. He sided with the nation that attacked us. Explain that, please.
All this as campaign finance violations came to light. You claiming Trump is some innocent choir boy that is just being harassed because of the partisanship that exists is such an amazingly false view of the actions he has taken to subvert the laws of our country.
Trump's actions have warranted the distrust and investigations that have followed. His ignorance, or disregard for our laws is apparent to all but his ignorant followers.
"Are you saying that because they have a different perspective than you that they are ignorant and uninformed?
Why is it that your "baseline" only includes political minds like our own? "
Maybe I am not being clear because this is a complete misrepresentation of what I am saying.
Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney, George Will....these are examples of people who have a different perspective from me who are definitely not ignorant and uninformed. Their perspectives are 1) reality-based and 2) presented with intelligence and a foundation of knowledge and education, and coming from a base of common human values of honesty, respect, and compassion, to name a few. Trump displays none of these characteristics and is, as we speak, engaging in unethical and criminal behavior and abusing his power. To continue to be a Trump supporter, one must be willing to overlook lying, cheating, bullying, and law breaking. To me, that is a reflection of one's values and it's a pretty ugly reflection.
Does that clarify my position?
Edit: As for the "ignorant and uninformed" description you ascribe to my assessment of Trump supporters , I don't believe that was even close to my main point. However, if you continue to promote a Russian-generated conspiracy theory that has been debunked by U.S. intelligence agencies, can you really claim to be a politically well-informed individual?This is from Dr. Bandy Lee (@BandyXLee1) and describes Trump and his supporters perfectly
"Be careful, however, of “neither” or “both sides” arguments. Pathology first tries to gain equal footing with reality and then bulldozes over it."
Other Republicans (who don't fear for their jobs more than they love America) who join George Will - Gov John Kasich and https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/politics … index.html
One says "You're saying that all those people who came before the committee are lying under oath," Cohen said, urging lawmakers "to go back and look at the entire spectrum from the Mueller report. There's a pattern here of (Trump) saying, 'I'm not beholden to anyone.' "
Former Republican Rep. Justin Amash, also supports impeaching Trump. What do these non-Democrats see what Trump supporters don't?Please excuse the Trump-like crudeness but this is how I feel about it -
Mayday Mindy
Here is how a former Trump-voting Farmer feels about Trump NOW https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/201 … ay-vpx.cnn
Trump only loses votes - he doesn't gain any. This is why he won't win in 2020, too many farmers and too many women find him disgusting.Yrs, the current reality is that Trump is bleeding votes everywhere, including the three states that he narrowly won to give him the electoral college. Things could change, though, so we need to maintain focus and beat him in November.
Let me try again, I think I deleted it the first time -
Mayday MindyAh ha, I see what is happening. Hubpages is deleting it. Let me try it this way:
Mayday Mindy, whose twitter handle is maydaymindy9 wrote:
·
Seriously how does a b**w job rise to the occasion of an impeachment yet f**cking our Country over and over and over again is premature ejaculation?
Oh hell, PrettyPanther, look at the conclusion you appear to have jumped to.
My point is that even though I may not disagree with your opinion of Pres. Trump, I do believe there are honest and sincere folks that would. So I certainly will not categorize them with such a blanket description as you do. I understand that you don't think there can be any honest disagreement with your assessment, but I think, (even as a non-Trump supporter), that I am proof that there can be.
And . . . where did this thought that I promote a Russian-generated conspiracy come from? Which conspiracy? Also, I don't think I have ever claimed to be a "politically well-informed individual." I may have inferred that I think I look into politics more than the average Joe, but I would never claim such a title as you have bestowed. I might think it, (:-)), but I would say it.
GASorry, the "you" meant Trump supporters not you, GA. I'll respond more layer. It's been a long day.
Okay, I got it. Thanks for the clarification. You had me worried. ;-)
GA
Vindman is a well respected man, both in the US and Ukraine. Why should alarm bells set off on the offer? You're towing the Fox/Hannity line, aren't you?
Actually, I watched him and came to my own conclusion that he is the type of military leader that subordinates would mock and ridicule. To say that the Ukrainian government offered him a position proves what? That he is this amazing leader? Also, you don't demand a civilian to call you by your rank.
That says lots about your conclusions, not Vindman's integrity. Got anything else to base your opinion on, other than your opinion? Facts perhaps?
It also says a lot about his hate for our military and anything else American. Just what a Russian troll would do.
This isn't about reaching agreement so much as mocking you for posting so blatantly false attacks against brave civil servants. It seems anyone who speaks truth to Trump is part of the deep state in your brainwashed mind.
Oh, and it's hard to spy on the campaign when the FISA warrant is issued three weeks before the election on someone who had left the campaign more than a month prior to the issuance. Timelines are clearly above your educational level, but you keep repeating that propaganda.
ARTICLE 1: Obstruction of the Russia Investigation - PROOF - the evidence laid out in the Mueller Report. (a no brainer conviction by honest jurors)
ARTICLE 2: Obstruction of the Ukraine Investigation - PROOF - self-evident, Trump prohibited critical witnesses from obeying a lawful subpoena.
ARTICLE 3: Obstruction of Congress in Ukraine Investigation - PROOF - self-evident, Trump refused to turn over critical evidence requested in a lawful subpoena.
ARTICLE 4: [u]Bribery/u] - PROOF:
1. Zelenskyy says he wants Javelin missiles to fight the Russians who are invading his country. - SOURCE: Zelenskyy
2. Trump says he wants "a favor thought" -
SOURCE: Trump
3. Trump says he wants Biden, his political opponent, investigated along with a fake story about Ukrainian election interference. - SOURCE: Trump
4. Aid was withheld because of "asks" from Ukraine - SOURCE: Mulvaney
5. Trump wonders if "investigations" were happening, was told yes - SOURCE: Sondland
ARTICLE 4: [u]Abuse of Power - Wilfull violation of Impoundment Control Act/u] - PROOF: Trump withheld congressionally approved aid to Ukraine without informing Congress - SOURCE: Sandy
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!
"Schiff, Pelosi, and crew are scrambling to extricate themselves from the impeachment debacle they got themselves into. " - IS FALSE! The TRUTH is Trump got himself into this by being a criminal
"This sham impeachment initiative has literally blew up in their faces and exposed some of the deep state scum bags like Vindman (I'm sorry it is Lt Col Vindman), Sondland, Volkner, Hill, and others. " - SO YOU are declaring two things; 1) The Constitution is a sham and 2) You are unAmerican
"Hopefully the real criminals will be brought to justice and sent to jail for illegally falsifying information on a FISA document, for illegally spying on the Trump campaign, - HOROWITZ is already calling you a Trumper (liar)
- The Minstrelposted 5 years ago0
Proof: Trump is still president and not impeached for colluding with the Russians or obstructing the investigation. All false news propagated by the Dems and the Fake news media. The Mueller report and testimony was a complete bust for the Democrats and MSM. Again, he is still president.
Proof: Trump is still president and Schiff and Pelosi are stuck. Their impeachment sham is backfiring. Again, if he committed an impeachable offense then they would have voted on articles of impeachment and there would have been bipartisan support. It's a political stunt and you guys believe it's all true. The only ones believing the propaganda are you. I would question your intelligence or even level of sanity at this point. Hatred of anyone really blinds your abilty to see the truth. It's clouding your ability to reason.
Trump will win a second term and the Republicans will win back the house and hold the senate. The wall is going up, political crooks will go to jail, Conservative judges like Kavanaugh will be placed in our court system (Dr. Ford acted the part really well, but the lady couldn't even remember the place or time. Plus, all her witnesses didn't corroborate her story. Real believable), the military will grow stronger, unfair trade deals will be abolished, the central banking system will be disempowered and we will go back to the gold standard, and the economy will continue to improve.
The Democrats have nobody to challenge Trump, so they are resorting to false accusations like this sham impeachment inquiry. Sad. All their leaders are a joke, except Tulsi Gabbard. I don't agree with her, but she is the only one to call out Hillary and the corrupt Democratic party! They have been impeding Trump from day one. It's not about justice and truth for them, but the retaking of power. Sick!"Proof: Trump is still president and not impeached for colluding with the Russians or obstructing the investigation. " - SO FAR. After all no-balls, cowardly Republicans may see the truth and do the right thing for America even though it may cost them their jobs with people like you and other unConstitutionalists.
BTW, you need to look up the definition of Proof, it isn't your conjecture.
"When I tell you the bottom line is economics to me . . ."
You have just described the difference in our thinking Ken. The "economics" of a situation or argument is not the determining factor for me. I measure the success and value of my life by things I consider more important than economics.
I would much rather be a poor man with integrity and principles than a rich man with neither. The cliche' that money can't buy happiness may ring hollow to the father trying to scrape together a few dollars to feed his kids, but it rings very true to the folks that have tried to fix their life's miseries with money.
Of course, it is only my opinion, but I think the folks that judge the success of their leader by the effect it has on their wallet are lacking in both of the mentioned important components of a successful life.
The Wolf of Wall Street or the Gordon Gekkos of the world only represents a part of the picture of what I want my America to be. I am a strong pro-capitalism advocate. I fully support the environment that makes them possible, but my American picture also includes the Jimmy Carters, Ronald Reagans, and Carl Sagans.
You speak of veiled truths and political nuances as if they mean something in the determination of one's values, but I say they mean beans. They have no meaning beyond a point of discussion. They should have absolutely no bearing on one's values of integrity or morals. If they do, then I would say one is placing false values over true ones.
It is a good thing that jobs and opportunities are better than they have been since the 80s, but at what cost? I am not willing to sell my soul just to be financially better off.
Sorry that you had to be the recipient of my outburst, but from your perspective of dollar signs measuring success to those of the Left that deem any counter-argument to be acquiescence, I have had enough. I want to be 'Johnny'
The Devil Went Down to Georgia
GAWe just need Ken to feel safe, then he'll come over to the Dark Side:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ins … divisions/GA,
You have misplaced values and morals if you think the body that is Congress is fit to sit and judge on anyone over anything.
That den of thieves and murderers has fed on the misery of Americans and mishandling of America's future for decades now.
Hence Trump. Hence the Enemy of my Enemy... whatever it takes to break that enemy and bring forth some justice to the people.
You speak from a lofty place of wealth and good fortune about morals and integrity and principles, things you can afford that hundreds of millions cannot.
Those millions don't need leadership that promises them that the ACA will make everything cheaper for them, and then all it does is increase their costs by 100% from one year to the next.
Those millions don't need a government that bails out the billionaires and banks, letting them feel no pain for their greed and misdeeds, while tens of millions lost their homes, their retirement funds and their jobs.
Your outburst comes from a place of comfort and security... something tens of millions of Americans know little about, because for decades their leadership has sold them out to the highest bidder... Clinton, Biden, and so many that have sat in power for 30+ years in D.C. have profited immeasurably while tens of millions of Americans watched as their industrial might shipped overseas, and their government did everything imaginable to help that draining of wealth and jobs, while at the same time inflaming half the Middle East in endless war.
This really comes down to ideals, of global growth at the expense of American wellbeing, of borders and nations vs no-borders and globalism, of socialism vs capitalism... the past election, as well as the next, are all about these bigger issues, the truth of that is hidden by issues such as the Impeachment, and the Russian Conspiracy, and anything else they can use to distract.
That's why it doesn't matter GA.... because its all about the bigger picture and bigger issues. Do we step aside and let China rule the world, or do we stand in their way? Do we do away with borders and accept the UN 2030 Agenda and Migrant Compact or do we preserve our Nation?
Its about a lot more than Trump, and what the meaning of "is" is.Ken, You captured the reality of it!!!!!!!!
Thank you Mike,
And to add to that, it is why it was so important that Biden's activities be exposed... that knowledge of his 1.5 billion dollar deal with China became common knowledge.
People need to know that the person they are considering electing as President made shady deals through their son with a country trying to undermine America while he was VP.
What the Biden's may or may not have done in the Ukraine is a minor issue compared to possibly selling out to China, a country determined to usurp America as global leader, China has long been influencing America's elections, far more so than Russia, or any other nation.
Like Clinton, Biden is a poster child for D.C. corruption. The Democratic Party needs to get behind a fresh candidate not tied to politics as usual, one not intent on selling out America's interests to the highest bidders.
Now you have given me some meaty points to address Ken, and since I have calmed down after a fair night's sleep I will give it a shot.
First, I don't think your, (our), opinion of Congress has anything to do with the point of my comment. I only spoke to the wrongness, (as I see it), of using an economic yardstick to judge the success of a person or nation.
As for my lofty position of wealth and comfort, I can only say you don't know what my position is and that even a poor man can have integrity and principles—it's just harder to hold on to them.
I don't find a lot to disagree with in the rest of your comment, except, you seem to think we have to sell our soul to address those problems, and I don't.
The inevitable ideal of global growth doesn't have to come at the expense of America's well-being - America could be the leader of that growth, to our benefit.
Rather than step aside, we could work harder against China's behavior in more ways than just tariffs. I agree with Pres. Trump taking on the China problem, I just don't agree with the narrowness of his efforts or his lies about those efforts.
However, I do agree with you that the "Big Picture" of our problems and national direction are about a lot more than just Trump.
GAI'm going to emulate you and take issue with one.part of your post while agreeing with the overall content. ;-)
"As for my lofty position of wealth and comfort, I can only say you don't know what my position is and that even a poor man can have integrity and principles—it's just harder to hold on to them."
I believe research shows that the wealthy are more likely to engage in unethical behavior than the poor or middle class. For one, they have the means to get away with it; for another, they believe they "deserve" things more than do the underprivileged and are more likely to unethically "take" them.Or is that "unethical behavior" simply more likely to afoul of the law? The poor don't embezzle a million dollars, they just snatch a bicycle that wasn't chained up. They shoplift a $10 item while the rich fraudulently take a hundred thousand. The poor have an affair with a married neighbor while the rich have huge parties with prostitutes.
I actually doubt that rich are more unethical; they just do it in large enough amounts to make it worthwhile to catch them.I had to look that one up. Turns out that the RATE of unethical behavior (setting aside violent crime) amongst the better off is higher than people of less means, or so one study who looked at the question found.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-02-28/ … tudy-findsThis one summarizes several studies.
https://www.livescience.com/18683-rich- … study.htmlHere's the problem. The study is worthless. It proves nothing.
This is what they used for their conclusion.
*Tested whether upper-class drivers are more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk. (How would they know they were "upper class" drivers?)
*Participants read eight different scenarios that implicated an actor in unrightfully taking or benefiting from something, and reported the likelihood that they would engage in the behavior described. (Well, maybe this proves they can read)
* Participants completed a series of filler measures, which included the measure of unethical decision-making tendencies (Participants? "Participants.
One-hundred five University of California at Berkeley undergraduates")
* Participants took part in a hypothetical negotiation, assuming the role of an employer tasked with negotiating a salary with a job candidate seeking long-term employment. (Hypothetical negotiation? What a bunch of bunk!)
*Participants accessed the study via a private computer terminal and completed filler measures and the measure of unethical decision-making tendencies.
To actually think these studies have any real value is naive and gullible. It proves nothing and is probably done to keep graduate students employed and nothing more.
Here is a link to it.
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086Apparently ReadMikeNow knows nothing. His above comments strongly suggest that conclusion.
Really? I suggest an intelligent person would conclude I am neither naive or gullible. The left are people who praise the king's cloths. Speaking the truth does bring out the worst of those on the left. Your above comments strongly suggest that conclusion.
Nobody said you are either naive or gullible (although I do think you are the latter), what I said was that you don't no what you are talking about.
I will grant you that one study does not categorically prove that increased wealth is correlated with increased unethical behavior. However, one must look at the body of studies on this subject as a starting point to understanding human behavior. While I'm not going to take the time to examine each individual study for its validity, if a body of studies leans heavily toward one conclusion, then one must at least consider the results to be a probable indication that increased wealth correlates with increased unethical behavior.
The next question would be, are there any studies that counter these? If so, is it just a few? Is it enough to render all of them as useless indicators of how wealth correlates with unethical behavior?
Let me know if you are aware of studies that counter this fairly well documented correlation. I would be interested in knowing about them. Of course, I'm sure you will look at them with the same skepticism you have applied to those mentioned in the articles shared here.
Fair point, and I was expecting such a counter. However, I believe it equally fair to assume that both you and I are well enough situated at least, that we have the time for this discussion in the first place.
No, I see it as Congress, and the Media which supports it, and the Establishment, the variety of agencies within D.C., have sold their souls, and sold out the American people.
I see Trump as the only tool (or weapon) that the American people have had to use against the cabal, the overwhelming body of corruption that has set out to destroy America and the liberties and freedoms its citizens have had (in comparison to say communist China or even socialist France) liberty and freedom which includes the ability to succeed (or fail) economically as you abilities allow.
Then unfortunately GA, your sources of information regarding what Trump has done is limited. Trump has taken far reaching efforts to restrict China, from banning Huawei, to the protection of US businesses’ intellectual property.
China represents the most serious long-term threat to America’s global pre-eminence and economic solvency. Trump is the first President to accept the reality that China has been at war with America, and his efforts must be viewed in this context. US tariffs may be focused on undermining China’s long-term economic potential, but the underlying motivation is to weaken China as a strategic rival and protect America.
In an open letter, nearly 100 Congressmen, including both Republicans and Democrats, and many vocal critics of Trump's current Chinese policies recently called on Trump not to treat China as an enemy.
That is a huge red flag to how deeply China's claws have sunk into our political body, and the establishment, that 100 people in Congress would speak out against a President that is making efforts to protect national interests and American intellectual properties and secrets.
100 people in Congress that feel American interests and the American people, should take a back seat to China's wants and needs.
And yet, we have 'news' outlets that have worked for the last 3 years to get Americans to ignore all of those issues, or paint them in a light that makes them the fault of Trump, the 'Trade War' with China included.
In a open republic/democracy, a government cannot pursue a long-term struggle with a powerful geopolitical adversary without sustained political support from an informed public.
Americans are anything but well informed in regards to China, and its very real threat to much of what we take for granted. And we are faced with the dual threat of the efforts to 'globalize' the 'western world' at a time when China is eclipsing America and we need to gather our national strength, not open our borders and provide free healthcare to all who reach us.
A key difference between our perspectives GA, is that for decades now, I have known the likes of CNN and all mainstream news sources to be sources of misinformation and falsehoods as far back as 1996 when I was on location in a foreign land, and CNN showed up to do a report on what was occurring, and then I watched that report, and saw it was the complete opposite of the truth, it was a complete fabrication.
In another situation, I was involved in one incident where many American soldiers died, and many more non-Americans died, yet the event never happened, those deaths never happened, and the official reports did away with it entirely.
It is an unfortunate thing for me, when debating issues such as this with someone whose intelligence and wit I appreciate, because experience has taught me (far more than I mention here) that the news we watch and listen to, is nothing more than propaganda and misinformation, and it is hard to find the real truth about anything political or foreign in nature... our media, and our information sources are not set up that way.
This has now passed into search engines like Google, that filter search results so that only the information they want you exposed to is easy to find.
But this is another issue entirely, and a topic for another thread.Thanks Ken, I also enjoy our discussions. As mentioned in a previous exchange, I do not ignore or refute the "Big Picture" issues you talk about, but in order to enjoy good discussions on these forums, I have found that a micro-focus on the point(s) of discussion is critically necessary. Otherwise, every discussion would devolve into a tentacled mass of whataboutisms.
