The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
I wonder if President Donald Trump had oral sex from a White House intern, if the Democrats would be okay with it? They were okay with it when bill clinton did it, so what would be the problem?
Who claim's Trump hasn't had a BJ in the WH, Mike? It wouldn't be a shocker after the porn star and playmate affairs he's had. And those are just the one's we know about...
Trump never drew blood, Clinton he bit Juanita Broderick. OMG can't believe I am saying that about one of our presidents...
I can safely say Bill won over Trump's exploitations with pro's. And do you think we know about all of Clinton's indiscretions? Does the name Epstein ring a bell? 27 times on his jet. I would say we have more to come in regards to Bill.
It surprises me every time someone tries to defend Clinton's depravities. He was and most likely still is one sick person.Who is defending Clinton's sex life, or Kennedy's, or a dozen more presidents. But they, at least, try to keep it discrete. Trump parades it around and grab's women's privates on airplanes and then brags about it.
"Who claim's Trump hasn't had a BJ in the WH?"
That statement is going to stand as evidence of your inability to engage in a discussion. Let us just let the idiocy of this statement speak for itself. It speaks volumes.
RMN: No problem, I'm sure he would love to do that, but don't forget, he also likes grabbing them by their Pu**ies. He wouldn't be impeached because it wouldn't be a crime.
Just like Clinton wasn't impeached for that. He was impeached for lying under oath. I wonder how Republican's would be O.K with that. if Trump was being impeached for lying under oath? Now there is thought!!!
Of course he never lies, because he is a good Christian fellow so he would be immune to impeachment...right? Just ask the Evangelical Christians and his supporters. Do you think there would be a problem?President Tump did what he did as a private citizen. Bill Clinton did what he did as a public servant. He raped and sexually assaulted women as a governor and president. Compared to Clinton's actions in public service, President Donald Trump is a saint.
If there was a valid case of President Donald Trump committing perjury, they would turn on him.
As one of the parables of Jesus teaches us, as a crowd was about to stone a prostitute, Jesus said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."
So, Peoplepower, are you without sin? Are you so pristine and perfect you can judge another's actions? Could YOU cast the first stone? I doubt it.
Read Matthew Chapter 7, vs 1 & 2.
Sorry if you're not Christian, if not, it won't make sense to you.RMN: Sure I Sinned the other day. I farted in a Republic Committee Headquarters. Prove to me that Clinton sexually assaulted women as a president and governor.
So if Trump does sin as a civilian it is O.K.? You don't know what he does as a president. He just hasn't been caught yet. How about over 15,000 lies and misinformation in a three year period. Do you think those are sins?
So Trump is a good Christian person who has been married three times and has committed adultery multiple times, while covering up his sins with hush money.
I think God would be very proud of him. As his hush money has caused his long time lawyer to go to jail for the cover up, while he gets away clean...praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
"How about two Corinthians?" A quote from Trump while addressing the students at Evangelical Christian Liberty University. This is classic Trump con man hype.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/po … video.html
He did a lot worse than a consensual BJ. Can't forget Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey ... They saw no problem at the time. Neither did "Stand by your man Hillary"
Sharlee: You also can't forget Trump's three wives, extra marital affairs, and on and on.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-m … s-birth-14Here is what is happening with Trump's tariffs.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBYrsA7?m=en-us&ocid=MoneyJust to point on it:
"President Donald Trump has promised throughout his presidency to revive American manufacturing by slapping punishing tariffs on foreign competition.
But a new study from the US Federal Reserve suggests that his efforts have backfired — and that the manufacturing sector is worse off than it was before the president began his protectionist trade policy."
"As a result, US manufacturing has seen job losses and higher prices for consumers."
I have not forgotten Trump's three wives. It is clear he was married on two other occasions. Divorce is very popular in America. I give those two wives great credit, lots of respect for pulling out on a man that was unfaithful.
Just can't say as much for a wife that stayed with a man that had some very sick sexual habits... Yeah... And I would have wanted this type of woman to be the first female president. It almost nauseates me.
Bill takes the prize when it comes to sexual perversion. Trump, is in the little league compared to Bill. Trump is a womanizer, Bill is a preditor.
Just no comparison in my opinion.Shar,
President Donald Trump did what he did as a private citizen. His wive etc. are HIS business and occurred before he took public office.That depends on if he committed any crimes before he took office - which it looks like he did. The State of New York is after him as is the feds in the Southern District of New York. He has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen. They are just waiting until he leaves office one way or the other so that they can bring him to Justice.
You won't get any argument from me... I voted for Trump for his progressive agenda, and am very satisfied with his job performance. I like how his honesty, and I will be voting for him in 2020.
"Progressive agenda", LOLOLOLOL.
- Taking away people's rights is not progressive.
- Being anti-gay is not progressive
- Being a misogynist is not progressive
- Appointing conservatives to the courts is not progressive - by definition.