This recent exchange is a good example. Of your last two or three comments, I find very little that I disagree with, but your points, (even though I agree), aren't the points of our discussion.
It appears that I hold Congress and the Main Stream Media in the same regard that you do, but that doesn't obviate the truth of many of the anti-Trump comments that abound here.
Just one example, China; I like that Pres. Trump is confronting China. I think it should have been done years ago, but we lacked the political will. I don't think tariffs are the whole answer, but I do think they serve as a starting point—an attention-getter. So I do support the tariffs, even when they cause economic pain. But I don't support the blatant presidential lie that China is paying the tariffs.
Why does our president feel the need to proclaim such an obvious falsehood? As you can see, falsehoods abound beyond the MSM.
But on a lighter note, I am generally tuned into CNN all day. Not because I believe their reporting, but because I know that if there is anything that can be promoted as anti-trump they will be promoting it. And then I can go looking for the truth of the issue from multiple sources. In my mind, CNN should be renamed AT&AT—Anti-trump All the Time. I also believe that is why CNN has falling ratings. I think folks are just tired of hearing that stuff 24 hrs. a day.
GAThe problem, GA, with a tariff war such as what Trump has started, is the aggressor ALWAYS loses; in this case, that is America. At no time in our, or any other nations history, has such a trade war have a good outcome - never.
I am surprised you say that about CNN, GA, because they make a point of having both sides on their panels. It is rare that Democrats are given the same platform on Fox. To me, watching/reading CNN, PBS, Politico, The Hill are sufficient to get a fair picture of what is happening in the world.
Fox, on the other hand is simply a propaganda outlet for Trump.I agree with your thought about tariffs—as historically documented, but I see our current efforts, (even though I would agree to be misguided), as at least a start. Even if we are now, and end up, losing the tariff battle, at least they are an effort.
Other than that perspective, I agree with you that there is no upside to a tariff war.
I wasn't making a Fox comparison. I very seldom watch Fox, except for some Brett Beir and Cavuto timeframes. Even as you note that CNN often includes opposing viewpoints, my constant listening to CNN leaves me with the impression I previously described. It seems that unless it is an incident like the recent London stabbings, CNN is anti-Trump All the time. It has become background noise to me.
GAHmmm, would your rather CNN not report on most of the bad things Trump does in order to appear at least neutral?
As to the tariffs, let me make a metaphor. Do you see punching yourself in the face multiple times as a good way to start attacking China and the rest of the world while he is at it? If it were me, I would have found a less destructive way.
Should a different approach than the one 4 previous presidents and Congresses tried? Probably. But, is it true that those previous presidents and Congresses did nothing? Not even close.
Let's take currency manipulation. While guilty of that during Clinton and Bush, they stopped it, due to world pressure, during the Obama administration. That may be why Trump broke a promise to name them as a currency manipulator - he couldn't."That matters fundamentally to the American people. Because if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. That's why the framers created the possibility of impeachment." says one of the constitutional experts
It has been interesting listening to the constitutional experts. Their knowledge of the founding fathers' intent is awe-inspiring and really brings home how carefully they considered the framing of the constitution.
When the impeachment produces zero results (Trump remains in office) because democracy worked (the elected representatives of the people voted) even if you didn't get the result you wanted, what then? Will you demand a dictatorship, perhaps run by Pelosi, so you can have your way in spite of the democratic process? When he is re-elected (through the democratic process of the people's vote) for a second term will you then demand a dictatorship to get your way? Will you support another 4 years of congressional stalemate while they "investigate" some more in further efforts to cancel out the democratic process?
If...knowing the evidence that has been produced that clearly shows criminality, I do hope there is as much stalemate as possible to prevent a Trump agenda should he escape accountability from the Senate and his brainwashed following.
Applause. A real champion of democracy, where the vote of the people (or their representatives) controls, aren't you? Would you prefer to simply ban any political party other than yours?
If you can't have your own way, then there shall be no other way happening, right?Bows. I am a champion of democracy, where we have free and fair elections and not those where one party solicits foreign interference - something considered illegal in our Constitution. So if one party ignores that kind of lawlessness, I'm all for banning them as that is about as un-American as you can get.
Oh yes - I forgot that the idiot FB posts from Russia convinced millions of deplorables to vote for Trump instead of their natural choice of a Democrat, and obviously produced a far different result than if they hadn't been made. Yep, just forgot all about how that happened.
And of course it never occurs to you that a democratic vote, free of influence but one that disagrees with your pre-ordained charge of "guilty!", just might be the right one. And obviously when Trump is re-elected in spite of the horrendous actions of Democrats caring ONLY for their political power it could never be considered as democracy in action. No, it will always be because of cheating...in spite of the fact that the only party actually caught in effective cheating was the Democrat one in their own primaries. Un-American it was, right?You are so ignorant to claim that Russian influence was only a bunch of facebook posts. Please do some more research.
You just keep sitting there in denial about Trump's crimes and watch as he bends over for Russia some more. I'll be over here with the people horrendously trying to uphold the Constitution.Yes. You will uphold it...as long as your concept of democracy (you get what you want) works. Meaning, in this case, that Trump is removed from office. That is what you said, right? And if you don't get it that means you will do whatever you can, and encourage others to do the same, regardless of the democratic process that put him in office.
Am I reading you right? That the constitution and democracy is wonderful...but only as long as it produces what you want to see?You couldn't read me right in your wildest dreams. You like to put words into people's mouths to frame them how you want to see them. It'd be like me asking you if I'm reading you right that you are a racist because you support a person that makes racist statements. Or do you enjoy sexual assaulting women because you support someone who claims to do just that? Are those your values?
For me, I have clearly stated that I don't feel a criminal deserves to occupy the presidency, nor should we trust someone who gets there with foreign assistance. Especially when they commit obstruction of justice to shield the foreign government who interfered.After watching and listening to today's hearing, we must rid ourselves of this criminal. But those who defend him can't see the danger of letting him remain in power.....or don't care about our laws in the first place.
After seeing today's hearing, I've come to the conclusion there are many forces at work here. The GOP congress wants Trump to get re-elected, because if he doesn't, they also won't get re-elected.
I'm pretty certain the Dems in the house are going to impeach Trump for abuse of power, including bribery and obstruction of justice.The dems want him impeached before the election.
The GOP controlled senate will let Trump go free as a result of the trial and Chief Justice Robert's rulings . The question is will Trump have learned anything about what constitutes impeachable actions by a president? If he hasn't, he will continue to do the same thing he has done in the past.
But, if he doesn't get re-elected, he will no longer be a sitting president and more than likely be indicted for obstruction of justice in accordance with the Mueller report.
If he does get re-elected, he'll boast about how he has been a victim and also vindicated. He will continue to ignore the constitution and God only knows where we will end up.
The house has to impeach him or it will set a precedent for other presidents to operate with impunity above the law.I agree, this may be a turning point in our country's bid to be a lawful nation. If the POTUS has power to break the law at will, we're no longer a Republic.
"The GOP congress wants Trump to get re-elected, because if he doesn't, they also won't get re-elected." - I THINK the GOP is screwed regardless of how it goes. If they keep a criminal in the White House, all but Trump supporters will turn on them. If they do the right thing for America and convict TraitorTrump, then the 30% of brainwashed supporters will turn on them.
That said "The house has to impeach him or it will set a precedent for other presidents to operate with impunity above the law." is the most prescient statement there is.
Wilderness only believes in certain parts of the Constitution, mainly the part that Trump thinks says he can do anything he wants.
Why must you always use dumb hyperbole Wilderness? "Oh yes - I forgot that the idiot FB posts from Russia convinced millions of deplorables to vote for Trump " - Indeed.
As I have said to you many times before, the Russians only needed to convince 80,000 voters in three targeted states to either vote for Trump or not vote for Clinton. Given the power of advertising (which I guess you don't) it is easy-peasy.
Obviously you don't believe in the Constitution, do you Wilderness.
Do you think "democracy works" when the president ignores every lawfully issued subpoena in a legitimate impeachment inquiry and orders his staff do to the same?
Do you think if he provided requested materials and allowed witnesses like Pompeo and Mulvaney to testify that the issue of his guilt or innocence of these charges could be definitively determined?
Even Nixon cooperated to a certain extent. So did Clinton. Why should Trump get away with abusing his power to protect himself?Do you think that if the other half of the House (republican) was allowed to call witnesses and testimony that it might cast additional light on the matter? Do you find it reasonable that the "defense" is not allowed to participate? That no evidence contrary to the desire of Democrats to impeach will be heard (until it reaches the Senate, anyway)? Do you find it useful to the country for the controlling party in power to ignore the needs of that country in favor of attempting political games to destroy their opponents and grow their power?
I don't know why I bothered. Went against my own new policy.
Carry on.Like with normal investigative processes, the Republicans (the Defense) can call witnesses during the trial. No prosecutor worth their salt would ever let the Defense interfere with its investigation. In this case, the Democrats DID allow the defense to try to make a mockery of the investigation.
Keep in mind, the Democrats wanted Trump's minions to testify, which puts a lie to your claim that "That no evidence contrary to the desire of Democrats to impeach will be heard" .
TELL ME - why didn't Trump let McGahn testify? - Because McGahn would crucify him
TELL ME - why didn't Trump let Bolton testify? - Because Bolton would crucify him
TELL ME - why didn't Trump let Mulvaney testify? - Because Mulvaney, would crucify him.
TELL ME - why didn't Trump let the OMB officials testify? - Because the OMB officials would crucify him
TELL ME - why didn't Trump let Pompeo testify? - Because Pompeo would crucify him
Need I go on?? What is TraitorTrump hiding? What is it he doesn't want these people to tell the investigators.
"because democracy worked" - WRONG - because Republicans fear for their JOBS more than they care about America.
INTERESTING - the Republican Constitutional expert who says Trump should not be impeached once said that Clinton should be (even though there was no truly impeachable offence).
How partisan of him.I think you owe Prof. Turley a bit of clarification and context. He has said he does not think the current impeachment process has determined all available pertinent facts and that the charges, from his perspective at this point, are based on inferences drawn from an incomplete investigation.
GAWhen I take this Republican-biased expert's total testimony into consideration, I doubt there would ever be enough evidence to convince him that Trump is guilty.
Fortunately, we have the credible testimony from the other experts (one being clearly biased toward the Democrats but the other two are non-partisan) who clearly see Trump is guilty so long as the evidence presented is truthful.
There is a threefold reason why we never did anything:
ONE is the same reason why 100 people in Congress openly chastised Trump for his efforts against China, this is because they have financial support from China through various donors be they businesses or individual investors.
If you remember back to when Bill Clinton ran for President, all the fallout from his receiving substantial campaign funding from various Chinese businessmen.
There have been those in China's leadership that have boasted about how they buy off critical politicians who in turn allow them to have their way with the nation.
VP Biden was another such politician as was SoS Kerry.
TWO International corporations wanted in, they wanted a piece of China, from Apple to GM to Walmart and they too put pressure on politicians to allow things to remain as they were.
THREE the going thought from 'think tanks' was that China would mellow over time and become more 'westernized' as they developed a 'middle class'.
Pandering to his base?
Being bombastic and a blow-hard so that the media covers his efforts, if only in their attempt to disprove him or belittle them?
I honestly can't be sure, because I don't follow him, I can't stand listening to him (except for the very rare instances where he is reading a rehearsed speech like he did in his Address to the Nation and the UN).
I keep tabs on what he does through more thoughtful and well articulated reports that I can find, such as in the WSJ.
I have a fondness for those who can express themselves well, with wit and thoughtfulness and profound intelligence. I could listen to Kennedy's speeches for hours and not have to take a break. Five minutes of Trump is pushing my threshold.
I don't care if Trump acts the clown, so long as what he does benefits the nation and its citizens. I don't have to listen to him anymore than I have to watch CNN.
You have my sympathies.
I'm sure its doing more damage than you realize. ;-)"There is a threefold reason why we never did anything:" - GA, this is what I am talking about a "made-up world".
Once again, you prove my point, that you are the one who is blind to reality and on a crusade, like a fanatical extremist.
ONE - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … ibery.html
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/gop … -politics/
TWO - https://www.itimanufacturing.com/news/f … facturing/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/11/10-icon … stors.html
THREE - https://www.gppi.net/2018/03/15/china-i … ed-to-date
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/ … new-global""There is a threefold reason why we never did anything:" is simply fanciful, Ken, otherwise known as a flat out lie.
ONE - OK, so what, you got a crooked foreigner. What has that to do with our gov't NEVER doing anything about China? Nothing!
ONE.1 - OK, an American firm owned by a Chinese couple donated money to a superpac. Maybe the article said that was illegal, but I didn't see it. But how does that prove Nothing was done?? It doesn't.
TWO - OK, the free market works. How does that Prove "why we never did anything:"?? It doesn't
TWO.1 - OK, the free market works and I can show you 20 iconic companies owned by the English. How does that Prove "why we never did anything:"?? It doesn't
THREE - OK, doesn't this one actually PROVE we tried to do something???
THREE.1 - OK, ... I actually don't see what this article proves one way or another.
If that is the case, then you haven't advanced your perspective a bit. Conversely, I think you have eroded it.
GA
As reported on Wednesday the head of Burisma Holdings was indicted this week in Ukraine!
Ukrainian Prosecutor General indicted Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky.
The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million over several years for their ‘services’ in Ukraine.
REVEALED: Adam Schiff Connected to Both Companies Named in $7.4 Billion Burisma-US-Ukraine Corruption Case
https://conservativechoicecampaign.com/ … tion-case/
Schiff is connected to both BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments, two companies that were named in the $7.4B Burisma/US-Ukraine corruption claim.
http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/fina … 016142.pdfBoy Blue, you sure are full of lies - WHY??? NO, the Burisma owner DID NOT get indicted! Sheesshh
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fac … wednesday/
REVEALED - Rep Devin Nunes conspired with Giuliani to find non-existent dirt on the Bidens.
Since you present one lie, why aren't the rest lies as well?
Suppose you commit murder. You have a daughter. By your logic, your daughter is a criminal as well - JUST BY ASSOCIATION.WOW!!!! John Durham -- who Barr appointed to find proof the FBI set-up Trump. -- has found nothing WRONG!!! Boy are the #noballsrepublicans going to #EatCrow. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/politics … index.html
Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman warned: "If we cannot impeach a President who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy."
"We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. That is why the framers created the possibility of impeachment."
You know, maybe the framers were aware of the possibility of a faction of citizens supporting a dictator. Just because 40%, or so, are under Trump's spell, it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it unconstitutional to impeach him. This is true even if his support were over 70%, as was Clinton's rating when he was impeached.Yes, they were VERY aware of this. They talked about it and they wrote about it. It is one reason they ]b]didn't want[/b] the masses to have a direct vote in electing a president.
I agree hard sun, I think the Framers were acutely aware of the danger of factions, And that the size of the faction was irrelevant to their concern.
GADeleted
Would you ignore a congressional subpoena, Ken? Do you think congress has oversight over the POTUS? Do you believe--unlike yourself--Trump is above the law?
This political maneuvering has all been done before, as seen below:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/p … gress.html
and
May 12, 2013 · President Barack Obama is resisting a congressional subpoena for documents related to how the administration responded to the revelation of the failed operation known as “Fast and Furious” on the U.S.- Mexican border.
and
https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/was- … g-subpoenaYou didn't answer my query, Ken. Would you ignore a subpoena as if you were above the law?
I think this clip I found is my answer to that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7f9WhuKYLU
Ken - that is what is called False Equivalency. You are trying to compare jay-walking with murder and putting them on the same playing field. Of course, that displays your total lack of objectivity unless you are one of those people who think ALL crimes deserve exactly the same penalty.
In that case, your comment makes sense.I asked if YOU would ignore a subpoena, Ken?
Totally irrelevant.
But what do you think happens when this reaches the Senate?
What type of information surfaces then? What happens when the other side is allowed to bring forth evidence and argue their case?
If the House impeaches, the next step is for the Senate to hold a trial.
Or the Republican majority in the Senate could vote to immediately dismiss the case without any consideration of the evidence if it wanted.
Making the Impeachment trial disappear as quickly as possible might be helpful, but it also carries risks, it would make it look like they're trying to cover something up and would implicate the Senate GOP in Trump's actions.
My guess is that the Republicans will control the content, dialogue and direction of the trial much like the House Democrats tried to do... only they will shift focus onto the potential wrongdoing in the Ukraine by Biden, and the bias of witnesses and whistleblowers and bring forth their own witnesses that will praise Trumps patriotism and his rights to do as he did as the President and Executive Branch.
I think they will use this platform to destroy the Democrats, expose a great deal of the antics and efforts of the previous Admin as to their efforts in the Ukraine, and in "investigating" Trump's ties to Russia.
The potential for this to completely destroy the 'moderate" body of the Democrats is pretty good IMO, I do believe it will help transform the Democratic Party completely, so that it then resembles the politics going forth of the likes of Warren and AOC.
This is inevitably what the nation needs, for their to be two extreme options from the two parties, with the 'business as usual" corporate corruption and criminal sell-outs unable to remain in office... real choices for real change... with one side winning.
The best outcome is that either the resistance to Trump is washed away and he has the freedom to make the changes he wants... or Trump is washed away and the Democrats have voted in enough new voices so that Warren (or who-ever) has enough support to make her changes.
Either way, real change is needed, and sell-outs like Biden need to go.
My Esoteric, the Democrats do indeed have every right to oppose Trump, and Trump's policies--at the polls, in a national election.
And while Congress may impeach a president, there is a Constitutional standard for this, which is that he be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Apparently in Trump's case, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" consist in seeking investigation of corruption--which, by the way, is his duty as head of the Executive Branch of government. So...not exactly a crime. Nor is it a crime to investigate the criminal doings of members of opposing political parties, even if it is politically beneficial to you. I suppose the theory here is that Democrats who commit crimes cannot be investigated or prosecuted as long as a Republican president is in office--lest the criminals suffer at the polls. It could turn out that the electorate is not much in favor of electing criminals to public office.
The quid-pro-quo angle of the thing is likewise bollocks. If it indeed occurred (the Democrats' case for this is based entirely on hearsay), it would be perfectly appropriate to withhold US taxpayers' funds from a foreign government if there is a concern about corrupt misappropriation of said funds. To fail to do so would be a failure of fiduciary duty.
So the optics on impeachment are very bad. It plays kind of like it would if Democrats were demanding that Ed Buck not be prosecuted for what appears to be the drug-related serial murders of gay black men, because it might reflect poorly on his pal, Adam Schiff.
It will be entertaining to see if House Democrats actually proceed with impeachment. It is hard to believe that they will actually do so, as this would expose them to a Senate trial, in which the usual standards of due process would presumably be observed--and which have not been observed during the House proceedings.
In a Senate trial, Trump's attorneys would be able to subpoena witnesses, access evidence, examine witnesses, have counsel present at hearings, and have evidence that is favorable to him disclosed. The House has hitherto conducted Star Chamber proceedings, in which these basic standards of due process have been abrogated.
And even with these advantages, the Democrats have come up empty.
They will get slaughtered in a Senate trial.
Plus the American people are likely to watch the proceedings.