- He is the most dishonest person in America I know - most of America including many Conservatives think he is dishonest. 66% or more think Trump is dishonest; 26% of conservatives think he is dishonest.
Why would you think Trump is honest given the 15,000 verifiable, documented lies and false statements he has made in three years.What did Shar mean by "I like how his honesty, and I will be voting for him in 2020." He's the most dishonest POTUS on record, bar none. Are people blind and deaf to his obvious lies? I mean really?
It's astonishing. I've been told by more than one Trumpeter that Trump is the most honest President in modern history. And they truly believe that.
More than astonishing...completely unbelievable!
538 Poll
- 48% of Republicans want the Senate to call witnesses in Trump's trial. (0% of Trumplicans probably want that because they are scared of what new testimony will reveal.)
- 57% if Americans (19% of Republicans) think Trump committed an impeachable offense regarding Ukraine(52% think he should be removed)
- Slightly more think he Obstructed Congress
- This is what is sad and speaks to who is moral and who is not.
-- 64% of Republicans think Trump bribed Zelenksyy to investigate the Bidens. BUT, only 36% of those think that was inappropriate!!!! and only 14% think it is impeachable. (Compare that to 77%, 64%, and 44% for all Americans)
-- 26% of Republicans think Trump withheld Military Aid!!!!!. BUT, 67% of those think that was inappropriate!!!! and only 27% think it is impeachable. (Compare that to 58%, 80%, and 58% for all Americans)
What is the difference between Putin-Hitler-Un-Stalin and Trump? They were 1) more competent than Trump, 2) were/are mass-murderers (while Trump isn't a mass-murderer, his policies have predictably led to hundreds, if not thousands of deaths), and 3) Putin believes in climate change.
What are the similarities between Putin-Hitler-Un-Stalin and Trump?
- They all suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- They all are pathological liars
- They all are demagogues
- They all are psychopaths
- The first four are sociopaths
I have not witnessed the president taking away any American citizen's rights. If you are speaking of any person that is here illegally. I don't feel they have the same legal rights as our citizens.
I have never witnessed the president in any respect being against
".gays"
"misogynist" I have seen no proof that he has not included females in his administration, his agenda has promoted females equale wages, as well as his policies have more women working at this point than the previous
"During his State of the Union address last month, Trump said women accounted for 58% of the new jobs created in the past year. That statement is correct. Of the roughly 2.8 million new jobs added since January 2018, 1.6 million (or 58.3%) went to women, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). And the number of women working is indeed the highest it’s ever been, at nearly 74.9 million."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/presi … -economic-
growth-has-benefitted-women-the-most-but-is-that-true-2019-02-06
I consider the list of lies is ridiculous, and not sure how anyone with just a bit of common sense can't see through this form of journalism.
You admit he lies....just not that much?"I have not witnessed the president taking away any American citizen's rights. "
Trump kicks patriotic gays out of the military
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out … ct-n993826
Minorities and women will be mentally and physically devastated if Trump
succeeds in killing ACA
Delayed increases in overtime: Trump delayed the Obama administration’s overtime rule, which would have given 3.2 million women the right to overtime pay. Single mothers and women of color—who experience some of the largest pay disparities—would have seen the greatest benefit from the rule.4
Slashed support for military caregivers: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is cutting caregiver support—even for veterans who have not experienced any improvement in their condition and depend on a full-time caregiver for their daily needs. These caregivers are often female, and the reduction in support will place more economic hardships on military families.5
Blocked pay transparency protections: By undoing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, Trump eliminated a requirement for federal contractors to provide employees with basic information about their pay, including hours worked, overtime earnings, and any pay deductions. Such information is critical for all workers—particularly women, who are more likely to work in hourly jobs—to ensure that they are being paid what they have earned.6
Helped bad employers who repeatedly violate the law: By undoing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, Trump also made it easier for federal contractors with chronic violations of sex discrimination and other employment laws to keep getting federal funding.7
Eliminated child care for military families: Trump’s federal hiring freeze forced at least two military bases to suspend enrollment at military child care facilities when they were unable to hire child care providers. Service members depend on high-quality child care to perform their duties each day.8
Endangered women’s retirement security: Trump instructed the U.S. Labor Department to delay implementing an Obama-era rule requiring retirement advisers to put clients first. Women live longer and make less income over their lifetimes, which make them more vulnerable to poverty in retirement.9
Failed to advance equal pay: Trump’s administration made no movement on equal pay in the first 100 days, despite referencing support for equal pay occasionally throughout his campaign. Trump offered no concrete action to strengthen equal pay protections.10
Threatens child care assistance: Child care assistance currently reaches just 1 in 6 eligible children, but the Trump budget would cut it further, which could mean even fewer children served and lead low-income families to leave the workforce.11
Stalled paid family and medical leave: Despite Trump’s campaign promises and some fleeting general references to paid family leave, there has been no concrete action on advancing a comprehensive paid family and medical leave program. Nothing in the Trump budget includes a serious commitment to any form of paid family and medical leave, such as continuing funding for state grants to explore paid leave options.12 (I think the Democrats might have pushed this through in the last budget.
Drops LGBTQ seniors and people with disabilities from data collection: The Trump administration is proposing to end vital data collection programs about LGBTQ seniors and people with disabilities, erasing evidence of disparities and potential discrimination in federal programs. Lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to live in poverty than heterosexual women, and transgender women are 3.8 times more likely to live in poverty than the general population.15
That is a sampling of 100 examples of Trump's war on minorities, women, and children.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues … -families/Misogyny has nothing to do with hiring women - it well known that Trump loves to have pretty women around him.
Misogyny is how men treat women and Trump treats women terribly.
"Bleeding out of where ever"
"Grab 'em by their pussy"
"Kiss them whenever I feel like it, women love it."
Calls a female political opponent "horse face"
Walks in on naked beauty contestants, some under age, in their dressing rooms.
Dozens of women have accused Trump, and some have suits, of sexually molesting them.My adult son who has autism once asked me how any woman could ldefend Donald Trump. I responded, "I don't know, but I also don't know how anyone could defend him."
Maybe you did, but I didn't see an answer to my question of whether you think Trump's father was born in Germany like Trump said at least twice.
And you know Clinton"had some very sick sexual habits." how?? Since it wasn't personal experience, how did you acquire this irrefutable knowledge?
"And you know Clinton had some very sick sexual habits." how??"
One does not have to look far for factual proof on Bill's sexual exploits. Most are well documented and will live in history vis books... And please keep in mind, Bill never disputed the claims in any of the published books. Never bought any lawsuits against the women.
You do realize the women I mentioned have all written books on the abused they experienced at the hands of Bill Clinton? They have all shared each sick detail of what Bill Clinton did to them?
I suggest you read Monica's deposition, her deposition gives details on the consensual sex she had with Bill. I am not going to repeat the cigar incident in full, I will share the cigar ended up in Clinton's mouth...
"A statement released on July 8 by former President Bill Clinton's press secretary, Angel Ureña, claimed that “in 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane: One to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa,” but a Washington Examiner review of the flight manifest records shows that Clinton actually went on at least 27 flights on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” during at least six trips, not four."
Target Caught In The Crosshairs
https://www.amazon.com/Target-Caught-Cr … 0974670162
No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton: The Supreme Court on Trial
https://www.amazon.com/No-Island-Sanity … 0345424875
You'd Better Put Some Ice On That: How I Survived Being Raped by Bill Clinton
https://www.amazon.com/Youd-Better-Put- … 1981229760
Again, it appears if any given fact makes you uncomfortable you just claim them to be untrue? One would think, you would just drop the conversation, instead of putting yourself open to being corrected.
It is well documented that Bill Clinton was lude and a sexual predator. Although, I guess sexual misconduct is open to what is and what isn't appropriate? In my opinion in regards to Bill's sexual escapades, he was in a class of his own. And just think of the legacy he left as our 42 presidents.
Not sure how we got on this subject, but it may be time to discontinue the subject.Shar,
I would also like to add the significant amount of money Bill Clinton paid to Paula Jones for sexual harassment.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.
"Clinton mailed the settlement cheque to Mrs. Jones on Tuesday, even as he braced for the heaviest fallout yet from her harassment suit - an impeachment trial in the Senate.
To finance the settlement, the president drew about $375,000 from his and Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal funds and got the rest of the money, about $475,000, from an insurance policy, a White House official told The Associated Press."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/ … inton.usa1Did Clinton have many extra-marital affairs? No doubt. As the Me Too movement has shown us most men (and some women) in power do, It doesn't make it right, just common.
Now, did Clinton "very sick sexual habits"? Who knows and it depends on where you sit. A very devout Christian would probably consider any sex sick. Homophobes consider gay sex sick. Most women I know use dildos, are they sick?I was replying to your comment
My Esoteric --- "And you know Clinton"had some very sick sexual habits." how?? Since it wasn't personal experience, how did you acquire this irrefutable knowledge?"
Just informing you how I came to know of Clinton's womanizing and preditor behavior? I would venture to say most of the world know of his exploits.
I had hoped the links I provided would be enough explanation. Yes, I suppose "sick sexual habits" are in the eye of the beholder? Am I shocked that "most women" you know to use dildos? Oddly, No actually no I am not shocked that most of your female friends use dildos... Does make me wonder though. You did say "most women" you know?
I prefer to return to the topic, I don't want to be caught up in a conversation that is this distasteful. I mean Bill Clinton, dildos... Come on
Wow, Bill Clinton flew on Epsteins plane at least 27 times? I didn't know it was that many. No wonder he was suicided.
You bring up those three about Clinton - how about the dozen or more making the same claims against Trump?
The words of a simpleton who thinks he is a stable genius.
You need to realize that is not an accurate quote.
I have not been able to find it? Figured it was a bit of internet blither.
Sharlee: It is an exact quote along with his other quotes about windmills.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … -windmillsWell, People, that was good enough for me.