Of course the House still has to vote on this, so maybe they'll get a clue. But many of us, perhaps unkindly, hope they will go forward with an impeachment trial in which (figuratively speaking) the Democrats will be gargling in their own blood.There's a couple of holes in your theory. First is that the corruption was based on a false premise for why Biden had Shokin removed. Second is that Sondlund testified that the after speaking to Trump directly and Guiliani, the announcement of the investigation was what mattered, not actually conducting an investigation in order for Ukraine to get the White House meeting. Three, that Ukraine had already met all the anti-corruption benchmarks needed to have that aid released. So there was no reason to continue to hold it back unless it was part of the quid pro quo. Fourth, it's hard to argue hearsay when both Trump and Mulvaney have gone on national television and confirmed they held back the aid in order to get investigations.
As for your argument on process, as has been noted earlier, Trump has been given more rights during this inquiry phase than both Nixon and Clinton had previously. And as the trial progresses to the Senate, which is a guarantee as Trump's abuse of his office went directly toward compromising the 2020 election, the prosecution should continue to press for Bolton, Mulvaney (who already admitting publicly, as did Trump that it was a quid pro quo), Pompeo and Guiliani to testify as they have all been implicated as well.For those of you who think that the house investigation and judicial committee hearings are one sided, here are the house rules.
Investigation and Hearings Under House Rule XI:
Committees have the authority to subpoena persons or written records, conduct hearings, and incur expenses (including travel expenses) in connection with investigations.27 Rule XI, clause 2(h)(2), requires two committee members to take testimony or receive evidence. In past impeachment proceedings, the House has agreed to resolutions authorizing committee staff to take depositions without Members present, and the Judiciary Committee has agreed to internal guidelines for the mode and conduct of depositions. 28 In the 116th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 6, the chairs of all standing committees (except the Rules Committee) as well as the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence may order the taking of depositions by committee counsel. In modern practice, the federal official under investigation is generally allowed certain rights, including the right to be represented by counsel. If a committee were to conduct hearings, these proceedings would generally be governed by House and committee rules (and any specific rules agreed to in the authorizing resolution). Under House Rule XI, notice of hearings must be provided one week in advance, and members of the committee are guaranteed the right to question witnesses under the five-minute rule. Hearings are generally public, but they could be closed pursuant to regular House rules that allow the committee to agree, by holding a vote in public session with a majority of the committee present, to close a hearing for three specific reasons: the evidence or testimony would endanger national security, compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to “defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness.” 29 Again, the resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation could alter these procedures. The Judiciary Committee conducted multiple public hearings in connection with the impeachment of federal judges in 2009.30 The committee had created a task force to investigate whether two federal judges should be impeached. The task force conducted hearings during which they heard from a variety of witnesses, including law professors with expertise on impeachable offenses, individuals with information about the crimes the judges were accused of committing, and task force attorneys who reported on the status of the investigation. In 1998, the Judiciary Committee held four hearings in connection with the impeachment of President Clinton. The committee received testimony from 19 experts on the history of impeachment at one hearing and from the independent counsel at another. Various witnessed testified at a third hearing on the consequences of perjury and related crimes. Over two days of hearing in early December 1998, at the request of the Administration, the committee also heard testimony from White House counsel. 31 In recent decades, it has been more common than not that a congressional committee used information provided from another outside investigation. In four of the five judicial impeachment investigations undertaken by the Judiciary Committee since 1980, “the accused judge had either been subject to a federal criminal trial or pled guilty to a federal criminal charge prior to the initiation of impeachment proceedings in the House.” 32 In the case of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, as mentioned above, the results of an independent counsel investigation alleging impeachable offenses were submitted to the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
My Esoteric, if in fact "50% of "Joe Public" (61% of Jane Public) want to see Trump impeached and removed, it would be fair to assume that the Democrats are confident they will win the next presidential election. Thus making impeachment a moot point.
Actually (IHMO) the reverse is true. I suspect they know very well that they will lose the next presidential election, probably by a significant margin. Since the electorate has largely turned against them, impeachment (along with their prior attempts at a coup) is their only hope. They're done.
J.H. Kunstler's blog post for today sums it up well: "What is the Democratic Party today? Well, it’s the cheerleading squad for 'seventeen' government agencies that add up to the craftily-labeled 'intel community,' a warm-and-fuzzy coalition of snoops, false witnesses, rogue lawfare cadres, seditionists, and bad-faith artists working sedulously to hide their previous misdeeds with ever-fresh ones. They’re the party against free speech, the party against due process of law, the party determined to provoke war with Russia. They’re the party of sexual confusion, sexual hysteria, and sexual conflict, the party of kangaroo courts, cancel culture, erasing boundaries (including national borders), and of making up rules for all that as they go along — like the Nazis and Soviets used to do. The ideas and policies they advocate are so comprehensively crazy that their old support of slavery looks quaintly straightforward in comparison." https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation … ht-moment/
Kunstler actually missed a few things: The Democrats are also anti-Second Amendment, pro-abortion (up to and including infanticide), the authors of policies that have gutted the middle class and gutted the US manufacturing base, the pro-war party, the authors of the Obamacare fiasco, the authors of policies leading to staggering urban decay (with a side of bankruptcy). Their policies have been immensely injurious to black Americans. (And black Americans know this.)
Most of us are puzzled that the Democrats have any constituency at all. Their candidates for the presidential nomination can't fill a high school cafeteria with supporters. Their fundraising is in the crapper.
Impeachment is--partly--a desperate attempt to regain power that they know they can't regain in an election. The other part is a desperate attempt to avoid having their crimes exposed.
Kunstler has a few things to say about that: "Of course, behind the Horowitz report loom the specters of Barr & Durham. Whatever they’ve been up to has been hermetically sealed in a globe of silence even more oppressive and nightmarish for the Dems than the IG’s inquiry. Barr & Durham are able to make things stick, most crucially genuine criminal culpability for the entire RussiaGate fiasco and all of its offshoots, including the most recent “Whistleblower” caper — a patently treasonous scheme. Who knows if and when indictments start raining down, but there’s a chance that it will be a very hard rain indeed."- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
Here's living proof that liberals don't care about quid pro quo. The front runner of the DNC who threatened to withhold money from the Ukraine unless they fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.
I hope people on the left are in touch with reality to know the impeachment is not going well. It will not pass the Senate. At least three Democrats have publicly said they don't want to pursue impeachment.
The economic numbers are VERY good.
So,
What happens when this is all over and President Donald Trump is not impeached and gets re-elected in 2020? How will the left handle four more years of President Donald Trump? What if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate and gain control of the house? That is a very real possibility.
What will those on the left do then? Blame in the Russians? Ukrainians? Faulty voting machines? They'll blame everybody and everything other than who is truly responsible; themselves.So well said... many of my own circle of friends (Dems and Rep) are angered due to lack of actual evidence to continue with this for impeachment. Finding it a waste of money, and making the country look foolish. In my opinion, the Dems will not stop their delusional silliness. And it will be very interesting, to see what they reach for next in their trick bag... and I might add beneficial for the republicans for many more presidential elections. They certainly have gone off the track, hard to understand why they continue down such a destructive path? I would suppose this impeachment is a last-ditch effort?
Why do you, Sharlee, keep referring to all of this as a delusion? You, yourself, acknowledged that Trump most probably did what he is being accused of. Do you not think that this was abuse of his authority as President requires impeachment. I mean if the GOP had no problem with impeachment proceedings surrounding the issue of who Bill Clinton was sleeping with, I can't imagine how this misstep by Trump can just be ignored?
I know that the weak kneed GOP Senate would never convict him of anything as they all share in his guilt and success remaining in office in one form or another.
I feared the process from the beginning not because Donald Trump does not deserve it but because it would be short circuited by the GOP Senate and we Dems waste precious time and resources needed to insure that Donald Trump is a one term president next fall.Trump admitted he wanted an investigation into his political opponent by a foreign country, which was waiting for congressionally approved money to keep their people from dying, and you see nothing wrong there? It wasn't his money to bribe them with, Shar. You simply cannot understand this concept, can you?
Randy, first the people of Ukraine were not in any added danger du t the aid being held. Several witnesses were asked that very question and said the hold on the aid had no effect on the country defending itself. I realize Nacey Pelosi has been spreading this untruth. That's what the Dems do, make it up as they go.
I have repeated myself frequently in regard to the request Trump made to Zelinsky. Not only believe he has the right as the President to make such a request of a foreign country. He certainly made the request per protocol, he asked Zelinsky to work with the AG and investigate not only the Biden's but CrowStrike.
It is unfortunate that it could appear Trump was looking for a favor or a personal gain due to Biden running in 2020. However, Trump certainly was transparent not only on the call but many months before the call checking into Ukraine's possible interference in the 2016 election. Not sure if you forgot Durham, Barr, as well as Horowitz, are all conducting investigations of the 2016 election. It most likely was and will be complicated due to the Dem's tradition at being very despicable politicians. I have faith their investigations will shed light on who did what, and who is continuing down the same path.
You appear to let emotions control or cloud your opinions. In this case, the truth is the aid that was held was given, and for much of the time it was being held for, Ukrain did not even realize it was being held. You are clearly quoting statements you are hearing on CNN. You need to do some deeper research. They tend to leave out much of the content in their reporting. Which leads to non-factual reporting.
I think the Bidens need to be investigated, I could care less that e is running for the presidency. In fact, that makes the investigation a must as I see it."first the people of Ukraine were not in any added danger du t the aid being held. " - SHOW ME a quote from a competent Ukrainian who actually said something like that. They are in a shooting war with Russia and Trump withheld almost $400 million in aid for 55 days. And the ONLY reason he released it is because the Republicans found out and actually showed some backbone for a change.
What evidence to you have Shar that comes remotely close to probable cause to investigate the Bidens?? Is it simply because Trump wants it to help his election that you want it?
Trump has never been transparent in his life.
"What happens when this is all over and President Donald Trump is not impeached and gets re-elected in 2020? How will the left handle four more years of President Donald Trump? What if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate and gain control of the house? That is a very real possibility."
Your imagination is getting the better of you, what would you do if Trump is either impeached or voted out next fall and the Dems get enough momentum to get the Senate majority and hold on to the house? Under the current circumstances, we cannot rule that out.
Who then would you blame? So, don't count your chickens.....I'm basing that statement on the fact that three Democrat Congressmen have come out against impeachment. That tells me if there are three publicly, how many are there behind closed doors? Also, the Senate won't convict President Donald Trump. I firmly believe he did nothing wrong and the Democrats have failed terribly to make the case.
Could the Democrats take the Senate and hold the majority in the house? Yes, but it just does't look that way. Too many battle state polling shows the Democrats struggling, especially in rural areas.
Could President Donald Trump be voted out of office? Yes, but there is not one single Democrat candidate who is that well liked in their party let alone by the country.
I think the impeachment will hurt the Democrats in many ways. Joe Biden has hurt the Democrats in many ways with his latest antics.
I just don't see things coming together for the Democrats.
FYI...I predicted Obama winning his first election against McCain. He had SO much momentum and support at his rallies. McCain was not a gifted speaker or debater. I didn't like it, but I dealt with it. I also knew he was going to beat Romney. Obama was too loved by too many people.Mike, Obama only won because of the 2008 economic tsunami that was blamed on GW Bush and the Republicans. It is difficult to remove an incumbent that was doing relatively well, and Romney had an incoherent message in 2012.
I guess we are all waiting for the definitive IG report containing unassailable information either absolving Trump or condemning him. We have to wait until December 9th.
We do have a schism in the party, but we will close ranks around the successful nominee if for no other reason but to get Trump out. Our constituencies are not in rural areas, anyway. We have to motivate and drive urban, minority, and the young electorate base to excitement about the proposed nominee and Biden does not do that for me.
You remember that the pollsters never would have imagined a fellow like Donald Trump getting as far as he did. Everybody got it wrong. Can the Democrats succeed? Stranger things have happened to everyone's surprise.While Biden might not drive excitement, such as Warren or Sanders, he does offer moderate positions that can give moderate conservatives an option if they feel the similar embarrassment at the world leaders laughing at Trump.
I imagine this is why Buttigieg has remained around so long as he mirrors Biden's stances while appealing to the moderate conservatives who are disgusted by Trump.
Both are remaining near the top of the pile because they are not proposing policies that are adding costs to a country already in a trillion dollar deficit. An economically conservative candidate who can sell the successes of the economic policies of the last two Democratic Presidents will appeal to some in the opposing party.Valeant, I have to disagree. Trump voters are captivated in a supernatural sense regarding their choice. If we have a lack luster performance and relatively poor showing such as we had with Senator Clinton in 2016, we can lose again.
I don't see very many "moderate conservatives", the GOP is virtually all "hard right", thus the success of Trump in spite of all of the outrage. Conservatives (any conservative) do not care for Democrats and I would not gamble an election based upon their support.
There remains something fundamentally wrong with the way the economy and the society is currently structured and I think regardless of party, as Bloomberg attests to, it is more important to stick to the status quo no matter what. Many of us want to move things along a bit more.I can understand that disagreement, but for every Shar, Jack, Mike, Dan, and Ken, there is a Gus who will at least give the other side an even-keeled consideration.
Those supporting Warren and Sanders are so far to the left that there's no worry of losing them to Trump should they at least be treated fairly this time around. The shenanigans of the DNC hurt Clinton as much as Comey and Russia, even after Sanders took the high road and asked his supporters to back her.
I agree with you that their plans to work on bridging the wealth gaps in this country are good ones and I support them. But putting forth a candidate that can at least appeal to some moderates and all independents needs to be priority one to avoid another four years of this train wreck.Credence and I are probably on the opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to a few political beliefs.
But you know why we still have decent discussions, and still at times are in agreement with one another?
Because we both have our feet planted firmly in reality, and we don't have our heads buried completely up our fourth point of contact when it comes to politics.
Your dismissal of Shar, myself, and others speaks far more to your limited mindset and inability to rationalize beyond your uncompromising beliefs, than it speaks about us.
Speaking for myself, I would consider voting for Warren or Yang because like Credence, I believe we need a President equally disruptive and committed to change as Trump has been and promised to be.
Going back to politics as normal, the criminal cabal being able to sell out America and the American working class, allowing our nation to become a vassal state to China, and a second rate nation on the world stage is what Biden and Buttigieg promise to bring.
"There remains something fundamentally wrong with the way the economy and the society is currently structured and I think regardless of party - - Many of us want to move things along a bit more."Oh no you didn't . . . You picked on Mayor Pete!
Of course, that was in jest Ken, but since I like Mayor Pete, so far, and can't really explain why, (it certainly isn't his policy platform), why is it that you see him as more of the same—like Biden etc..
GAWarren has a history, a political position that was developed and voiced long before she ran for President.
Yang, while a relative unknown, has voiced some far from the norm views and ideas.
What has Buttigieg put forward other than appearing to be a decent person who wants to do well?
The last thing the country can afford is a decent guy who would be completely overwhelmed by the position, and the situations we are currently facing.
This is not a time for a new Arthur Chamberlain, being mayor of South Bend, Indiana, since 2012 does not prepare an individual to deal with foreign entities like China, Russia, or 'allies' like Germany and France.
Trump, being a world travelled businessman familiar with China, Russia, Germany proved better suited for the job than many imagined, and he had the world sized ego to withstand being buffaloed or blown over by the current local politics or foreign affairs. "Mayor Pete" has none of those experiences or strengths to fall back on to handle the world's current affairs.
China is set to step in to the leadership role on the global stage, the UN wants open borders and the abolishment of national sovereignty, then we have the continual unrest in France, in Hong Kong, Brazil that are signs of global turmoil to come.
He's not ready for that... he can barely handle being a mayor.
For the inquisitive (or voracious) mind that really wants to understand the storm America is heading into, take the time to watch this video, in particular what is said at the 16:30 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl5279dWqGsComparing him to Chamberlain . . that's cold Ken. I don't get that reading from him at all.
Just as an aside, regarding Warren, I think you are describing the Warren of 2008. Today's candidate Warren has changed too many of her basic premises from the 2008 Warren that I might have been able to support.
I did watch your entire linked video. It struck so many chords with me that I am concerned I may be suffering from confirmation bias. I was not impressed with Kyle Bass as an interviewer, but I will be looking more into Gen. Spalding to see if I want to add his book to my reading list.
And yes, the remark at the 16:30 mark was disconcerting but entirely believable.
GAThe wonderful thing about Robert's perspectives and observations is that they come from an 'open mind'.
He learned the language, traveled the nation, immersed himself in the people, customs without a preconceived bias against them.
The world is at a very dangerous, very critical stage, the chances that we successfully transition to a borderless globalized union is almost 0% at this time in history... sadly there appear to be many in the higher echelons of leadership in various parts of the world who think this is attainable.
America's decline and China's rise does not ensure the ushering in of a new era where peace and equality for all is attained. China will want to move forward to rule the world as it sees fit, with all other nations no more than vassal states to China's needs.
Well, Ken, it can be said that the enemy of my enemy is a friend.
Warren or Sanders represent the changes that I seek and in the direction from which I am seeking them. Trump does not represent that.
We do agree on the larger point, that the Status Quo is not an acceptable alternative to Trump. Instead of going back to business as usual that created people like Donald Trump in the first place and, as you pointed out, meeting the challenges from abroad we are going to require a resourceful response, the SOS won't do.The only thing I've caught from Democrat candidates is that they all want to take what some people have earned and give it to people that did NOT earn it. Sometimes a simple blurb that infrastructure needs addressed and sometimes an expressed desire to disarm the country but by far the most important thing is to take from some to give to others. Oh, and a demand we do away with all fossil fuels, killing millions and returning to the middle ages in the process, but that's from the idiot fringe and not an actual candidate.
Nothing about border control, nothing about unequal trade agreements, nothing about job creation. Nothing about crime rates, nothing about sanctuary cities violating the spirit of our laws, nothing about how to control masses of people being trained to exploit loopholes in immigration rules (specifically how to take unintended advantage of American generosity to refugees), nothing about the second class of people (dreamers) Obama created with his executive orders. Not a word about bringing important manufacturing jobs back into the country.
In other words, nothing that we need, and all about raising taxes on workers to support those that will not/cannot support themselves. Is that how you read it, and what you approve of?That is NOT how I read it, I see Republicans as oligarchs subordinating the middle and working classes to the whims of the corporate and affluent. As a Rightwinger, I can understand how you see things from your perspective but there is another perspective that you choose to ignore and that millions subscribe to which may very well mean "curtains" for the current occupant.
Of course, Wilderness, nothing that YOU need.....Sounds like what I said: you approve of unlimited grabs for what others worked to earn, to give it to those that did NOT earn it. You can couch it in loaded words like oligarchs, subordinating, corporate and affluent, but it remains that you support a minority of the country providing for the rest. Not unexpected for it is the mantra of the socialist left.
You're right - it is not something that I support. I DO, of course, recognize the problems (as opposed to ignoring them) of the poor, but do not in general support simply giving them what others worked to earn.Wilderness: You make it sound like they are robbing you of all your hard earned money. Here is the graph for 2019 from the OMB.
• Safety net programs: About 9 percent of the federal budget in 2017, or $357 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs decreased by $9 billion between 2016 and 2017 as the economy continued to improve.
Safety net programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income people, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and help meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.
Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year. A CBPP analysis using Census' Supplemental Poverty Measure shows that government safety net programs kept some 36 million people out of poverty in calendar year 2017. Without any government income assistance, either from safety net programs or other income supports like Social Security, the poverty rate would have been 25.0 percent in 2017, nearly double the actual 13.9 percent. And these programs reduced the depth of poverty for millions more, even when not bringing them above the poverty line.There is one glaring problem with your post here, and that is that the definition of "poverty" changes each, continually going up (beyond inflation). What used to be middle class is now defined as "poverty". You also left out a major charity effort in leaving out health care.
There is a second major problem in the assumption that simply giving money (money that belongs to others) away will "cure poverty" somehow; this is patently false. What is needed is incentive to work and support ones self rather than depend on others to do it. To try and somehow create wealth by taking it away from someone else is foolish and self-defeating, and we can see that more clearly every year.
I am of the firm opinion (opinion!) that we very badly need to do more for those people that cannot support themselves. The disabled, the elderly, children - the people that are incapable of providing for themselves. Unfortunately, we have decided that continued poor decisions, the desire not to work or improve personal, salable skills is a reason to support them and most of our resources go there instead of those that truly need help, IMHO. And every year we increase the "help" there. In addition, we have cleverly designed the system so as to be nearly impossible to get out of - when an effort is made people find themselves in worse financial condition than they were when they earned less and we took resources of others to give away to them.
We see half our people, our families and neighbors, dependent on government for some or all of their support. I find this ludicrous: there is no way in the world that I can reasonably look down my street and declare that every other household (about half the nation is living, wholly or partially, off the other half) is composed of people that are disabled or in some other manner incapable of supporting themselves. One has to really hate the human race to believe that.
Finally, I'll point out that Medicare and SS were paid for long ago; it is only that lack of financial fiduciary care that has resulted in using current tax monies to cover the costs. Medicaid, of course, should be included in that 9% of welfare costs (as should any Obamacare subsidies) but is left out for some reason. To make it seem less than it is, I assume.Wilderness sees where he has zero obligation to the society that allows him to prosper. Making that society better is simply stealing from him.
Insults are so effective in reasonable discourse, aren't they!? You've really gone downhill in the past couple of years, Eso.
I am just reflecting on the sum of your comments I have read to-date. Face it, you are a Social Darwinist - and proud of it.
You mean like the welfare Trump is giving Farmers??
Farmers have, for decades, been paid NOT to grow crops. Some crops have price subsidies attached to them. Some crops (notably corn) have been mandated by Congress as a substitute for gasoline for no good reason but political concerns. And yes, that is some of what I object to.
Wrong welfare Wilderness. I am talking about the dole Trump has them on so his Tariffs won't drive most of them bankrupt (which are up 24% because of him)
In a system of such extreme inequity, how many of these people that you say earned it, actually Earned It?
I can't buy into your McGuffey Reader, "pluck and luck" stuffWe could debate "earned it" forever. Does the office worker, sitting in a heated and air conditioned office on a nice soft chair "earn" their wage...according to the ditch digger working in the snow storm outside for a third the wage?
Not many. Most billionaires today either inherited, got lucky in the stock market, or earned it of the backs of the working class without paying a fair wage to those workers.
Oh No My Esoteric! Fortunately I was able to stop my old self from just proclaiming Baloney! Instead, I will channel candidate Biden and say Malarky!
You are much better at comparative and analytical research then I am, so why don't you give it a shot. Check out the top 50, (or whatever number you choose, (Google says we have 607 billionaires)), and see how many inherited their wealth vs. how many earned it.
If you can support your claim then I will gladly admit the surprise of my misperception.
*Spolier alert! I did a cursory look and think this task may not be the 'gimme' you seem to think it is.
GAYou forgot the other two " got lucky in the stock market, or earned it of the backs of the working class without paying a fair wage to those workers."
I didn't forget those two, I was cutting you some slack. How would you support the accusation of making it 'on the backs of the workers"? Or the claim of "getting lucky" in the stock market?
Those are both very subjective determinations, I think the challenge I put to you could be a much more objective effort. One that I have confidence you are capable of.
So, what do you think? Does the data support your claim that our billionaires didn't 'earn' their wealth?
GA"backs of the workers" - Because I have eyes and ears. Because I read. Because I research, and have for a very long time. The basic statistic that points to many CEOs not earning their entire keep is this. (The numbers are approximate but I can get the actual numbers.)
In the 1960s and 1970s, the average CEO earned something like 50 times that of an average line worker. Today, they earn 300 times more. Sense corporations succeeded just as well then as they do today, There can only be two possible reasons for this difference; 1) the CEOs were woefully underpaid back then OR the CEOs are embarrassingly overpaid today.
There is no evidence out there that suggests CEOs were underpaid in the 1960s and 1970s but there is lots of evidence today they are overpaid. (the same goes for the rest of the senior executives)
Assuming it is true that the CEOs are overpaid, then the conclusion from that is they are not earning their keep but are in fact being paid excess "rent".
Given that for any given year, the distribution of income for a corporation is a zero-sum game. What is paid in excess to the CEOs and senior management over and above the value of their work, is taken out of the pockets of the workers or stockholders.
Consequently, I think "earned it of the backs of the working class without paying a fair wage to those workers" is a fair assessment.I would like to agree with your description of embarrassingly over-paid, but, I think there is another consideration.
Compare it to celebrities and sports icons. Why do they get paid millions, (and tens and hundreds of millions), when their work-a-day teammates get paid comparative peanuts? It is because of what their services can bring to the table and the market valuation of those services.
Would you say that Tom Brady or Tom Hank's pay is off the backs of their organization's workers? Meaning of course that I don't agree with your logic that their embarrassing pay is off the backs of the workers.
GAI am guessing you are disgusted by their (sports and film) stars huge wages, I know I am. The case, however, is very different. They get their megamillions because the fans are willing to pay stupid prices for tickets and buy all of the goodies the advertisers want you to.
On the other hand, so many big corporations often pay their executives way more than they are worth and, because of the zero sum game, the workers are responsible for the success of the corporation suffer, as do stockholder, and another group I forgot, the consumer.I am not disgusted by sports stars and celebrities' wages. Their wages are determined by the market. I think that is the way it should be.
For instance; If you have determined that a labor service that will make you a $1 million profit is worth $100,000 to you, would you raise your determination if the next wage buyer determines that same wage service is worth $200,000 to them - causing you to lose the opportunity to make a $1 million dollar profit?
Do you think your business effort would prosper in the same market when your available talent pool would only be second-tier wage services that would accept your $100,000 determination?
GAYes, they are determined by the market, which is what I explained. That doesn't make it less disgusting, nor would I change anything. I just do not respect them is all.
The wages paid CEOs of large corporations are not, however, set by the market. They are, for the most part, set by themselves.
Add a zero to your number, and my answer is yes. The fair wage of a CEO should be about 50 to 100 times that of the average line worker for that company. Where did I get that number? From what CEO's earned back in the 1960s and 1970s. Beyond that, any excess ought to be taxed at about a 70% rate.The CEOs can set any number they want, but if the market won't bear it they won't get it. I stand with my belief that it is the market that sets CEO pay. One might set his price at "X" but if the same benefit can be gotten from another which sets a price at 1/2 "X" then "X" will be all alone on the porch.
What qualifications do you have for determining a CEO value? Are you in the market for one and do you have an expected benefit value for their services? Do you feel the same about the value of a craftsman's labor that you might need? Do you feel qualified to set their price too?
GAI know this wasn't addressed to me, but this is a glaring equivalency. CEOs earn no matter how the corporation performs. They can brake every pipe in the business and still get bonuses. And, that is just one way that this is different.
I also see a comparison with how mortgage loans were made back when I was an assistant mgr of a finance company. The house was worth what the loan company told the assessor it was worth, otherwise the assessor lost the business. Would a CEO compensation consultant be around long if she didn't propose the outrageous compensations that board of directors now expect? Good old boy clubs and back scratching are much different than a craftsman's labor, which yes, I do feel qualified to set the at when I'm hiring the labor.
CEO salaries have almost nothing to do with any type of free market demand. Maybe check out this article on how CEO compensation is really determined. This sentence is very telling: "“Auditors are held accountable,” she says. “But with compensation consultants, the only measure of accountability is their reputation.”" Also this "But when Gallani examined the public records of public companies in the United States, she realized some disconnect between economic theory and economic reality." https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/who-really-d … y-packages"The CEOs can set any number they want, but if the market won't bear it they won't get it. " - AND THAT, GA, is simply not true (the last part that is, the first part is all to true)
I am a person who can do the math and make comparisons between then and now. I am a person who can use the analytical skills built over 20 years of being a professional cost and economic analyst. I am a person who can use his common sense. I also read, a lot, about things like that, such as Capitalism in the 21st Century which talks a lot about such things. Those are the qualifications I have for determining a CEO's value. I just don't take their word for it. I aYou sure are way above GA, myself, or anyone else in cognitive ability, education, and experience.
If we weren't so intellectually challenged we would accept your keen introspection in all matters as gospel.
Unfortunately we are not on your superior level.Yes, education has its value, you should try it.
Hmm . . . as you will most likely see from my exchange with hard sun, my over-generalization in speaking of CEOs setting their pay packages, you are right - I was wrong.
But, I think I was only wrong because I was too lazy to be specific. My use of "CEO" as the arbiter would be more accurately stated as "The Market." (which I did emphasize, but I failed to make the linkage that I was using the terms interchangeably)
It appears, (at least I was introduced to a new aspect), that Compensation Consultants have as much, or more, say than the CEOs themselves. But even so, those consultants are just one part of the market forces that I say determine CEO pay ranges.
As a note, I wasn't questioning your abilities in math, comparisons, or research, I was questioning your assumed authority to declare that 1960's ratios were the only acceptable barometer of standards.
Perhaps I was less specific then I should have been there also. What is the basis for your "50 to 100" times standard as the proper standard for today's CEOs?
GA
No, I didn't forget them. I knew you would reintroduce them. Good luck finding criteria that would define 'getting lucky' and subjective agreement about what constitutes "of[sic] the backs of workers."
GA
And this is the weakness of your perspective.
What you are talking about is from the past, what Republicans were, 25 years ago.
But for the last quarter century it hasn't mattered what letter was beside their name, what side of the aisle they sat on. Because too many sell outs on BOTH sides of the aisle, in BOTH parties, have been riding the gravy train to personal wealth, selling America out.
Whether they were selling out Americans' interests on behalf of Big Pharma, or China, or Big Oil... the ones that were (are) there for 30 or 40 years, were there selling us out.
That's why Nancy Pelosi today is worth hundreds of millions. In fact 7 of the 10 richest people in Congress are Democrats.
https://cnsnews.com/news/article/terenc … -democrats
Trump is not Republican anymore than he is Democrat, he is the common man's FU to the 'ruling elites' the politicians in D.C. that made themselves rich selling out America and the American workers.
Biden is not 'moderate' he is Establishment, he is everything that is wrong with D.C. he is a life long political hack no better than Clinton. And we are better off with four more years of Trump, then 4 years or more of Biden.On the contrary, Ken, they are worse in this regard then they were 25 years ago.
You are right about the corporatist and guardians of the status quo found on both sides of the isle. But only one party is presenting the kinds of candidates unafraid to challenge them.
Trump, in every instinct is promoting GOP values, of course he is a Republican, even though he may not claim such in words. His policies and agenda is Republican and Right wing and I cannot support any of that.
For example, Trump says he is bringing back coal, the only thing that I hear from the WORKERS in the industry is how the administration has been watering down OSHA protections which benefit the mine owners. As to expansion of coal industry jobs, not so much.
Trump is an arrogant plutocrat who talks about the common man but behaves in office as if their concerns mean little.
This is where we part ways, as much as I prefer a more genuine candidate than Biden, I would vote for him over Trump.Actually, in the days of Nixon and Reagan, Republicans really did care about things like the middle and lower classes, the environment, reducing the deficit, free-trade, and the like. That is no longer the case since Bush.
Just saw Dark Waters about Dupont knowingly poisoning the water of a West Virginia community and covering it up. Got me extremely mad at large corporations all over again. As far as I am concerned those Dupont executives are guilty of premeditated murder.
I am telling you, Esorteric, you give these entities an inch and they will
take a mile every time.
The Right wants to change the laws or otherwise make them more difficult to enforce so that the DuPonts of the America can more easily do their dastardly deeds with impunity.Many, but not all. Just as in not all billionaires became that way by ripping everybody else off or not all police are just waiting to bully a black man. Unfortunately, there are enough of each who do which stains the whole group.
I am fully on the side of NOT going back to having someone in the Presidency that is willing to sign off on America's decline, or sell out to the highest foreign bidder, and is willing to sacrifice the Nation's sovereignty and economic wellbeing for a 'global' agenda that will never be achieved because China will move in as world leader as soon as we abdicate, and then tell the UN and the IMF and the WB to F--k Off.
To continue to allow these traitors in D.C. to sell the American people, their future, their prosperity, and their jobs to who ever is willing to fill their pockets needs to end.
Trump is fighting the decent fight, there is no martial law, there is no seizing of radio and tv stations. There is no massive taxation being put upon the people.
If his efforts don't work, more severe measures are needed, Sanders is too old, his politics too outdated, back to the U.S.S.R. is not the solution... we aren't in the 60s anymore.
Warren is the best chance, with a Gabbard or Yang VP ticket they could do some good.
People are myopic when it comes to American politics, but there are outside issues that will wipe us out like a Tsunami if not addressed... China is a more powerful economic force than America, right now, today... and will only grow stronger. The UN and those who support the 'global agenda' are bent on a borderless reality for America, and wiping out the Constitution completely.
Biden will only allow those things to happen, and every American not in the billionaire class will pay for it dearly.
The only way we come out of this well, is if Trump is replaced by an equally disruptive and pro-American (pro working class) candidate. Not a sell out, not a 30+ year D.C. insider. Nor an incompetent 'nice guy' like Buttigieg.But, instead of focusing on China, what are doing domestically to make ourselves more competitive? China just wants what we had and enjoyed for years, why wouldn't they. Why wouldn't any nation?
Ken said - "Trump is fighting the decent fight, there is no martial law, there is no seizing of radio and tv stations. There is no massive taxation being put upon the people."
The problem with that statement is Trump would do those things IF he could get away with it. Remember, he has most of his staff working to keep him out of trouble with really stupid ideas like those.
And, Valeant, there are me and others that stand firm on the strident Left. The vast variety of perspectives here makes these debates interesting.
We could not ignore the tremendous support Sanders got in 2016, a relative unknown compared to Hillary Clinton and the DNC machine. That populist wave was and still is very powerful and we cannot afford to marginalized these voters this time around. Right now they rest in the Warren-Sanders camp.
I know that Warren and Sanders come off as too far left for many, but as I said earlier, I seek substantial change and I know that many of the ideas that these candidates have will be difficult if not impossible to attain to particularly if we continue with a right wing oriented Senate body. But working in their direction, no matter how slowly, is better that standing still or going back in the opposite direction.
The danger of impending oligarchy is quite real from my perspective, look at the sheer arrogance of Bloomberg. For this sort, his attitudes and values are the rule not the exception.
I agree Cred, that "moderate Conservatives" are an endangered species, but I have to disagree that "any Conservative" would not consider a Democrat candidate. As one of those endangered Moderate Conservatives, I am seriously considering a Democrat candidate.
GA
Ha! Another opening Valeant, but this one is a tangent. You mentioned Buttigieg, and that was all I needed.
I like this guy. I dislike many of his platform policies, but I like the guy as a sincere person. I have repeatedly stated I don't want a mechanic for president—someone with a detailed plan for everything that needs to be fixed, but that I want someone that will work to lead our nation forward, ideologically and policy-wise.
Mayor Pete does have my attention.
GA
Well Mike, I am skeptical that the Republicans can reclaim the House, but I think you are right that some folks will be apoplectic if Pres. Trump wins the 2020 election.
GAI do expect that enough Republicans will love their job more than they love America and vote not to convict such a clearly guilty man. But I do not expect Trump to win. Remember, it took the convergence of three things that allowed Trump to get an electoral college win (the only one that matters of course.) Those things are. in order of importance:
1. A terrible candidate who made poor decisions on how to run for president.
2. A massive Russian attack on our election system in favor of Trump who targeted states like WI, PA, MN, and MI (with the help of Paul Manafort's poll data)
3. James Comey's stupid reopening of Clinton's email investigation. By the time he closed it down from lack of evidence a week or later, the damage was done.
I digressed.
The highest percentage of Americans ever want Trump convicted, (50% of all Americans and 61% of women), and that's now, before even more evidence comes out during the trial. I am certain it will grow to about 60% overall by the time the trial is over - especially if the Republicans use corrupt Ukrainians to try to defend Trump).
With that, I think the Republicans are between a rock and hard place where the outcome will be they lose the Senate. The way I see it coming down is:
- If the Republicans CONVICT, then "the base" will revolt and either primary them or simply not vote.
- If the Republicans DO NOT Convict then the rest of the country will vote all but the most Red of GOP Senators out.
-- Collins - Gone
-- Doug Jones (D-AL) keeps his job
-- McSally - Gone
-- Gardner - Gone
-- Purdue - Gone
-- Loeffler - Gone
-- Ernst - Gone
-- McConnell - Gone
-- Tillis - Gone
-- Graham - GoneThat is an interesting perspective My Esoteric, but remember, I said if Pres. Trump wins 2020, I did not predict he would. However, if I borrow someone's crystal ball, and understanding that I think the majority of our citizens' are very much less into politics than we here are, and if the economy keeps rolling along, I think he has a fair chance of winning.
I agree that he has probably alienated a segment of his previous Independent voters, but I would not be surprised if he has gained some Republican supporters—given the above caveats.
GA
There is more than enough evidence to determine that Trump abused his office. So far, 520 legal scholars in the country have signed on to confirm this: https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpe … 18b5b6d116
Combine that with over 1,000 former federal prosecutors who clearly state Trump committed Obstruction of Justice and you have over 1,500 specialists in those areas who confirm criminality: https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1
So the claim that people like Mike, Ken, and Shar keep making that the evidence isn't there is clearly contradicted by people with the knowledge of the actual laws of our country.
Do I think Trump will be impeached by the Senate? No, I do not. But what this proved was that in the face of clear criminality and abuse of office, one party did their duty to the Constitution and one buckled under the immorality of a criminal con-man who hijacked their party and they were too afraid to stand up to him. If cowardice is what we're looking for in our politicians, the reps in the GOP would get that vote.Sorry Valeant, but I can't help myself from jumping in. Perhaps, because, unfortunately for me, I don't put a ton of credence in your legal scholars and former prosecutors' opinion. If their opinions were irrefutable why can't the rest of us reach the same opinion? If there is clear "evidence" why is the contention still being refuted?
I will, and have said, that I think Pres. Trump did ask for the Ukraine investigations for his own political benefit. But my opinion, (and I believe of the scholars and former prosecutors you link to), is formed by inference of facts and testimony publically released. I can't say that my opinion is based on any solid 'evidence'.
This means we end up with what a whole lot of people think, but nothing which is irrefutable. And for me, that is the 'fact' that many anti-Trumpers refuse to acknowledge. They claim fact when all they have is inference. We have all heard the repeated justification that 2+2=4, but I have yet to see anything more than the inference that the things they claim equal two actually do.
GAHave you actually read the letter signed on by the 1,000 former federal prosecutors in the link I provided? It makes it crystal clear that the evidence is already there. I have no idea why the 'rest of you' cannot accept the expert opinion of so many bi-partisan voices, it continues to defy logic, and is partly why I often use the term brainwashed.
In terms of Ukraine, there is some inference there, but I had already heard Mick Mulvaney and Trump each say they tied the aid to investigations in separate public interviews. I notice you excluded those factors in your views of their guilt.
And much like hearing from McGahn about obstruction of justice, I think we'd easily get there if Bolton, Mulvaney, or Guiliani had to testify, but withholding witnesses by this administration has prevented that.