The odds are good that Trumps dumb comments are just you described.
But, of course, The Guardian" is fake news and as such would have no problem printing glaring falsehoods in direct contradiction to its tradition of journalistic excellence.Credence: These people think they can put down Clinton and Obama because of their misgivings. They have no idea that there are tons of indisputable documented facts about Trump and his immoral, unethical, simplistic behavior.
That is a quote taken out of context and it is NOT exact. Here is the quote from the article you provided. If you can't see the difference, what a shame.
“I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen in your life.....They’re made in China and Germany mostly,” Trump said of wind turbines, of which there are more than 57,000 across the US, according to the American Wind Energy Association. “But they’re manufactured tremendous if you’re into this, tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything.
“You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything, right?”Who gives a crap about any of that on both sides of the aisle. This forum is about Trump's impeachment. Not who did what to whom. Most men who make it to levels of power are alpha males. Alpha males like to spread their genes to continue the species. More than likely, Trump and Clinton are alpha males, and even FDR, and Eisenhower where alpha males. They all had affairs while in office as president. How many others throughout history that we don't even know about?
Let's get back to the topic of this forum. It is about the impeachment of Trump. This is what happens when memes are posted on the forums. They become distractions and cause the forum to go down a rabbit hole.Not sure you realize you deflected to the conversation of Trump quotes?
PEOPLEPOWER73 WROTE:
The words of a simpleton who thinks he is a stable genius.
I think it a good idea that we return to the subject of this thread.Whats to discuss anyhows. Its a partisan impeachment nothing burger. The democrats and their abc cbs nbc msnbc cnn etc etc media puppets are having to milk it for as long as they can because they cannot field a viable competent candidate. Its all they got. 5 more years of Trump and they can get back to making America mediocre again.
Yes, I checked out the link PP provided. Sad to see anyone fall into this form of journalism. Context matters to some... Some not so much
In fact, this sort of sentence shaping is prevalent, take a word here, borrow a word there, shake it all up and post it... is despicable. But it is such great feed to those that crave it.
You are right, that is a synopsis of a incoherent mind. The who disjointed, rambling piece of nonsense is:
"I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody I know. It’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly—very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous—if you’re into this—tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint—fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything—right?
So they make these things and then they put them up. And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen ever in your life. You know, in California, they were killing the bald eagle. If you shoot a bald eagle, they want to put you in jail for 10 years. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. It’s true."
And that unstable genius is who you want as president. SAD!!
What makes you think Democrats were OK with Clinton getting a BJ in the WH? I suspect you fabricated that tid-bit.
https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/trump-ob … q-economy/
The S&P 500 Is at an All Time High—But Markets Still Performed Far Better Under Obama Than TrumpI read a Forbes article the other day and looked for the author on Twitter. Surprise, the guy was foaming at the mouth with tds. No exaggeration. Forbes, Fortune w/e are not exempt from partisanship. Far from it.
Move past the clickbait tds title and read:
The financial crash that occurred immediately before Obama took office left markets reeling, so there was a lot of room for them to move. Also, the massive financial stimulus enabled by Congress helped drive growth..
A good indicator is looking at a DJIA graph and set for 5 years and compare volume.Gotta defend him...lol. It's the facts that matter not that it's from Forbes. It's now childish to link to an article comparing economies during different presidencies. That says something. No exaggeration.
I read the entire article by the way, and took it for what it was. The point being Trump is not an economic messiah...neither was Obama. Something in that message seemed to offend you I guess.A link and a provocative title to an article is not a comparison.
Even the article you linked to, which I actually posted from, has to backpeddle.
Look at any djia chart set to 5 years to compare the market by the 2 terms. The volume graphs under obama look like the skyline of nowhere nebraska. Immediately at the moment Trump was elected and since then, the graph paint a skyline of NYC.I thought I already made my point here about how neither are economic messiahs, but some will argue to no end that Trump is. Breaking: Trump is not an Economic Messiah
Trump has been referred to as the "Chosen One". You are the first to refer to him as the Messiah, as far as I know.No, Trump is not an Economic Messiah.
Although...it IS a relative term, and compared to the politicians that are more concerned with buying votes and/or redistributing wealth rather than creating it perhaps he IS an "Economic Messiah". For sure the socialist liberals of the country to do not seem to comprehend what makes people tick, or how it affects an economy - compared to them Trump is head and shoulders above in his understanding of how to grow an economy.I really don't think Trump knows jack about how to grow an economy. He knows how to use bankruptcy courts and civil suits to get out of his responsibilities. I think he's riding the coat tails of an economy on an upswing, and many conservative economists agree with that assessment. You can learn a bit about what a person understands by the words that come out of their mouth. I agree that what makes economic growth is likely not understood by most liberal politicians either. But, Obama, and his people, did know how to bring the nation out of a recession.