When one commits an illegal act to conceal another act, logically I see the original act being concealed as one of criminality, otherwise there would be no need to commit a second crime to conceal it.I have read that "former prosecutors" letter in the past, but must admit I didn't follow your link to it.
I agree that you have heard Pres. Trump and Chief of Staff Mulvaney admit a quid pro quo, but what I can't admit is that you have heard them admit it was for Pres. Trump's personal gain. I completely agree with Mulvaney's thought that foreign aid is frequently tied to some kind of quid pro quo, and I don't see anything wrong with that because the "quoi" has generally been in our national interest.
It boils down to one basic criterion Valeant, what 'evidence' can you show that proves Pres. Trump's "ask" was for his personal benefit alone?
GAGus, Vindman gave a list of corrupt individuals and entities who needed to be investigated in the Ukraine. Trump ignored those suggestions and homed in on the Bidens and HRC's server.
Does this give you a bit more info into Donnie's thinking? If not, then you can explain why not.Did Mr. Vindman provide that list prior to this controversy? I thought it was part of his after-the-fact testimony.
GANo, he gave it prior to the July call, well before Trump's criminal acts coming to light.
The Ukrainians had met the benchmarks for anti-corruption and that was certified. Therefore, withholding the aid was tied to the two investigations that Trump and Mulvaney admitted they wanted on television. Take that in tandem with Sondlund testifying that after speaking to Trump and Guiliani, it wasn't a running of an investigation that was required, just the announcement of one into the Bidens. According to Sondlund, it was the smear and not the actual fact-finding that was important. That is your evidence.
No Valeant, that is the inference. From the position of Devil's Advocate, I think it might be possible to claim that they wanted the public announcement to put Pres. Zelenski in the box of having to do, (the investigations), what he publically said he would do.
That same Advocate might posit that Pres. Zelenski might say yes to Pres. Trump privately, (in a personal call), but just never get around to actually doing the investigations. With a public claim, there is more pressure on him to actually do what he said he would do in private.
Further, that Advocate might also say the two requested areas of investigation dealt with the national corruption of Oligarchs, the Big Dogs of the Ukraine corruption issue. What would it matter if there were corruption investigations into other dogs of the pack when the Big Dogs were still allowed to get away.
As I think this illustrates, it could be possible that your "proof" of the public announcement demand could really only be defended as proof of a drawn inference.
If an amateur like me can so easily show the pitfalls of accepting your inference as proof, just imagine what a sharp high-powered legal strategist might be able to come up with to convince the 5 o'clock news citizens..
GABullshit, Gus! Like Trump is a thoughtful person!
Ha! Succinct as always Randy. A man of few words. You could be right, that Devil's Advocate position may be Bullshit, But the Democrats are going to have to produce more than just the smell to prove it is.
GAThere is a certain stench around the person of Donald Trump, but then, it may be simply Rudy.
At least I finally got a plausible answer. But regardless of that explanation, would a public announcement of an investigation still not have been of personal benefit to Trump in the 2020 election? So even if his motive was not to hurt Biden, would he still have used his office to secure that benefit regardless of his intent? It's like his 'go back' comment - his intent may not have been racism, but it was racist to much of the world regardless of his intent.
Are you trying to say that anything Trump does that benefits either individuals or the nation will benefit him in the 2020 election and should therefore not be done? Because it certainly sounds like it. Lower unemployment, higher employment, higher wages, companies returning to the country, booming stock market - all of these will benefit him personally in the election. Is that a reason not to strive for them?
Are you saying that because you defend his positions, that you support him saying those racist things? See how easy it is to use 'are you saying' statements.
Just because Gus gave me a plausible answer, doesn't mean it's believable. The Burisma founder and company were the ones under scrutiny for actions taken prior to Hunter Biden working there. Announcing an investigation should have been about them, not about the Bidens based on those facts alone. So even if the announcement was public, including the Bidens is still a smear. It'd be like if my CEO embezzled money from the company and Trump wanted to announce an investigation into the janitor they hired two years after the fact.Its all unravelling, this Impeachment is just hastening the truth becoming obvious to just about everyone not fully devoted to the cult-like support of the Democrats and their efforts.
A great example is this video here, one of so many, from LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE people who just can't ignore it anymore... no matter how much they dislike Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2a3GB5re2QIf by unraveling, you mean that corruption is getting exposed, then I agree.
'Schiff was spying' is a bit misleading considering a Ukranian under indictment gave his records to Congress. Only in your world do we want our Congressmen consorting with foreign agents that break our campaign laws in order to subvert the 2020 election.
As for the 'he violated his rights claim' by publishing Nunes phone number, you know who else did something like that...Trump. He did it to Lindsey Graham while campaigning in 2015. Just add this outburst to the ever-growing pile of fake partisan outrage where one party does something then gets totally bent out of shape when it happens against them.The only "cult" out there in the main political arena are those who follow their Dear Leader Trump.
You can't have a cult made up of 70% of the population who think Trump did something very wrong, 61% of women who think Trump should be convicted, and 50%, the highest number ever, of Americans who feel the same way.Those numbers you keep spouting are not supported anywhere by anything credible. Just the cultists believe Trump is going down... those same people believe CNN is news... a small minority of the populace for sure.
Actually they are, including Fox. It is just the Trump cult that won't open your eyes and see what is obvious to everybody else.
Perhaps it's just semantics. I would have to say that any "plausible" answer is believable, even if I don't believe it is the correct answer. If it's not believable then it isn't plausible, almost by definition.
But beyond that, it did seem from your post that the major problem with Trump's phone call was that it was about a political opponent, and the resulting personal benefits in the election. Which in turn gave rise to my question about anything he did that would give that same personal benefit. If the problem was the perceived personal benefit from his actions (which it appears to be), doesn't that carry over to everything he does that might give the same benefit? I did not intend to put words in your mouth, just a clarification and, perhaps, a point about the logic inherent in the stand.Your point was a valid one, I will concede that actions taken to improve the country can be a benefit to Trump in 2020.
But I also hope I demonstrated that it's a reach to think that Trump's intent was battling corruption since the benchmarks were met by Ukraine for anti-corruption as had been certified by the DoD. And he focused the corruption of one Ukranian oligarch towards his political rival, by association, and misled the public about the intent to have Shokin removed, something that was bi-partisan when it happened as evidenced by three GOP senators signing off on the action.Attempting to read Trump's mind goes something like this:
Trump's ego denies that he has any serious competition in the election - he won the last one as a total outsider and his base is rock solid, while Democrats are losing ground fast with their witch hunts. So yes, removing a competitor is a benefit, but a minor one - it was not the goal.
Biden has attacked Trump and his policies. Fight back! As usual any negative comment is met with overwhelming response, and there is the matter of Biden's obvious (remember, this is Trump's thinking) malfeasance.
Democrats want to play the game in the "courts" with continued and unending fake investigations (remember who is thinking)? Well, I can play that game, too! But mine isn't a witch hunt as there is definitely something to look into, and that will provide proof.
I just don't see his actions as a serious attempt to hurt a competitor. A side benefit, yes, but that's all. And that then goes back to the point that anything positive he does (such as proving Biden is corrupt) for the country also helps him in the election, but those things should not be necessarily construed as criminal or even objectionable. Motive counts, and counts a lot. To deny him opportunity to do what the country needs simply because it helps him in an election is not reasonable, for that means he can take no action at all, on any topic, for if it is successful it was "obviously" just done to get re-elected.And I am guessing you didn't see the "drip, drip, drip" of stolen Clinton email leaks which Trump encouraged as an attempt to hurt Clinton?
"... which Trump encouraged as an attempt to hurt Clinton?"
You just don't get it, do you? Your inferences, your conclusions, your imagination - they are all yours. They are not proof of a reality that you believe in no matter how many times you repeat that they are absolute fact. They may in fact be true, but your obvious and massive bias means that no one should ever take your word for such things.This applies to you, Wilderness, not me - "You just don't get it, do you? Your inferences, your conclusions, your imagination - they are all yours."
I draw my conclusion from facts, in this case what Roger Stone was found guilty of where Trump was heavily implicated.
You simply do not have facts on your side, just wishful thinking.So? I'll repeat the request: "Show us where Trump said "Take out Biden so I can win the election". Not "investigate this man", but "Help me win the election"."
This is your opinion; that he made the request to help his re-election. It is not fact, it is not demonstrable truth - it is your opinion. If it is not, then provide evidence that Trump said those words, or ones indicating the same thing. Until you can do that it remains opinion. Opinion without even circumstantial supporting evidence for that matter, for it is only your assumption (and that of millions of others) that supports it.And I will repeat my answer:
You don't need that and you know it. Otherwise, nobody in the history of America would have ever been convicted, let alone tried, of bribery under your standards.
Asking for that kind of evidence is simply beyond the bounds of reasonableness and shows how brainwashed you are.
Damn Wilderness! You have put me in a hard spot. I like your 'in the mind of Trump' perspective, and want to argue your points in that same vein.
From your first point about removing Biden being a "minor benefit." I can see your perspective that Pres. Trump considers his base solid, and that hindering a competitor would not be earth-shattering, but, and again, remembering your caveats that the discussion is from the perspective of Trump's mind, I would see him as seeing that as a major benefit. The removal of any competition would seem to me to be a major component of his agenda. even if he didn't fear the competition, I can see his M.O. as to remove it anyway. So I can't agree that he would see Biden's downfall as a minor benefit.
To the "fight back!" segment, I do heartily agree.
Then to the Democrats fighting the game in the courts . . . I think you nailed his thinking; ". . . mine isn't a witch hunt . . . " I think he does think that. Whether he is right in that thinking has been a topic of a lot of these forum threads. Hmm . . .
However, in regards to your closing, I must disagree, in that I do see his actions as a purposeful effort to hurt his competition. It is my impression that, as is my perspective of his life's activities, any competition is to be destroyed.
So, back to the "hard place" you put me into: I have to agree. From the perspective you presented; 'in Trump's mind', I have to agree. I don't think he thinks any of his actions since taking the presidency are wrong. I don't think his "witch hunt" proclamations are just rhetoric, I think he believes it.
GA
Please point out in either one of the calls Trump had where he talked about Ukrainian corruption. I can identify one where Trump felt badly about having a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor (Shokin) fired. If Trump were so worried about Ukrainian corruption, why did he object to firing a corrupt prosecutor???
No, the only references he made to corruption DIRECTLY ties back to his 2020 election and nothing else.Only in your mind, for he never (to my knowledge) made the connection himself. Which is part of the point.
"Do me a favor though" just after Zelenskyy asked for missiles. I didn't make that up. Your denial of the connection is.
Show us where Trump said "Take out Biden so I can win the election". Not "investigate this man", but "Help me win the election".
Zelensky: About those missiles... (aka, the approved aid)
Trump: Do me a favor, though...followed immediately by look into the Bidens.
Then you've got Sondlund understanding from speaking with Guiliani and Trump directly that the announcement of an investigation is all that matters. The smear is the quid pro quo to get the aid released.
2+2 = 4 to me and Esoteric. It's apparent only 1 to you."Show us where Trump said "Take out Biden so I can win the election"."
You've left out the bolded part, instead simply inferring or assuming it. Eso made the comment that it was factual and real, but the real fact is that he only inferred/assumed it. Even if I accept it as likely or probable does not make it factual - it remains an assumption and should never be presented as a fact.Any one with the smallest bit of education can understand how an announcement of an investigation into Biden would 'take him out' in terms of his electability. It's the same playbook that was used with Clinton and her e-mails, where even Trump's own administration failed to find any chargeable crimes in her conduct and yet screamed lock her up for two years. It's lock 'her/him' up 2.0.
It's a fact that the e-mail investigation hurt Clinton in the election. That's not an assumption or inferred as you claim.
If it isn't going to hurt Biden (help Trump) in the election then where's the foul?
But in any case you are evading the point entirely: Eso made an assumption and called it factual.VALEANT "Any one with the smallest bit of education can understand how an announcement of an investigation into Biden would 'take him out' in terms of his electability."
Wasn't this a complete unknown issue until a 'whistleblower' and Schiff got together to bring it out in the open?Not to the ambassadors or Rudy and his cronies, and besides, Zelensky already had scheduled an announcement of the investigation by that time re Trump's "favor".
If you can't see how this would adversely have affected Biden, then you apparently have forgotten how Comey's reopening the HRC investigation caused Hillary to lose voters.Hmmmm - and there goes Ken making things up again and ignoring real facts. The whistleblower didn't get with Shiff, why do you keep lying about that? Instead, he asked a member of Shiff's staff what to do with his complaint and that staffer told him to go through the proper channels and give it to the Intel Community IG - which he did.
Please stop lying Ken.Ken's simply "Trumping it," Scott. All of Trump's supporters do it. Like their idol, they see nothing wrong with making stuff up.
Another great quip Randy, Are you so sure there can be no opinions except yours? "Trumping it ' may not really be the be all-cure all that you think it is.
For instance, could you give any credibility to the idea that what you see as proof someone else might see as just your opinion?
GA
Here is a statement by statment analysis by Politico of the Trump/Zelensky phone call. I apologize if the type is too small to read. You should be able to read it by using the zoom controls in your browser.
This is also the first instance in the memo where Trump refers to the Bidens by name, and again repeats the false claim that “Biden stopped the prosecution” of his son Hunter. He repeats his request that Zelensky work with Attorney General Barr.
ANALYSIS
It’s not clear why Zelensky seems to dislike Yovanovich, but it could have to do with her falling out earlier this year with Ukraine’s special anti-corruption prosecutor at the time. She called for him to be fired weeks before Ukraine’s March 31 presidential election, fueling accusations that she had inserted herself into Ukraine’s political process. Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko—a Giuliani associate whose dismissal was requested by Zelensky as one of his first acts after being sworn in—claimed that Yovanovich had given him a list of people “not to prosecute.” That claim prompted a rebuke from the State Department. “The allegations by the Ukrainian prosecutor-general are not true and are intended to tarnish the reputation of Ambassador Yovanovitch," it said in a statement at the time.
ANALYSIS
Trump reassures Zelensky that Ukraine’s economy “is going to get better and better,” just after urging him to investigate Biden and the Democrats with the help of the Justice Department. While Trump did not directly reference aid during the call—which he ordered to be withheld just days before the conversation—he again mentions money within the context of his asking Zelensky for a “favor.” Trump’s longtime lawyer Michael Cohen testified earlier this year that making direct requests is not Trump’s style.
“He doesn’t give you questions, he doesn’t give you orders, he speaks in a code,” Cohen said. “And I understand the code, because I’ve been around him for a decade.”Here is the link to the website for further clarification.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/2 … sis-000039
You don't need that and you know it. Otherwise, nobody in the history of America would have ever been convicted, let alone tried, of bribery under your standards.
Asking for that kind of evidence is simply beyond the bounds of reasonableness and shows how brainwashed you are.Yes, I know it is "beyond the bounds of reasonableness"...to you, for you are quite happy to make the assumption based solely on your desire to remove Trump from the election if not immediately from the office. You don't need actual fact; inference and assumption is plenty, but that just isn't true for everyone else.
This post is along the same lines, for you made a bold statement that you know it was to remove Biden. No one knows that, but you are not only willing to make the statement, but expect everyone else to agree with you! Somehow my comment about your false statement has become, in your mind, a defense of Trump and now a declaration that we don't need to know: it was never about that it was about your claim that you cannot support. Had your comment been along the lines of "Well, I think the circumstantial evidence leans toward the belief it was about hurting Biden" I wouldn't have argued (I agree with that), but it wasn't. It was a bold statement that you know that was the motive, and that's something that you not only do not know but cannot know. As long as you treat your opinion as factual, and make claims that way, you will find posts calling you on the muddy thinking and false accusations.Sorry Wilderness, you have it bas-akwards.
Also, I went back to page 120 before giving up looking for where I used the word "know" in the context you suggest. I couldn't find it, so you will need to provide the quote you are talking about.
Not quite right - Burisma itself was no longer under scrutiny - only its founder for many unrelated things.
Hmmm... fire the prosecutor going after Burisma or lose a billion in aid.
And then have your son go to work for the company, while also getting a $900k advisory fee from it.
No, nothing worth looking into there.Hmmmmm - watch Ken make things up. The prosecutor was NOT, I say again NOT, since you have trouble reading going after Burisma. OR anybody else for that matter. If you listened to real news, you would know that.
Since you hate high wages for supposedly doing nothing to earn it, then I suppose you object to the $40 million salaries some CEOs make when maybe $1 million might be the appropriate amount for their contribution.
When Trump does something (which is rare) that benefits the nation (I left out individuals because he can (but hasn't yet) abuse his pardon power), he isn't trying to "bribe" the nation, he is trying to do the job he was elected for.
In Ukraine's case, however, he bribed Zelenskyy for personal gain, an impeachable offense.
"So even if his motive was not to hurt Biden, would he still have used his office to secure that benefit regardless of his intent? " - I WILL have to go with GA here. If benefiting his 2020 election was not Trump's goal, then no crime even though that might be collateral damage.
But, there is no contradictory evidence to show that was not his goal; the only evidence out there supports the claim that Trump intended to help his election.Answering your question from that same Devil's Advocate position, I would say that if his legitimate request also turned out to be of personal benefit it would be an unrequested tangential benefit. Can't condemn a guy for that can you? So, no, I don't think it would still be an abuse of office.
GABecause Trump has been a bastion of fighting corruption. The guy accused of 10 counts of obstruction of justice is now a corruption fighter. I worry for your gullibility.
Let me help you Valeant. You don't have to worry about my gullibility, you are much better served to worry about my resistance to the mantra of the day.
I know that is is an over-used explanation, but I am not suffering fron a case of confirmation bias, I am much much more likely suffering from a case of refusing to drink the Koolaid.
For you, everything points to only one conclusion, for me, everything points to one possible conclusion.
GAI don't want you to worry on my behalf Valeant. I have been judged to have screwed up much worse in other circumstances, (before Trump), and survived to this point. So while I appreciate your concern, I don't want you to place too much emphasis on it.
With the goodwill of folks like yourself I will survive these Trump issues too.
We have different perspectives bud. Nothing wrong with that. It is the basis for good discussions. Otherwise, we would all be just singing different tones in the same choir room.
I will sing soprano and you can sing tenor.
GA
"It boils down to one basic criterion Valeant, what 'evidence' can you show that proves Pres. Trump's "ask" was for his personal benefit alone?"
If you don't mind, I want to go over what we have before us but let me say two things first.
1. I don't think the word "alone" is a qualifier. If he did it primarily for his personal benefit, that is sufficient. If it accidentally serves another purpose, that is incidental to the crime.
2. I can't believe and am ashamed and dissappointed this didn't occur to me much, much sooner in the debate. Rep Amash, in explaining why he is going to vote FOR impeachment said -
"All you need is probable cause to move on to a trial"
Only the most brainwashed Trump supporter won't agree there is probable cause.
Now on to your point.
1. You have already stipulated that Trump asked for the Biden's to be investigated and that the fake Ukrainian election interference be investigated. So I don't need to go over that again.