Yes, yes, I know. The Great Obama, doing what everyone else in history has done, spent his way out of a recession, with the only difference being that when it was done we had nothing to show for it where in the past we got dams, roads, etc.
And I know that Trump undoubtedly built his empire because Obama created an upswing after the recession (which puts Trumps achievements all well into this century - an obvious falsehood that we will conveniently ignore).
But however you spin it, Trump took a small amount of "seed money" and built a financial empire, employing thousands of people as he did so. He created an "economy" larger than some countries and that cannot be done by a simpleton (term becoming popular in these forums) or by someone that does not understand business principles - the basis of every economy.You really have swallowed the Trump illusion hook, line, and sinker. Sinkers drag you down, ya know?
This is the same reaction I had. I just don't understand how people can be so smitten with that chump. He can do no wrong, and did no wrong on his way to the top pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. Wow.
Explain This.
Obama's S&P 500 growth in the 1st 35 months - 52.3%
Trump's S&P 500 growth in the 1st 35 months - 41.8%
OK, you'll say Obama had help after saving America from a depression.
OK, let's move out a bit say start Obama at month 35 to 70 - 92.1% for that 35 month period.
Why is Trump so far behind Obama????
I never said the great Obama did something no one else had ever done. In turn, it does seem you are stating Trump is an economic genius and ignoring Obama's accomplishments. You admitted he created this economy but go on to give Trump credit for it. If you are on the Trump "small amount" of seed money train, then, oh well. I'd rather have a real conservative in charge than whatever Trump is.
Wilderness: He understands tariffs really well. He keeps saying that we are raking in 32 billion from the tariffs he placed on China. But the facts are that our importers pay for those tariffs and that is how they work.
We as tax payers are subsidizing those farmers that are out of work as a result of those tariffs. Those buyers of our goods are not coming back because they have found other countries sources for their goods and services.
In his mind, it is very simple to place a burden on country and rake in the dough. Too bad it doesn't work that way. He is supposed to be a graduate of the Wharton School of Business, but he must have missed the class on Elements of Tariffs 101.Yep, "spent his way out of a recession", that is what you are supposed to do, as you say, but why did your side OPPOSE it from the very start.
Had Obama not had a veto proof majority, Conservatives would have driven America and the world into probably worse depression had ever known. That is how much they know about economics.
You do know, don't you, that Trump's so-called "small amount of seed money" was $412 million in today's dollars. Oh yeah, he started out be taking over his daddy's (who actually was born in New York, rather than Germany or New Jersey as Trump has said) rental business.
His so-called "economy" was always in debt - he proudly says he is the King of Debt. SAD!!
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-rich/
The ONLY thing Trump does very well, besides Lie and Bully, is sell his name. That is where most of his money comes from. I think he has gone BK six times. Can you imagine SIX times this Genius had to go to Bankruptcy Court to get out the massive debt (sort of like our National Debt) he accumulated.
Oh, I forgot another thing is really, really good at - screwing the people and contractors that work for him. He is definitely a Genius at that.
LOL, you are either a stand-up comic or delusional. Which is it?
That would be true, re "Messiah". I doubt anybody is. But is certain, Obama understands economic principles while Trump simply does not.
Evidence - 1. Trump claims trade deficits are bad and means other countries are taking advantage of us. This, OF COURSE, is totally FALSE and stupid. All real economists have already said so.
Evidence - 2. Trump claims that China pays the tariffs he has imposed. FALSE. How stupid can you be?? Even Trump's own economists tell him he is wrong.
If a person is this stupid how can he claim to be a good economic steward of America.
As a described Trump apologist/enabler I wondered if there was any chance of considerations that might mitigate the impact of your quoted blurb as it comes across when reading at face value.
I wasn't optimistic, and I think that as stated it sounds dumb. But, I wondered if it was factually as dumb as it sounded.
So. . .
"I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. "
First, windmills? Nobody calls wind turbines windmills anymore, but, factually that's what they are: A device that uses vanes to put wind power to work. I did find a couple of sources that drew a development line from windmills to wind turbines that, although the general terminology has changed, did note that wind turbines are windmills by function.
So did Pres. Trump misspeak, or was he using the technically correct terminology? *shrug, that is your call.
Then, "I’ve studied it better than anybody I know. " Oh lordy, I am stuck here. There is no other way to describe this other than typical Trumpian hyperbole.
"It’s very expensive."
This is true. Industry averages for each typical commercial 2 MW turbine are $3 to $4 million. So a typical small 50-turbine wind farm could cost a couple hundred million just for the turbines alone.
"They’re made in China and Germany mostly—very few made here, almost none."
This is also mostly true. Although it would be more accurately stated if he had included Denmark and France along with China and Germany, there are only two wind turbine plants in the U.S. - 1 for making the blades, and another for making the nacelles that are the heart of a completed turbine.
"But they’re manufactured tremendous—if you’re into this—tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere."
I think it is important to note here that he is talking about the manufacturing process, re. the fumes and gases. And this is also true. As mentioned by Factcheck.org "It’s true that wind power isn’t a zero emission energy source. Greenhouse gas emissions are produced when wind turbines are manufactured, built, maintained and decommissioned."