2. That leaves me with the job of providing a preponderance of the evidence to establish it was done for personal gain. My main pieces of evidence are the two calls Trump had with Zelenskyy and the Sondland testimony.
a. The claim Trump defenders are making up for him is that he was interested in addressing corruption [in Ukraine[/b].
b. The import of 'a' is that if it is not about Ukrainian corruption, then the only alternative is that it was for personal gain.
c. In the April call, Trump was given talking points that included Ukrainian corruption - Trump ignored the talking points and failed to bring up the subject of corruption at all.
d. In the July call Trump was given talking points that included Ukrainian corruption - Trump ignored the talking points and failed to bring up the subject of Ukrainian corruption at all.
e. In fact, during the call Trump seemed upset that a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was fired by saying "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. " I think he was talking about Victor Shokin (the corrupt prosecutor that the United States, the EU, NATO, and many others wanted fired for not halting Ukrainian corruption). Seems like an odd thing to say if you oppose Ukrainian corruption.
f. The only so-called "corruption" Trump has brought up (at any time) has to do with:
i. The fake Ukrainian election interference in order to shift blame away from Russia and their help in Trump's 2016 election
ii. Hunter Biden, the son of his main political opponent
iii. VP Joe Biden, his main political opponent in the 2020 election.
g. In the unsecured call with Sondland, Trump reiterates his desire that these investigations happen and nothing about any other corruption
h. At the same time Sondland relates: "Holmes told House investigators he then pressed further asking, “why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated, the President only cares about, quote, unquote, ‘big stuff.’ Sondland replied that he meant, quote, unquote, ‘big stuff’ that benefits the President, like the, quote, unquote, ‘Biden investigation.’”
Since the only "corruption" Trump seems interested in has to do with his own election and in fact seems to pooh-pooh real Ukrainian corruption by lauding a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, to me the [u[only possible[/b] logical conclusion would be that Trump largely, if not entirely, bribed Zelenskyy for his own personal gain.
Certain, there is probable cause to go to trial and most likely enough solid evidence to convict with a fair jury.You are mistaken My Esoteric. I did not stipulate that Pres. Trump asked for the Biden's to be investigated and that the fake Ukrainian election interference be investigated. I said that I think he did.
Of course, if what you meant to say was that I stipulated that I think he did it as you said, then you would be right.
You put a lot of work into supporting your "probable cause" rationale, and I think you succeeded. There does seem to be a lot of "evidence" that infers a solid probable cause.that should be looked into. But your words appear to also support what I have been saying all along. There may be plenty of probable cause, aka justifiable inference, but that is not proof of fact or inference—which is what is being declared, "The facts prove he is guilty!" I didn't see any of 'those proof of guilt' facts in your comment. The only facts I see in your thoughts are facts that you deem support your drawn inferences.
Look at your closing words; "probable cause" and "most likely."
GALet's try this. With what is in the public domain so far, would you convict Trump of:
1. Obstruction of Congress?
2. Bribery?
3. Abuse of Power?
4 Obstruction of Justice (Mueller)?
You probably know my answer, which is why I use a more declarative tone - I would. I think the evidence is such that it convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does it you?""The facts prove he is guilty!" "
Although I shouldn't have to, let me rephrase more precisely - "The evidence is sufficient for any fair jury to find him guilty"
I think you said elsewhere that you do not agree with that either, regardless of whether the charge is Obstruction of Congress, Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, or Bribery.In My Opinion...
The problem is that it is In Your Opinion, and not everyone shares that opinion, maybe 40% do, and the issue here is the Democrats and anti-Trumpers have spent 3 years trying to convince the majority of America that Trump needs to go... but they haven't had any success.
I am sure you can find some poll somewhere that says otherwise... but the average poll has more than 40% sticking with him consistently, and another 20% indifferent or unwilling to remove him outside of an election.
No amount of calling it "facts" calling him "guilty" has changed that in 3 years... but if the Democrats keep pushing it, I expect more will side with him than against him that haven't already made up their minds ... that's just how people work, and that's just how little the people think about the crooks in D.C.Ken and GA This is from the House Rules Report on Impeachment:
"To summarize: just like grand jurors and prosecutors, the House is not subject to rigid evidentiary rules in deciding whether to approve articles.
Members of the House are trusted to fairly weigh evidence in an impeachment inquiry. Where the President illegally seeks to obstruct such an inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence blocked from its
view is harmful to the President’s position. It is also free to rely on other relevant, reliable evidence that illuminates the ultimate factual issues.
The President has no right to defy an impeachment inquiry and then demand that the House turn back because it lacks the very evidence he unlawfully concealed. If anything, such conduct confirms that the President
sees himself as above the law and may therefore bear on the question of impeachment."
Justification:
241 The President has advanced numerous arguments to justify his across-the-board defiance of the House impeachment inquiry. These arguments lack merit. As this Committee recognized when it impeached President Nixon for obstruction of Congress, the impeachment power includes a corresponding power of inquiry that allows the House to investigate the Executive Branch and compel compliance with its subpoenas. 242 Document: Transcript of David Frost’s Interview with Richard Nixon, 1977, TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY. 243 Michael Brice-Saddler, While Bemoaning Mueller Probe, Trump Falsely Says the Constitution Gives Him ‘The Right To Do Whatever I Want”, THE WASHINGTON POST, July 23, 2019.Actually, the first two years were spent trying to see if Russia owned him. After Helsinki, where he sided with the country that attacked us over our own intelligence services and then when the 10 counts of obstruction were laid out that showed he interfered in the investigation into the country that attacked us, many still question whether he is compromised and fit to be the leader of our nation. Why people like you can accept him with those two clear treasonous actions is rather unbelievable to a large portion of the country.
You're correct that many will still support him even though they have seen proof he abused his power and obstructed justice. Sad to say....
It speaks volumes about the ability of that 40% to critically analyze information. They will stick with Trump as he leads them into Hell.
"Although I shouldn't have to, let me rephrase more precisely - "The evidence is sufficient for any fair jury to find him guilty"
I think I can agree with that Scott. Relative to Abuse of Power and what evidence has been provided so far.
GA
"If their opinions were irrefutable why can't the rest of us reach the same opinion? If there is clear "evidence" why is the contention still being refuted?" - Come on GA, you know better than that.
Why would you believe Trump, a known and provable liar, over experts in their field? Why would you believe Republicans who are prepared to sell out their country to save their job?
Why bother putting expert testimony on the stand?
Why bother using DNA evidence, it is fake after all?
If you were on a jury, would you find all defendants innocent unless the defendant testifies in court that he/she did it? Isn't every other piece of evidence, including video and audio, the prosecution presents require inference? Why? Because no evidence that the prosecution puts on is [i]irrefutable]/i]
Even if the prosecution had a signed confession - that could be forged or made under duress.
Every witness could be lying, so you can't use them either.
Even DNA evidence could be tampered with.
Now, if you say all of that is BS, then why do you say expert opinion is BS? Why do you say respected civil servant's testimony is unreliable or unbelievable?
'Your dismissal of Shar, myself, and others speaks far more to your limited mindset and inability to rationalize beyond your uncompromising beliefs, than it speaks about us.'
In the face of 1,500 experts in the field of law confirming Trump has committed crimes and abused his office, you cannot understand those conclusions. You want to try and lecture me on uncompromising beliefs? Now that's amazing.Just saw a poll...I know...take it for what it is.
But in this one, 469,403 people have voted in it - and 60% support the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry. That's a big number.
While it also notes that the inquiry hadn't done much to change pre-existing thoughts on Trump's conduct, this tidbit at the end of the poll should worry Trumpers: Asked how the impeachment inquiry has affected their thinking about the 2020 election, only 1 percent of 2016 Hillary Clinton voters said it has made them more likely to vote for Trump, while five times as many 2016 Trump voters said it has made them less likely to vote for the president a second time.I would love to see that poll and take a look at how it was conducted.
Valeant, I thought I would get back to your comments--points I made in my post--though I'm running into a little difficulty here, in that you don't seem to have addressed any particular point, but rather engaged in a rambling and largely unrelated discourse. (Which I think we normally characterize as deflection.)
As best I can tell, you are contesting whether there was indeed any corruption to investigate Ukraine. Your words here are, "First is that the corruption was based on a false premise for why Biden had Shokin removed."
I would, first, have to call this deflection, as there is nothing in my post about "why Biden had Shokin removed." You are addressing a statement I did not make, and doing so without clarifying your position on this matter. So.... Why do you figure Biden had Shokin removed?
First, I would have to point out that Biden's demand for Shokin's removal was illegal under the Geneva conventions which forbid meddling in the domestic affairs of other nations. I would again point out that Biden made this explicit demand, on videotape before the CFR, stating that he had explicitly threatened to withhold aid on this explicit condition.
Now, as I've mentioned before, such "quid-pro-quo" dealings are standard, everyday, perfectly legal diplomatic bargains. This is, in great part, how diplomacy is done: You make deals in the expectation of serving the national interests.
Such dealings become illegal and corrupt when those making these deals are doing so to serve their own personal interests, rather than the interests of the US--and, where the disbursal of US funds (in quite large amounts, BTW) intended to serve US interests end up in politicians' bank accounts, one may say that said politicians are serving their own interests to the detriment of US national interests. (Misappropriation of funds is obviously detrimental to those whose funds have been misappropriated. This is not a victimless crime.)
It is clear that Biden wanted Shokin removed because he was investigating Burisma. It is also clear (and very well documented) that Burisma was providing Hunter Biden with some very serious chunks of change--in the millions of dollars--and for no discernible reason. It is also clear that an investigation of Burisma would have shut of the Biden family's money spigot.
Now, you can call this interesting set of circumstances a mere "theory" that there was some corruption in the works. But it kind of warrants investigation, no?
Kind of looks like taxpayer dollars are being laundered into the Bidens' personal bank accounts, no? Maybe we should look into that. Could be there was something fishy about using the threat of withholding funds from Ukraine to fire the investigator--whose findings might shut down your looting operation.
There is no doubt about any of the above. We literally have the papers to prove it--and the videotape.
So I would have to say that your claim that the corruption was a mere "theory" is a bit of a stretch."Now, as I've mentioned before, such "quid-pro-quo" dealings are standard, everyday, perfectly legal diplomatic bargains. This is, in great part, how diplomacy is done: You make deals in the expectation of serving the national interests." - YES, that is true, but [u]only when[/b] serving the national interest is is true in Biden's case.
It is not true in Trump's case because his was purely for [b[personal gain[/b] - an Abuse of Power, plain and simple.
Valeant, I suppose it is necessary to move on to your second point--and example of both deflection (responding to something I did not say) and sandbagging (attempting to pile on a bunch of allegations, in this case unrelated to my post).
Your words: "Second is that Sondlund testified that the after speaking to Trump directly and Guiliani, the announcement of the investigation was what mattered, not actually conducting an investigation in order for Ukraine to get the White House meeting."
I would first point out that Sonlund's statement in this case "directly contradicted his testimony to investigators last month, when he said he “never” thought there was any precondition on the aid."
There are a couple of problems with this. One of them is that Sondlund apparently does not know for sure what he "thought" from one day to the next. The other is that these are merely his (so called) thoughts and opinions. Sondland's claims are mere presumptions on his part.As the White House obstructed Congress by not allowing Sondlund access to information, he testified he was refreshed by other witness testimony. More likely is that as other testimony came forward, he got caught trying to withhold to protect Trump. When it became apparent he could not do that, he came clean.
Trump asking Sondlund about the investigations on the phone means he had ordered Sondlund to discuss them with Zelensky. By this point, the Ukrainians definitely knew that military aid had been frozen by the US. It has been confirmed.
That is the quid pro quo. An ally is at war, and Trump is withholding military aid legally approved by Congress and demanding Ukraine to open and announce an investigation into his chief political rival. After that aid has been certified by the State Department as being cleared to be given.She's parroting Hannity and Limbaugh with her laughable defense of Trump's attempt to bribe Ukraine. Perhaps she can explain why Trump won't allow Bolton, Mulvehey, and Pompeo to testify and clear his name.
Blue - why do you misrepresent things that were actually said. Sondland never said that "he never though there was any precondition on the aid" - I didn't think you were telling the truth again. The actual quotes are these:
Republican Staffer: "“And you had never thought there was a precondition to the aid. Is that correct?” asked a Republican staffer who questioned him, according to a newly released transcript of the testimony. "
Sondland: “Never, no,” Sondland replied at the time. “I mean, I was dismayed when it was held up, but I didn't know why.”
When asked again -
Republican Staffer: “So to the extent there were any preconditions to anything, it was perhaps with the White House meeting, but not the aid?”
Sondland: “I wasn’t aware of it or I wasn’t–I don't recall being aware of it,”
THIS IS an entirely different meaning than the one you tried to foist on us.
Later, memory refreshed, Sondland did clearly state there were preconditions.
Sondland's recollection are based on first hand conversation with the principals and Trump.
Valeant, let us continue.
You stated, "Three, that Ukraine had already met all the anti-corruption benchmarks needed to have that aid released."
Some problems with this statement are that Ukraine is notoriously corrupt, among the three most-corrupt nations of the world--alongside Colombia and Brazil. Could be there is something fishy about those "benchmarks."
Secondly, aid was not withheld.I'll take this one first. The benchmarks were from the State Department. So they were our own requirements that had been met.
Releasing aid after getting caught withholding aid really isn't a great defense. Next, $35 million of the aid still hasn't made it to Ukraine. Its in the report, on page 145 specifically. I love when you make your false claims."Some problems with this statement are that Ukraine is notoriously corrupt," - THERE WERE no problems with that statement because DoD cleared them for the aid. Are you calling DoD liars??
Valeant, re your assertion that "Trump and Mulvaney have gone on national television and confirmed they held back the aid in order to get investigations":
This is what Trump actually said: "“It’s very important to talk about corruption,” Trump said. “If you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?”
Duh. Of course this is appropriate.Here is video of Donald's own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHKWusypmpc
Duh. Of course this is inappropriate to withhold aid to get investigations. Especially after Ukraine had met the State Department benchmarks for anti-corruption.Duh, yourself - As Valeant and I just said, DoD and State Department cleared Ukraine to receive the aid because they met the requirements. For personal reasons, Trump illegally reversed that decision. What is it that you don't understand about that??.
I just finished reading the 55 page report on
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT REPORT BY THE MAJORITY STAFF OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION DECEMBER 2019
He is the link if you so desire to read the report: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1
Here is the synopsis of this report as I see it.
Treason and bribery
Treason” is an unforgivable betrayal of the Nation and its security. A President who levies war against the government, or lends aid and comfort to our enemies, cannot persist in office; a President who betrays the Nation once will most certainly do so again. “
Impeachable bribery occurs when the President offers, solicits, or accepts something of personal value to influence his own official actions. By rendering such bribery impeachable, the Framers sought to ensure that the Nation could expel a leader who would sell out the interests of We the People” for his own personal gain.
“Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,”
( 1) abuse of power, ( 2 )betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements, and ( 3 ) corruption of office and elections. Any one of these violations of the public trust justifies impeachment; when combined in a single course of conduct, they state the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from office.
Conclusions regarding the nature of impeachable offenses. In sum , history teaches that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” referred mainly to acts committed by public officials, using their power or privileges, that inflicted grave harm on our political order. Such great and dangerous offenses included treason, bribery, serious abuse of power, betrayal of the national interest through foreign entanglements, and corruption of office and elections.
They were unified by a clear theme: officials who abused , abandoned , or sought personal benefit from their public trust — and who threatened the rule of law if left in power faced impeachment. Each of these acts, moreover, should be plainly wrong to reasonable officials and persons of honor. When a political official uses political power in ways that substantially harm our political system , Congress can strip them of that power.
The criminality issue.
It is occasionally suggested that Presidents can be impeached only if they have committed crimes. That position was rejected in President Nixon's case , and then rejected again in President Clinton's, and should be rejected once more. Offenses against the Constitution are different than offenses against the criminal code. Some crimes, like jaywalking, are not impeachable. And some forms of misconduct may offend both the Constitution and the criminal law . Impeachment and criminality must therefore be assessed separately — even though the President's commission of indictable crimes may further support a case for impeachment and removal. Ultimately, the House must judge whether a President's conduct offends and endangers the Constitution itself.
Fallacies about impeachment.
In the final section of this Report, we briefly address six falsehoods about impeachment that have recently drawn public notice.
First, contrary to mistaken otherwise, we demonstrate that the current impeachment inquiry has complied in every respect with the Constitution, the Rules of the House, and historic practice and precedent of the House.
Second, we address several evidentiary matters . The House impeachment inquiry has compiled substantial direct and circumstantial evidence bearing on the issues at hand.
Nonetheless, President Trump has objected that some of the evidence gathered by the House comes from witnesses lacking first-hand knowledge of his conduct. But in the same breath, he has unlawfully ordered many witnesses with first-hand knowledge to defy House subpoenas. As we show , President Trump s assertions regarding the evidence before the House are misplaced as a matter of constitution a law and common sense.
Third, we consider President Trump' s claim that his actions are protected because of his right under Article II of the Constitution “ to do whatever I want as president. This claim is wrong, and profoundly so , because our Constitution rejects pretensions to monarchy and binds Presidents with law . That is true even of powers vested exclusively in the chief executive. If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in an abusive manner harming the constitutional system, the President is subject to impeachment for “ high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This is a core premise of the impeachment power.
Fourth, we address whether the House must accept at face value President Trump's claim that his motives were not corrupt. In short, no. When the House probes a President' s state of mind, its mandate is to find the facts. That means evaluating the President' s account of his motives to see if it rings true. The question is not whether the President's conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate. Where the House discovers persuasive evidence of corrupt wrongdoing, it is entitled to rely upon that evidence to impeach. We explain that attempted Presidential wrongdoing is impeachable . Mason himself said so at the Constitutional Convention , where he described “ attempts to subvert the Constitution ” as a core example of “ great and dangerous offenses . Moreover, the Judiciary Committee reached the same conclusion in President Nixon s case. Historical precedent thus confirms that ineptitude and insubordination do not afford the President a defense to impeachment. A President cannot escape impeachment just because his scheme to abuse power, betray the nation, or corrupt elections was discovered and abandoned.
Finally, we consider whether impeachment “ nullifies” the last election or denies voters their voice in the next one. The Framers themselves weighed this question . They considered relying solely on elections — rather than impeachment — to remove wayward Presidents. That position was firmly rejected . No President is entitled to persist in office after committing “ high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and no one who voted for him in the last election is entitled to expect he will do so . Where the President s misconduct is aimed at corrupting elections, relying on elections to solve the problem is no safeguard at all.
My conclusion as the submitter: If the Senate trial is fair and is about offenses to the Constitution, which it will not be, Trump will be impeached. But we all know it is biased to keep Trump in power because the GOP senate is put their jobs above any offense that Trump and his cohorts will make to the constitution. And that makes Trump free to ply his wares of abusing and violating the Constitution of We the People until he is no longer in power.
Again, here is the link to the full report in pdf format:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1"If the Senate trial is fair and is about offenses to the Constitution, which it will not be, Trump will be impeached."
Just curious, but would you consider a reversal of the House process to be "fair"? That is, not allowing any but defense testimony, not allowing any Democrat to call witnesses, a completely biased prosecutor, "examining" only defense testimony/evidence?
Would that be "fair"? If not, why not? The House has made no effort to get "the whole story"; should the Senate do so?Wilderness: I guess you missed this part of the report:
"Second, we address several evidentiary matters . The House impeachment inquiry has compiled substantial direct and circumstantial evidence bearing on the issues at hand.
Nonetheless, President Trump has objected that some of the evidence gathered by the House comes from witnesses lacking first-hand knowledge of his conduct. But in the same breath, he has unlawfully ordered many witnesses with first-hand knowledge to defy House subpoenas. As we show , President Trump s assertions regarding the evidence before the House are misplaced as a matter of constitution a law and common sense."