It might also be noted that he may have drawn this conclusion from a March 6th statement by Department of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, or maybe from the same sources and advisors that Zinke used.
Factcheck.org quote
"When we contacted the DOI for support for Zinke’s claims, spokeswoman Heather Swift told us by email that, when it comes to wind’s carbon footprint, Zinke “was referring to the life-cycle emissions, manufacturing of materials and component parts, and the transportation and construction of the facilities.”
"You talk about the carbon footprint—fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything—right?"
Once again, if it can be accepted that he was speaking of the manufacturing process—he is right. There is a significant emissions footprint involved in wind turbine manufacturing.
"So they make these things and then they put them up. And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price."
It looks like he may have taken a middle-ground here. One real estate appraisal source noted that depending on a couple of variables—primarily the use-purpose of the property, (as in is the view a part of the property's value), and the size of the wind turbine project, a wind turbine in proximity to a property could affect its value in a range of 10% to completely unsellable. This source was Forensic Appraisal Group
Hmm... seems like a fair consideration to determine the truth of his statement.
"They’re noisy."
Wellll . . . this is a very subjective issue that is also very contentious among pro and anti-wind turbine groups. They are not as loud and obnoxious as a grasscutter, but they can be heard at conversation-level, (55db), at a distance of 500 meters, (about a third of a mile), and under some conditions as far as a mile away—outside a structure. So, it seems like this is not an incorrect or stupid statement, just a contentious one that is very much flavored by one's pro or anti-wind turbine bias.
"They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen ever in your life."
The BLM, (Bureau of Land Management), says that an estimate of 750,000 birds killed each year by wind turbines is a fair estimation. Once again, this seems to be a factual statement.
" You know, in California, they were killing the bald eagle. If you shoot a bald eagle, they want to put you in jail for 10 years. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. It’s true."
This is also true. A Politifact.com look into this says that about 100 eagles are killed each year by wind turbines:
"The truth is, we lack complete data, but Shawn Smallwood, California’s leading ornithologist for the study of raptors and wind turbines, told us Trump is exaggerating*. [*see note]
Smallwood says about 100 eagles die each year due to impacts with the spinning blades on windmills."
[*Note: his reference to exaggeration was relative to a different Trump statement where the president said, "hundreds and hundreds"]
So what do you think My Esoteric? Except for that one indefensible bit of hyperbole: "I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody I know. ", it seems that most of the points in this "unstable genius " simpleton's statement are, although ineloquently stated, factually, or at least reasonably arguably, true. Is it still a disjointed "rambling piece of nonsense" from an "incoherent mind"?
Does this make any difference to yours or, anyone's opinion of the statement?
I doubt it. Pro-Trumpers will say "Yeah", and anti-Trumpers will say "So what, it is still proof he is an unstable genius simpleton."
GAWOW! or should I say yeah? You dissected each and every word in the notorious blurb. it's clear you have come to understand President Trump's rampant verbiage.
As a Boomer, I am very accustomed to Trump's form of speech. Many Boomers tend to be outspoken, dramatic, and use overblown remarks when communicating. You must realize it was our generation that knew it all, and still do. LOL
I speak the language of a Boomer, I guess that's why I can easily put "most of Trump's statements" into terms of which they can be fully understood. He definitely could never be accused of being overly diplomatic, but he could be accused of being overly honest and perhaps outspoken when sharing his opinion.
To answer our question --- Yes, it makes a difference in regards to my opinion in regard to the blurb. It pleases me to see someone, anyone takes the time to try to understand and realize we need to make time to not just see or hear words but we need to try to understand them.
I must add, if in Michigan please call them windmills... We have what seems like millions of wind turbines. Yes, they are noisy, kill birds, and you don't want to have the task of selling a home near one. Just sayingThe problem with always using "overblown remarks" is people stop taking you seriously since because they often end up being not true. Also, Trump is not a boomer.
Trump is a Boomer, not sure why you continually say things that just are not true?
Trump was born - June 14, 1946 Boomer generation born between 1946 and 1964.
I guess in regard to overblown remarks it depends on the person's understanding or lack of understanding of a given comment. I think GA gave a perfect example of how some can understand the context of Trump's statements, some can't. It all depends on the individual's thought process.
For example, you immediately questioned Trump being a boomer and jumped to add a comment disputing my comment. Instead of checking who would be considered a boomer? Your thought process leads you to just saying whatever you think will suit your narrative.Trump has an ineloquent way of expressing his disapproval of bio-mass and renewable energy technology. But, I forget, conservatives have no use for this kind of stuff, just stick with the crude oil and coal.
Does Trump not know how to express himself in public as a statesman regardless of his views on the topic, which he had become expert in as of late?A statesman is as a rule respected, and Trump holds the respect of many. Is Trump a skilled or experienced as a political leader ? Again many American's would answer yes. It is thought that a statesman is the opposite of a true politician. Politicians are as a rule very good with expressing their message in an eloquent way. Politicians are known to say or do anything to get elected or to gain power. They make many unrealistic promises that are unattainable. And they realize that fact but care less about truth.
Definition of statesman
1: one versed in the principles or art of government
especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government shaping its policies.
2: a wise, skillful, and respected political leader
So, It is clear Trump is not a politician, and to some, he would not be considered a statesman. He certainly is not an eloquent speaker in any respect. Yet he has captured the ear of many. He speaks in a totally transparent way caring less what anyone thinks of his message. One thing is clear, at least half the country is satisfied with his communication abilities. It's clear some have become discussed with politicians as well as well-spoken statesmen? Maybe that's why he won? Some Americans' desired change, real change not just flower promises of change... One must consider, everyone is not satisfied with the status quo. They are willing to try something new, especially when it comes to a government that does not seem to be working for the betterment of the Country."A statesman is as a rule respected, and Trump holds the respect of many." - Does it count that the ONLY people who respect him are his cult following. I imagine they said the same thing about Jim Jones until they drank his kool-aid, and they were around any more.
I doubt even his friends Putin, Un, and Assad respect TraitorTrump. I bet they think he is a manipulable fool. For sure the rest of our allies don't respect him, they have made that clear.Does it count that the ONLY people who do not respect him are those with TDS, the cult of hate and doom trying to split the country in two?
Only an idiot will refuse to respect the ability of a person able to be massively successful in three wildly different career choices, and Trump has managed it in the financial/building field, the acting/entertainment industry and now politics.All that means is MOST of the world has your so-called TDS and with good reason. The world has HDS (Hitler Derangement Syndrome) as well, and for almost the same rationale.
Are you going to drink his kool-aid when Trump tells you to?Nice that your crystal ball works worldwide, and that it has told you the entire world has all the facts and has decided Trump is evil.
You keep watching it. It will keep you entertained and filled with the hate it produces in people.
(I'm curious, though - how many Africans, outside major cities, did your crystal ball poll? How many Tibetans? Chinese peasants? Does it give the polling data, or just assure that your hate is well placed because MOST people have the same syndrome? From a factual standpoint, I would have guessed that the name "Donald Trump" means nothing to over half the people of the world. Pretty smart crystal ball!)You just keep denying the truth and see where that gets you.
Interesting take, GA.
"He doesn't understand wind" - Really? That, in and of itself, is strange, I think.
"Windmills" - Yes, I understood what he meant. Since I am his age, I understand not remembering the correct term right away.
"Expensive" - I am not sure he actually meant the purchase price but the cost to produce energy (which includes purchase price and operating costs). Wind - $30 - $60 per MW; Solar - $43 - $53 per MW; natural gas (the cheapest of fossil fuels, I think) - $42 - $78 per MW.
Where they are made - General Electric recently bought the largest turbine manufacturer LG (Danish). As of 2016, 100,000 American jobs are involved in making wind turbines in 500 factories over 43 states.
Small Manufacturers: One each in Spain, Estonia, Taiwan, Italy, UK
Large Manufacturers: Turkey - 1; China - 8; USA - 3; India - 5; Germany - 3.5; Spain - 1.5; Russia - 1; South Korea - 3.5; Japan - 3; Iran - 2; Croatia - 1; Italy - 1; Netherlands - .5; North Korea - 1; Taiwan - 1; France - 1; Denmark - 1 (largest); Brazil - 1; New Zealand - 1; Belgium - 1
OK so much for this claim
Tremendous Fumes - I emphasized what Trump emphasized twice. In any case, I could find no references to how much pollution is produced in the manufacture of wind turbines and their components. Consequently, I have to assume it is no worse than that in manufacturing other things made of metal. Trump talked a lot about this very dubious claim.
Noisy - Yes, they do emit low-frequency noise that can be a little annoying as you said.
Bird Graveyards - Again, I use his hyperbole. Bird Mortality in millions per year: Wind Turbines - .02 - .57; Airplanes - .08; Nuclear - 0 - .33; Oil waste - 0.5 - 1; Communication towers - 4 - 50; Cars and Trucks - 50 - 100; buildings and windows - 365 - 998; domestic and feral cats - 200 - 3,700
OK, what was Trump's hyperbole about again???Yeah, I am also unsure of what 'I don't understand wind." really means. And it seems his use of "windmills" wasn't an issue with you. I think that is a good thing.
As for what he meant by expensive, we just disagree. I see the context as indicating he was talking about manufacturing and installation costs—not operating costs. I wonder which of us is right? If the quoted blurb is the only measure I am fairly comfortable with my 'take on it'
I will have to dig deeper into the manufacturing and American jobs point. My initial sources only indicated two major U.S. facilities in two states. Your 43 state claim certainly makes me curious about what I might have missed. Of course, that is remembering that we are talking about major manufacturing facilities, not every ancillary business involved in the wind turbine industry.