Do you really think there is going to be a fair trial when the majority of the senate is made up of GOP who place their jobs above country and are more concerned about getting re-elected than violations of the constitution committed by Trump?
All of the members took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, do you really think they would do that? The house is operating in accordance with the constitution and the rules for articles of impeachment that have been set by precedent. Read the report I posted.
Case in point, I give you a huge GOP hypocrite, Lindsey Gramm. Chief Justice Roberts is supposed to preside over the trial and make the final judgement, do you really think he will be unbiased? If he is unbiased, then Trump will be impeached. I don't think he will allow that.Did you intentionally refuse to answer the question? Nothing you said here has anything to do with what was asked.
I'll repeat it in more simple terms: would it be "fair" for the GOP in the Senate to repeat the process used by the D's in the House, except from their point of view rather than the adversarial view of the D's?Wilderness: The House has their rules for conducting the articles of impeachment, just like the Senate will have their rules for conducting the trial of impeachment.
In order for me to answer your question I first have to know what you mean about the D's in the house being adversarial? If both sides follow their rules and do not violate the constitution, then I believe that is the definition of fairness.
I did see a lot of adversarial behavior from the R's like Kevin Mc Carthy, Steve Scalise, LIz Cheny, Doug Collins, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes. Please tell me how the D's were adversarial.
You said in your first comment the D's didn't get the whole story. The only people holding the whole story are Trump and his people who have been subpoenaed and Trump has stopped them from testifying. You can't have it both ways. Whether you realize it or not Trump is obstructing justice by doing that and it is a impeachable offense.
Read the report.I suppose Wilderness sees nothing wrong with Nunes not disclosing his contacts with Guiliani and Parnas as he sat as the ranking minority member during the inquiry with such conflicts of interest.
The D's of the house did not ever intend to actually find an answer to the question of wrong-doing: they spent their entire time trying to prove it happened. No effort to get and understand both sides of the question - it was always assumed that wrongdoing occurred and the only question was "could it be proven".
Thus the question: is it "fair" for the GOP to do the same thing, but from their point of view?
But you know this, so why are you asking? Is there some point you're trying to make?
And finally, yes I know Trump's actions are "impeachable". Everything is, if Congress doesn't like it - he could use the wrong tissue to blow his nose and it would be "impeachable" if enough votes could be garnered. One could always claim, after all, that it was a national security risk to use that brand. I also know that the D's have been desperate since his election to get him out of office, and have made multiple, open ended "investigations" to find something - anything - that might aid in the goal. The comical thing is that they cannot possible get the required 2/3rds of the Senate to agree with them and they know it. So...nothing but a political dog and pony show to help them elect the next president. Same thing Trump is accused of doing.Wilderness: Trump took an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. He has violated that oath by subverting the constitution for his own political gain, by using bribery, abuse of power, and corruption of elections.
If you read the report, it states in order for the house to draft articles of impeachment, there does not have to be concrete proof, they can be inferred, but the violations have to be of such magnitude and nature that can affect our democracy and the republic. As they say, no one can be above the law, not even the president. He is not a King.
The reason there is a trial in the senate is to determine if those violations warrant the president be removed from office. If he is found guilty, he must be removed from office to keep from setting a precedent of doing the same thing for another president. It is a way of protecting the constitution, our democracy, and the republic. It has nothing to with "Trump blowing his nose with the wrong tissue."
In my view, Trump is his own worst enemy. He asked Russia and China to intervene in our election processes. He tried to dig up dirt on the Biden's and now he has hatched a conspiracy theory about crowdstrike being a Ukrainian instrument to use against him.
He has interfered in a investigation that he started with Jeff Sessions and it backed fired and then he tried to fire Mueller by asking McGahn to fire Mueller. He won't even let McGahn testify. That's even more obstruction of justice.
You want to talk about open-ended investigations? How about Trump and the Birther movement, Voter Fraud, Hillary's email, CrowdStrike, Ukraine Interference with the 2016 election? How about he uses a shadow government in the person of Guilianni and his cohorts to do Trump's dirty work for him?
How about he uses his personal cell phone instead of secure lines so that his call are not recorded. However, it makes it very easy for foreign entities to tap his conversations. In the wrong hands, that could be treason my friend. He did that with Ambassador Sonland as well.
Read the report.This is very interesting. You accuse Trump of subverting the Constitution, but fail to see that this sham impeachment hearing conducted by these elite acolytes (Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler) are trying to subvert the votes of 60,000,000 people who legally elected Trump as president. Actually, they have been trying to impeach him since he took office three years ago. They are the ones subverting the Constitution and you support this!
Those 60,000,000 votes elected a criminal (many knew it, and didn't care). The framers of the Constitution wanted those people impeached, which is what the House is doing before he can contaminate the 2020 election.
The Democrats are carrying out the wishes of our founders, plain and simple.
It is TraitorTrump and his supporters who are pissing on them.An interesting post. I do wonder, though, if you catch the irony of the House doing exactly what Trump is assumed to have done, using the excuse that the framers of our Constitution intended for it's politicians to override the desire of the people in fixing the election.
You don't know much about our founders, do you. Our founders didn't want the masses voting for President, they feared exactly what happened - a demagogue pulling the wool over susceptible citizens (like you) eyes with words they want to hear even though there is no meaning behind them.
The Democrats are doing exactly what the writers of our Constitution wanted them to do.Yup. And they understood the value of citizens with well-rounded educations as they help prevent the types of absurdities we have today
"Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation." --Thomas Jefferson
Note how it particularly states "sciences" and not trades.They, TraitorTrump supporters, hate education because people with well-rounded educations are able to think critically, to see behind the BS that TraitorTrump and the no-balls Republicans spout in his defense.
It is not be accident, that it is the people with no college degrees that support Trump the most. The more educated you are, the less he can mesmerize you with his Trumps.
Just a gut feeling, but I believe Abraham Lincoln understood the founders of this country far better than you do:
"...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.No one is above the law, not even Trump. In addition to the 10 obstructions of justice that Trump has been charged with in the Mueller report. Trump and his associates have first hand knowledge of what really happened in Ukraine, but they have not honored their subpoenas, which is an admission of guilt and a cover up. I believe they will be charged with obstruction of congress as well.
Obstruction of Justice?
You mean obstruction of a Party led witch hunt.
The exact same form of "obstruction" Obama did for his last 6 years.
The difference is the Dems always planned on Impeachment and always talked about it, from day one of the Trump presidency, if they had no legit reason for one they would CREATE it.
Any unbiased fool can see this, that's why Trumps numbers are climbing again (thanks to the Jobs report and the Dems having no evidence, just hearsay) and most of America has already tuned out this farce."You mean obstruction of a Party led witch hunt." - You mean Republican led so-called "witch hunt" don't you?
-Wasn't it a Republican who recused himself?
-Wasn't it a Republican who appointed another Republican to investigate the Russian interference?
-Didn't the Republican investigator actually indict dozens of people in this so-called witch hunt?
-Didn't this Republican investigator convict several Trump campaign associates for crimes related to the Russian investigation?
-Didn't this Republican investigator hand over to Congress enough concrete evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice in trying to stop the Republican led so-called witch hunt?
Boy, if it was a witch hunt, it certainly found a lot of witches.
I JUST SAY that the House Judiciary Committee issued two Articles of Impeachment.
- Abuse of Power
- Obstruction of Congress
- They left the Obstruction of Justice to be tried in criminal court after Trump is gone.
I don't believe you will find a judge in the country that will agree that refusal to testify and convict one's self can be construed, by any stretch of the imagination, as an admission of guilt. In fact, as a juror on a recent case we were instructed at length NOT to take that refusal as any form of guilt.
Are you making things up again Wilderness? Where was it said that "Trump" not testifying was an admission of guilt?? He didn't!
What was said that Trump "Not Honoring the Subpoenas" is the admission of guilt.Remember when GOP'ers claimed to revere the constitution? Heck, one on these forums even bragged he carried it around in his back pocket. That was after accusing me of being a Socialist, of course, because I didn't consider signing an executive order to be abuse of presidential power.
My, how times change.They haven't given a damn about the Constitution since 1994.
The only ones pissing on their graves are the Democrat leadership conducting this sham impeachment and their supporters. If the House Democrats continue to abuse their power by not allowing the Republican minority a fair part in this impeachment, this will continue to get super ugly. If anything, vote on the damn thing so that it can go to the senate where a real trial can begin. Schiff, The Bidens, the whistleblower, and anyone and everyone the Democrats want to bring to the plate are welcome. It will get interesting when the power is removed from the likes of Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler. They have done irreparable damage to Congress by their actions. They should be ashamed of themselves.
You, like TraitorTrump, know nothing about America. You just want a criminal in the White House.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
The people who voted for him had a choice between voting for an obvious corrupt politician who was gaming the system for her own benefits. And a non-politician who was pointing out all the corruption in D.C.
The framers of the Constitution would be appalled that Congress is in the pockets of corporations and special interest groups, and has no concern at all for the voters.
They would be appalled that the Democratic Party has become home to factions that want to do away with the Constitution, that want to do away with national borders and give away their sovereignty to international bodies.
They would be appalled that foreign interests and international corporations are now considered to have the same rights and abilities as citizens, and hold sway over enough politicians in congress (on both sides of the aisle) that they, not the American people, effectively have control over the direction of the country.
The framers however would not be surprised by this biased, party led attack on the President, for it was much a part of their reality after Washington stepped down, and the election process truly began in this country, as it is now.HA!!! The long awaited and much "trumpeted" Horowitz report that was going to excoriate the FBI is out. What did it reveal:
- That Trump foisted a real hoax on the American people (while making fools of the Trump supplicants who passed it on) that Obama wiretapped him.is officially DEBUNKED !
- That Trump foisted a real hoax on the American people (while making fools of the Trump supplicants who passed it on) that the FBI was part of the so-called "Deep State" and purposefully and illegally investigated him is officially DEBUNKED !
- That Trump foisted a real hoax on the American people (while making fools of the Trump supplicants who passed it on) that FBI planted "spies" in the Trump Campaign is officially DEBUNKED !
- That Trump foisted a real hoax on the American people (while making fools of the Trump supplicants who passed it on) that FBI tried to recruit members of the Trump Campaign is officially DEBUNKED !
Of course, the so-called AG, Bill Barr, now claims the Inspector General Trumped (like he said Mueller Trumped)
But who are you going to believe?? A totally disgraced Trump mouthpiece who is shaming America or TWO well respected, independent experienced investigators (one of which is Republican appointed by a Republican and the other is probably Republican)?
Horowitz ought to investigate Barr now and Trump supplicants should be ashamed and apologize to everyone they Trumped to.
Oh yeah, Job Openings are falling while at the same time, hires are about equal to fires (the last time that was true was in 2014)The only corrupt person running for president in 2016 was Trump - for which he will finally go to jail in a couple of years.
"The framers of the Constitution would be appalled that Congress is in the pockets of corporations and special interest groups, " - YES they would be.
"They would be appalled that the Democratic Party has become home to factions that want to do away with the Constitution, that want to do away with national borders and give away their sovereignty to international bodies." - WITHOUT doubt, that is a Trump. Although, I do agree they would be sad (not appalled because they expected it) that America has maintained two major factions: the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to start with and the Democrats and Republicans today.
"The framers however would not be surprised by this biased, party led attack on the President," - ON THE Contrary, the framers would be applauding the Democrats for trying to remove a dangerous Demagogue from office before he can do further damage to our nation and our elections - something he is actively engaged in today.It is this total denial of reality on your part that makes every other point you have suspect or baseless.
Clinton was as corrupt as a politician can get. That you perceive her as otherwise, has you grasping at extreme reasons why people supported Trump. It has you believing in Russians controlling the election, or everyone who supports him being white supremacists, it has you hating the 'extreme right' which is anyone who doesn't condemn Trump.
As evidenced by the vast collection of articles you have written against Trump, it is clear you are obsessed with him, your views, conjectures, opinions, are biased in the extreme.
I have no issue with him being replaced as President, therefore I would not put myself in the category of 'fanatical supporter of Trump' they way I would classify you as fanatical 'never Trump'.
I do however have issue with replacing him with a corrupt establishment stooge that has spent decades selling out this country and abusing their position... people like Clinton and Biden. The very people you support.Ken and Wilderness: Let's keep this simple. As Trump supporters say, "It's about the economy, stupid!." This time it's about the constitution, stupid.
Trump has violated the Constitution of the United States of America. He asked the head of foreign nation to make a public announcement on CNN that Biden and his Son are corrupt for his own personal gain to influence the outcome of an election.
He didn't care whether Zelensky actually made the investigation or not. It was the announcement that was important to Trump. That is an abuse of his power.
He and his cohorts were subpoenaed to testify in the hearings. He did not and they were ordered by Trump to not testify. That is obstruction of congress.
Both of those actions put Trump above the law. The framers did not want a president to operate as a monarch and betray the trust of the country.
Trump has done that and needs to be removed from office to set a precedent that no other president will have that power and betray his oath of office.
It's not about the economy stupid. It's about the constitution and the trust of our nation. This is what the framers meant by high crimes and misdemeanors. It doesn't even have to be a criminal offense. It's about the betrayal of oath of office by not upholding, protecting and defending the constitution.
Trump took an oath to do all of those things and every member of the trial will take an oath to do the same thing. If they follow that oath, Trump will be removed from office. But I bet you dollars to doughnuts, they won't because the GOP is as corrupt as Trump is.When caught, what's he do? He sends Guiliani back to Ukraine to continue digging up dirt on Biden. If that's not flaunting that he's above the law, nothing would.
Trump had previously released military aid to Ukraine prior to holding it up in 2019. He had concerns about payment, not about corruption the first time. To say he cared about corruption is such an obviously made up after-the-infraction excuse, it's laughable.
It's amazing what Trump supporters will allow themselves to justify to back such a liar. It'd be sad if it wasn't such a danger to the country.And as others have suggested, if the hypocritical Republicans who want Biden investigated, why did they decide NOT to do it years ago while the iron was hot.
I'll tell you why, because they knew what Biden did was in the best interest of America.
You can wrap it in whatever terminology you want, its just politics... the game of politics. The effort to convince people that this is this rather than that.
This is nothing more than the criminals within a corrupt system going after the outsider that is exposing them, firing them, and in general making them look like the idiots they are.
The people voted him there for that reason... those same people don't care what you label it, or what you say he is guilty of... criminals calling Trump a criminal is meaningless.
Trump is there to disrupt, demolish, turn-over the apple cart... he is there to make lives better for Americans again... something our politicians and political system stopped doing decades ago... if that is at the expense of Mexico or China or the 'global agenda' the people that voted for him don't care. They care about their wallets, their livelihood, their freedoms.
They don't care if the Democrats impeach him, or if CNN calls him a traitor... they never will. Neither do I.My thought on the Obstruction of Congress is this:
If Trump thought there was a good, legal reason to not obey a lawful subpoena from Congress, he should have gone to court over it (which only one of the witnesses did and none of the holders of the documents requested). Only then would he have a modicum of basis for violating the law.
He didn't and THAT is crucial. Congress had to go to court to try to enforce a subpoena being illegally obstructed. As a consequence, to any fair-minded juror, Trump, by definition, committed an impeachable offense. No further evidence is needed.
Some of the GOP are as corrupt as TraitorTrump is, Graham for instance. The rest are simply cowards who value their jobs more than they honor the Constitution. I predict it WILL come back to bite them at the ballot box if they let Trump off with his crimes.
The ONLY PEOPLE who are denying reality are you and other Trump supplicants.
Of course I am a "Never Trumper" just like I am a "Never Hitlerer".
As to your comments about Clinton and Biden, you are 1) projecting and 2) Trumping.
Trump is more corrupt than any politician in American history. He is of the Putin, Un, Assad mold.
Again with this treasonous argument. You remember that hostile foreign nation that attacked our elections right? The investigation was to figure out what happened and if their preferred candidate conspired with them. And you know what happened, Trump obstructed the investigation ten different ways, protecting that hostile foreign government. But you just keep making your idiot claim this was about removing Trump. However you need to excuse your treason and fight for those Russians I guess.
"The D's of the house did not ever intend to actually find an answer to the question of wrong-doing:" - YET THEY did, din't they Wilderness.
They easily established the probable cause necessary to write the articles of impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial.
Did you refuse to read the report, Wilderness?
Please provide a true characterization of the process. I can't answer to false assertions.
No Scott, I don't know better than that. Whether I believe the offered opinions, or not, it is clear to me that the signers of those petition/opinion letters all have an agenda. What confidence can I have, (other than my agreement or disagreement), that their agenda isn't influencing their participation?
Get it right My Esoteric, I did not say I supported Pres. Trump's or the Republicans' version/rebuttal of the letters' contentions. I only said I believe those opinions, (the letter signers), have an agenda. And that I haven't found any source of confidence that their agenda is unbiased.
Which brings me back to the point I argued with Valeant, and now you; your proof is only inference. That doesn't mean that the inference is wrong, but it does mean it is not irrefutable proof.
I will answer your rhetorical question. We bring experts in to inform our conclusions. We don't bring in experts to inform our conclusions about the truth of the science of DNA evidence, we bring those experts in to explain the results of the science—no inferences or drawn conclusion support necessary.
I am glad you gave that jury example because that has been my point all along. Of course, your illustration is an example of real life, and in such real-life examples, there are probably as many hung juries as there are unanimous ones.
Just like many jurors, you are so sure of your interpretation of the 'facts' presented that support your conclusions that you just can't fathom how Juror #9 can see the 'evidence' as not supporting the proof as you do. That guy must be an idiot.
I have read that as many as 1 in every 25 death sentences were wrongful convictions. Would the Central Park Five offer any bearing on that same thought? Would the successes of the Innocence Project bear any weight on the thought that 2+2 isn't always really 2+2?
ps. I didn't say expert opinion, (in this case the opinion letters of this discussion), was BS. I said it was agenda-driven which leaves room for a seed of doubt. Just like those "expert" witnesses that were discredited in one of those for-profit juvenile detention center cases where it was shown that there was a kick-back profit motive for their "expert" testimony.
Of course, I am not saying that is the motivation for the "experts" being discussed, but I am saying I believe there is a clear agenda motive. So there is, to me, the possibility for that seed of doubt.
You can paint this as a defense of for Pres. Trump, but I think that claim would be seen as weak when it can easily be found in my previous comments that, relative to the Ukraine issue, I do think Pres. Trump is guilty as charged—he did it for personal gain.
GABTW, I am assuming we are talking about the letter all of the Republican, Independent, and Democratic former prosecutors wrote saying Trump obstructed justice.
What "agenda" do those Republicans, non-partisan, and Democrats have other than to get out the truth?
Are you saying that all of the Republicans who signed that letter are out to get Trump? I think not.
Are you saying that all of the non-partisans and independents who signed that letter are out to get Trump? I think not as well
Only the Democrats who signed the letter MAY have an agenda other than the truth.
My point about the jury example wasn't that there can't be hung juries, obviously there are and I am happy about that.
My point was that from your comments, the level of proof you personally require prevents you from ever finding a person guilty unless he or she admitted such in the trial.My Esoteric, your final point offers the opportunity for a simple response. O f course all of my opinions, and need for proof are personal, it cannot be otherwise, (for any of us), but, you are wrong that the proof I require is simply a black and white 2+2=4.
I honestly believe I can make a determination of guilt or innocence based on inference only. I think I would make a good and reasonable juror. But, any inference I draw must be one supported by confidence in my path to accepting that inference. If the inference is all I have to go on, and there is not 100% confidence in the inference I have drawn—then I will not convict on that inference.
If I have to guess, then I must have no reasonable doubt about my guess. I can't say that about my drawn inferences in this Ukraine case. I may believe that my interpretation is right. And that is good enough for me to form an opinion. But it is not good enough for me to vote for conviction.
In essence, I disagree with your comment. My bar is not set too high, I think yours is set too low.
GAI am trying to what I just heard from today's Judiciary Committee testimony.
1. While aid was finally released (under pressure) the promised White House visit never happened.
2. Zelenskyy is meeting with Putin in a much weaker position than he otherwise would have had if Trump had actually supported him.
3. Trump has never conducted a review of Ukraine corruption
4. Trump approved aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 (when there was no election on hand) even though Ukraine was much more corrupt than they are today.
5. DoD released the current aid in May after assessing that Ukraine was meeting their anti-corruption goals.
6. As to hearsay - conversations between co-conspirators (Volker, Sondlund, Trump, and Giuliani, (I think I am forgetting somebody) is an exception to the hearsay rule. Meaning people who hear them say something, can testify to it.
So Trump gets impeached for soliciting Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. What's he do next, sends Guiliani back to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. C'mon, really? I guess he figures since there's no quid pro quo this time, no one will bat an eyelash. Unreal.
When his supporters buy this as one of the top arguments, then the country has issues.
This to you all,
I see excuses being made for Trump. This is an endless merry go round that is as frustrating as finding a definitive value for pi.
Where can we get a irrefutable source that must be given credibility from any side? it seems like the GOP is chasing the wind when nothing in this sordid affair can be proven with 100 percent certainty without a direct confession from Trump and we won't get that. So, we continue to play this shell game without closure?
The GOP are bull shyte artists using endless minutia to discredit the significant preponderance of evidence against Trump and I am getting tired of it.
To the GOP: stalling won't save you, so let's get on the the beheadings....We have irrefutable proof that Trump made a call to the Ukraine and asked that Biden be investigated.
But what you're asking for is that everyone accept your opinion that the motive was to influence the election as that same "irrefutable proof", and calling them shyte artists when they fail to do so."The GOP are bull shyte artists using endless minutia to discredit the significant preponderance of evidence against Trump and I am getting tired of it."
I agree with that Cred. But I also would agree with this:
"The Democrats are bull shyte artists using endless minutia to discredit the president and any apparent evidence that isn't against Trump and I am getting tired of it."
GA
Any unbiased fool can see that Trump brings on all the talks of impeachment. I think it even bolsters his base. I remember after the election when the media, and Washington were trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. But, he just doesn't allow that. He doesn't want that. Pelosi said for months that Trump was trying to goad them into impeaching him. He is getting exactly what he deserves, and wants, because he forced the Dems hand. He is a dummy at everything but being a con.
I guess TraitorTrump is going to fire his second FBI director.
Wray just said:
"The inspector general did not find political bias or improper motivations impacting the opening of the investigation or the decision to use certain investigative tools during the investigation," adding that there was no evidence of political bias in the seeking of a FISA warrant to wiretap the phone of then-Trump campaign official Carter Page.
This is how TraitorTrump responded responded this morning:
"I don't know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn't the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!"Wow. How many Americans in the military, intelligence agencies, etc, does Trump have to turn on for some people to see just how un-American Trump is?
Oh yeah, everyone against Trump is part of the Deep State conspiracy. This is the same justification used for the "Great Purge." Get rid of anyone and everyone who doesn't fall in line with your narrative, no matter how outrageous it is, and label them all spies or traitors.
If Trump has his way, there will be nothign left of America but him. Sorry, not gonna happen though.Every one of them because to TraitorTrump supplicants, these people are the traitors, not Trump.
Peoplepower, what you are overlooking is that none of these supposed misdeeds are illegal--let alone unconstitutional. Requesting an investigation of corruption not only legal, but falls under the president's Constitutional mandate to "see that the laws are enforced." Trump has a Constitutional--and fiduciary--responsibility to do so. Any injury to the political prospects of criminals is a moot point. The injury to their prospects arose, not from the investigation (and, hopefully, prosecution of their crimes), but from their own criminal acts.
Nor is there anything illegal or unconstitutional about seeking to make the public aware of such an investigation. Indeed, the public has a right to know.
Now, if Trump's claims of wrongdoing were unsupported by evidence (as with the many claims of Trump's wrongdoing), you would have a case. Unfortunately (for Biden, and probably some others) the corruption is so well documented that there can be little doubt that it warrants investigation.So you're okay with Trump 's obstruction of congress by not supplying documents and witnesses? You realize this will set a precedent for future presidents to further obstruct congress. So where is the oversight going to come from?
Remember Randy, Blue only want Republican presidents to Obstruct Congress and ask foreign gov'ts to help them win American elections. If a Democrat did EXACTLY what TraitorTrump did, she would want them impeached and convicted in a heartbeat.
Except he didn't request an investigation by United States government agencies. He solicited a foreign government to do one by withholding a meeting and aid. Where in the Constitution does it say he has the right to force a different nation to investigate an American citizen, days after that citizen has announced his candidacy for the office he holds. The timing is just as damning.
Blue: As I said before Trump and his cohorts have first hand knowledge of what happened in the Ukraine. They have been subpoenaed to defend their case, but they have refused to appear. Why is that? That is an obstruction of congress.
Show me in the constitution where it says you can obstruct congress to protect your guilt. If they are innocent and can prove it, whey don't they appear? That fits under the ruling of high crimes and misdemeanors as defined by the house rules. Read the 55 page report as I have.Blue, as usual, you only tell half the story in order to twist reality into something meaningless.
So, once again, let me point out to you that the illegal act "was bribing Ukraine to help him win the 2020 election". Let me repeat that for clarity - "Trump bribing Ukraine to help him win the 2020 election is an impeachable abuse of power"
And again you are Trumping about Biden's corruption being well documented. The TRUTH is Biden is not corrupt and, unlike you and TraitorTrump, was working for the best interests of America..
And Ken's claim that conservatives are not turned off by Trump's antics is false as I've got multiple republican-voting friends who I just polled between rural NY and Texas who all think the top four dems are all better options than Trump.
If I were your 'friend' I would tell you that as well, just so I wouldn't have to listen to you go on and on about why I was wrong if I hadn't said that.
“ I love kids rubbing my legs and jumping on my lap “ -Joe Biden 2019
Not his best moment but the quote is "..and I'd love kids jumping on my lap." Quotes are supposed to be used for exact verbiage. It's at about 7:17 on the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yr … e=youtu.be
Also, he's referring to a time when he was 19. We should at least try harder to be honest.
If you want to hear some really creepy things maybe listen to Trump: https://www.bustle.com/p/7-trump-quotes … oa-7938001
Have fun!! I know you'll read this, lol.
Randy, I don't see that he is obligated to. The Democrats have not allowed the Republicans to call witnesses or view documents. If they can make up the rules as they go along, so can Trump.
Should the House vote for impeachment, I look forward to a Senate trial in which the laws of due process are followed.
Due process laws have been abrogated during the House proceedings. Non-cooperation with unlawfully conducted proceedings would (most probably) be perfectly legal. This is the type of thing that is settled by a court ruling subsequent to a failure to respond to a subpoena. I'm thinking that such a court ruling would uphold Trump--though you never know.They're using the rules Republicans devised during the Benghazi hearings. Since AG Barr declined to investigate Trump's abuse of power, then different rules come into play. But you still don't understand....
No other POTUS has completely defied oversight by the very branch of Govt having the power to do so. Again, do you want a future POTUS to go even further with his abuse of power?There you go again Randy, trying to use facts, logic, and common sense on someone who doesn't understand them.
And of course, Blue, you are Trumping again. Republicans were allowed to call witnesses - relevant to abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, and obstruction of justice. And they did call witnesses, four of which testified and three of which were not relevant to Trump's crimes. Also, you Trumped by saying Republicans weren't allowed to view documents - of course they were! What documents do you have evidence they weren't allowed to see?? Fess up now, you are making this up.
What makes you think the House is supposed to follow due process?? Don't you know anything about how investigations work, it seems not,
Are you telling me police investigators should invite the suspect to participate in their investigation?? It seems so.
Are you telling me the DA investigators should not ever, ever, use hearsay while trying to find the facts?? It seems so.
Are you telling me the DA should let the defense team help write the charging documents? : It seems so.
Seems like you live in a fantasy world, it really does. I feel sad for you.
Randy, also, looking at Trump's refusal to supply documents and witness from another standpoint, there is no actual impeachment going on. What impeachment? The Constution provides that the House may impeach, but when did the House impeach? The only way the House can decide to impeach is by voting to impeach. Otherwise, what you have is Nancy (or Nancy and a handful of other people) impeaching. The Constution does not provide that the Speaker of the House may impeach. It does not provide that the Speaker of the House and a few of her buddies can impeach. Hence, there can hardly be a legal requirement for anybody at all to respond their requests for anything at all. They are just a bunch of guys/gals without standing to do anything.
For the third time Sharon, do you agree the House has oversight over the Executive branch under the Constitution? If not, why keep the House around? Just do away with it and let the POTUS decide things in his "Stable Genius" manner?
If you haven't noticed, Blue, the House will be impeaching Trump next Thursday after the Judiciary Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment.
That said, let me educate you about how the process works.
First, the House notices a potential crime was committed by the president.
Second, the House investigates the crimes (or have a Special Counsel investigate)
Third, if the evidence warrants it, the House Judiciary Committee receives evidence, which they did yesterday.
Fourth, they vote on any articles of impeachment, if warranted, which they are doing on Thursday.
Fifth, the Judiciary Committee forwards in articles to the full House to vote on.
Sixth, the full House votes on the articles of impeachment, which will happen Thursday next.
Seventh, if any articles of impeachment are passed, they are forwarded on the Senate for trial.
That is how it works. How do you see that process not being followed?
Valeant, it is perfectly lawful for the president to request a foreign government to investigate corruption, especially as related to the suspected misappropriation of US taxpayer funds. In fact, he has an obligation to do so, both under the Constitution and in conformity with an existing treaty between the US and Ukraine, obligating each to assist the other in criminal investigations.
As I mentioned before, any injury to the political prospects of criminals is a moot point. The injury to their prospects arose, not from the investigation (and, hopefully, prosecution of their crimes), but from their own criminal acts.
As to the "timing"--well.... Biden is hardly a credible rival to Trump in the first place. Secondly, he is not even a candidate for president. He is merely a private person seeking the Democratic nomination (supposedly).
I mention this merely as an aside. Here again, IMHO, it would be a rather serious abrogation of the Rule of Law (and public confidence and the public's right to know) for Trump or anyone else to shield a (supposed) candidate for the presidency from investigation/prosecution under any circumstances whatsoever. Your saying Biden has some kind of inalienable right to be shielded from investigation--in effect a right to have his corrupt dealings swept under the rug--because he is (supposedly) running for political office.
So if Catherine Pugh, the former Mayor of Baltimore, charged with eleven counts of fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy were to run for president, she should get off the hook?As always, your misinformation is abundant.
Biden not a credible rival? He came is as the front runner with his announcement, one where he clearly states he's running for the office of president. Here it is so you can talk from a point of fact from now on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbOU2fTg6cI
I've seen this point before about people running for office being exempt from investigation. So you were fine with Trump's campaign coming under scrutiny in 2016 and that the FBI should have made an announcement that they had put members of the campaign under surveillance? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Now, the two investigations that Trump alluded to with Zelensky - the first is a Russia conspiracy theory. So Trump is actually working to try and clear the nation that attacked us. This after standing in Helsinki and saying he believed Putin over all 17 of the United States' intelligence services that briefed him on the results.
The second - into Biden for following US policy, as signed off by at least three US GOP Senators, that removing Shokin for failing to investigate corruption was the right thing to do. George Kent, who had been assigned to Ukraine since 2012 as an anti-corruption specialist testified that Biden acted in accordance with US policy and that Trump's theory was debunked. Yet you still come on here to parrot it and his allies are trying to sell it. And Sondlund testifying that the investigation wasn't the critical element, just the announcement of one, was damning. In plain speak - the smear was the necessary element, not the actual finding of any corruption as Trump had already been briefed that his theory was debunked by members of his own administration.
Certainly there was a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden in Ukraine. But if we're going to exclude government officials from dealing with countries where their kids are doing business, how about you speak up about Kushner in Saudi Arabia and Ivanka in China. Yeah, I haven't heard much from you there.Again, Blue, you are only telling half the truth and distorting reality. Why do you do that? All that does is tell people you are not to be believed.
My Esoteric:
1. Non-starter. It was (or would have been) perfectly legal and appropriate to withhold aid--though Zelensky has stated repeatedly that he was unaware of any pressure.
2. I see no reason to support Zelensky or Ukraine in the first place.
3. Ukraine corruption is notorious, rated one of the three most corrupt countries in the world, alongside Columbia and Brazil. No need for an evaluation.
4. I am not seeing the relevance of Trump's choice of times to take action. Many factors may be involved.
5. If Ukraine was "meeting their anti-corruption goals," it does not therefore follow that past (or present) corruption should remain uninvestigated and unprosecuted.
6. Testimony by Volker and Sondlund may in fact be exempt from the hearsay rule. (I don't know offhand.) Nevertheless, their testimony consisted only of opinion, conjecture, and speculation. While admissible in court, "what I dreamed last night" lack evidentiary merit.1. No, under the Impoundment Control Act, withholding aid is illegal since he never notified Congress (or anybody else) as to why he did it. Further, they never approved the withholding. Trump acted like a dictator.
1a. Tell me Blue. Suppose Trump kidnapped your kids then told you not to tell anyone they he did that otherwise he would kill them. Then at a press conference you are asked if Trump kidnapped your kids. What would you say? YES?? I guess with your line of reasoning, you would tell the truth and say Trump kidnapped your kids.
2. What difference does that make?
3. Ukraine was cleared by DoD and State that they were making appropriate anti-corruption efforts and could have the aid. I take you are calling these departments Trumpers (liars).
4. But there are no other factors involved unless you are making them up since Trump hasn't presented any.
5. But Trump wasn't investigating past (or present) Ukrainian corruption, was he? He was only investigating things that could help his campaign. Name me one Ukrainian corruption separate from what will help him.
6. What you say is simply a Trump.
No really, but it would explain some things about your posts.
Your family history hub makes it easy to find your real identity if anyone cared about it, but no one does.Uh, what family history hub? Also, you've got to find something better to do than stalk me on line. Get a girl/boy friend.
I have no reason to stalk someone who wants to be anonymous. I don't care if you're frightened of being identified as that's your problem. And thanks for the excellent advice although I'm already married to wonderful woman.
Perhaps one day you may be able to find one for yourself if you clean up your act.
Valeant, let me summarize your summary of the impeachment hearings:
--Of those who were willing to testify under oath, ALL say they THINK they heard so-and-so say he committed crimes, or that they CONJECTURED, based on the gossip that was going around, that he committed crimes.
The chief crime being: Seeking investigation of corruption and (allegedly) using US financial aid as a bargaining chip to advance said investigation of corruption.
The case against Trump is without merit on those points alone: No crime was committed. None of the witnesses testifying had any direct knowledge that the matters alleged ever took place.
...And that's it.Oh come on Blue. If I say I THINK you exist, therefore you don't. That is what you are saying, you know.
NO, they didn't THINK they heard those - they KNOW they heard those things. There was no CONJECTURE
Sondlund had direct knowledge of what Trump, Volker, Giuliani, Taylor, and others said.
Volker had direct knowledge of what Sondlund, Taylor, and Giuliani and others said
Taylor had direct knowledge of what Sondlund, Volker, and Giuliani and others said
Giuliani had direct knowledge of what Sondlund, Trump, Volker, Taylor, and others said
"The chief crime being: Seeking investigation of corruption and (allegedly) using US financial aid as a bargaining chip to advance said investigation of corruption." - YOU KEEP telling half the facts, I will keep telling others you are misleading them
Here's the way I think I think impeachment plays out:
After the House votes on the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate is likely to dismiss the case out of hand--neither of the alleged "crimes" (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress) rising to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying impeachment under the Constitution.
Now, personally, I think a Senate trial would be great, as it could very well lead to the exposure of mountains of corruption on both sides of the aisle. We could very well learn that most of Congress has misappropriating funds everywhere they could dip their buckets--for decades--along with engaging in those and other criminal conspiracies out the wazoo.
As you will likely agree, nobody (in Congress) wants that. Or hardly anybody. So, nobody in the Senate wants this to go to trial, even setting aside the absence of any merits to the case.
This likely scenario had actually not occurred to me until I listened to a recent podcast from Karl Denninger on tickerforum. His analysis of the situation makes the most sense in this case--as do most of his analyses of most things. The guy has been wrong from time to time, but he has a pretty good batting average. And, if you think about it, I don't see how he can be wrong on this call. Every circumstance I can think of favors Senate dismissal.There WILL be a trial. Why? Because it takes 51 stupid votes to dismiss the trial. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate. If they lose three of those, they are SOL. Romney, Collins, and Murkowski will vote to have a trial. I suspect Lemar Alexander, Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, and McSally will also vote to continue.
They will if they believe Trump isn't above the law. Then again, they may not care. Vote them out in that case!
I have a few turds in my own state who need to be flushed down the toilet. One was acting indignant yesterday, and I'll sure do everything I can to rid my state of his ignorance of the Constitution re the power of Congress.
Ooops!
Just saw this:
Should there be an impeachment trial in the Senate, Senate Republicans have no interest in calling witnesses to determine whether Trump's request was justified in the first place.
"According to the Washington Examiner, the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the Senate.
"Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have "no appetite" for it.
"Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out of 53 votes to spare, there is no “appetite” among Republicans to pursue testimony from people that Democrats blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation. Indeed, Republicans might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump’s guilt or innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings unnecessarily."
This may invalidate what I just said above, since a Senate trial could be conducted in such a way as to leave everyone's "side grift" undisturbed."This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the Senate." - WHY do you want people who know nothing about Trump pressuring Zelenskyy to interfere in our election on Trump's behalf or about Trump illegally withholding documents or witnesses.
The Senate doesn't want the Dems to call Bolton or Pompeo to testify, so they won't allow Trump to call Schiff or Hunter either. They certainly do not want the former duo to testify.
Moscow Mitch has his orbs in a vise if he intends to at least try to give an appearance of adhering to the Constitution during the Senate trial. Good luck with that as the evidence is overwhelming as to OC."The Senate doesn't want the Dems to call Bolton or Pompeo to testify, so they won't allow Trump to call Schiff or Hunter either." - AND THAT's the truth.
Related Discussions
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
- 110
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
- 639
Impeaching Donald Trump - Again
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
- 117
Trump Tribunals: Predict An Impeachment Article / Indictment Charge
by JAKE Earthshine 6 years ago
There is no other acceptable choice and or remedy other than his resignation which would conceivably still lead to immediate criminal indictment given the trove of damning evidence which currently exists: The political END must be near for this most absurdly unqualified and mentally shackled...
- 66
Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.
by jeff61b 4 years ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.But Donald Trump...
- 137
Re-instateing 'real' Donald Trump as President Again
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 3 years ago
The American nation is on the boil! It's law enacting body or Legislation is likewise on the boil on impeaching biden. Both Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are target to be impeached as not to compromise the Presidency! So Biden, Kamala, and...