As for the "expensive" part, the wording and context of the comment clearly indicate, to me, that it was the manufacturing aspect that he was referring to. So your MW costs are not to the point of his comment—as I see it.
Regarding the fumes . . . I also could not find detailed carbon or emissions data, which is why I referred to Zinke's comment, as explained in the PolitiFact's article. However, my point in using the Politifact's blurb was only to substantiate that the carbon and emissions footprint of the manufacturing process is a valid point of consideration.
Now, to the bird mortality thing. It seems cats are the most deadly threat to birds. And your other references are as, or more, lethal to birds than the wind turbines, but, that does nothing to invalidate the truth of the president;'s comment about the lethality of wind turbines. He wasn't wrong.
So, to your final question . . . is that where we are, asking for a defense of indefensible hyperbole? If so, then you got me. I can't think of any way to wiggle out of the 'I know more than anyone else' statements. BS is BS no matter how you dress it up or explain it.
GA
Sigh....Poor Donnie is so misunderstood. All we have to do is remember that, no matter what he says or does, he means well. He cares deeply for this country and its people. It's really sad that more people don't take the time to dissect and reinterpret his words to make sure we understand what he really means, not what he actually said. [Tsk, tsk. Finger wag and brow wrinkle.]
Happy New Year!I'd have to say GA hit the nail on the head: "I doubt it. Pro-Trumpers will say "Yeah", and anti-Trumpers will say "So what, it is still proof he is an unstable genius simpleton."
All he left out was the sarcasm; the unwillingness to attempt to understand he got perfectly.. . . and Happy New Year to you too.
My comment wasn't intended as a reinterpretation, even my "dissection" of it came up with the same interpretation as the original reading. I was simply looking to see if it was the fact-deficient rambling it was claimed to be. Turns out there were facts to support his comment.
But you are right about one thing, he didn't say it in the eloquent and sophisticated way that is demanded in order to not be considered a simpleton by non-Trump supporters.
GAI have to disagree with you there, GA. It was very fact deficient when you take into the intent of the hyperbole.
He intended to make wind-power a force of evil, i.e. a massive bird killer, the maker of tremendous noise, hugely expensive, and the spewer of tremendous volumes of gas and fumes. It is none of those things, in fact.Trump was truthful in regard to the problems that come with wind turbines. You may not want to face the reality of these drawbacks but they are factual.
Do some research on the subject and you will find every word Trump said in regards to wind turbines is true. It appears you only hear what you want to hear?Prove to me that Wind Turbines are more expensive than coal-fired plants.
Prove to me that Wind Turbines are more polluting than coal-fired plants
Prove to me that Wind Turbines are more noisy than coal-fired plants.
Prove to me that Wind Turbines put more CO2 into the atmosphere than coal fired plants.
Trump dislikes Wind Turbines only because he can see them from one of his golf courses in Scotland.You are deflecting? I am not willing to fall prey to your hyperbolic thought process.
In regards to Trumps "pouring gasses into the air... The manufacturing of the turbines, unfortunately, does result in costs gasses being poured into the atmosphere. But have no fear we make few here, we buy them from other countries. Like China. Building wind turbines are truly causing big problems for the environment. I have not found any form of comparison on which produces more pollution. I would believe due to the increase in wind turbine manufacturing, and the fact we produce less coal, the new wind energy is causing more pollution at this time.
I realize for some it's hard to hear Trump point out the ugly truth in regards to wind turbines. None the less, he is speaking the truth. He just won't play the game as prior presidents and politicians. You know the game, tell them what they want to hear, don't tell them the negative, just stick to the positive.
https://www.bccrwe.com/index.php/8-news … ufacturingExactly how is my pointing out Trump is wrong deflecting. Didn't Trump say wind power is terrible??? The fact that you can't answer the questions to show wind power is much better than his beloved coal doesn't mean I am deflecting, it just means you can't answer the question.
There is no "ugly truth" about wind power. It is a wonderful alternative to fossil fuels. Everybody but Trump supplicants know that.
If Trump is ever right about something, I'll say so, and have in the past. But he is right about very little.
Okay. I'm not convinced, but okay.
I don't consider him a simpleton. He is much more dangerous than that. He's an incurious narcissist who believes he knows best about everything when he is too lazy to gain in-depth knowledge of much of anything. He's the guy who will read a three-page magazine article on autism then tell a parent how to raise their autistic child because he now truly believes he's an expert.
That's why he so often sounds inelequent and unsophisticated. Because those comments were likely the sun total of his knowledge on that subject.The description in your first paragraph, does in fact reveal that he is, indeed, a simpleton and everything else beyond it. But we can start with "simpleton".
"He's the guy who will read a three-page magazine article on autism then tell a parent how to raise their autistic child because he now truly believes he's an expert."
Oops . . . you got me. I find it hard to argue with reasonable statements, and I don't think I can argue with that one. ;-)
GADefinition of a Simpleton from the Urban Dictionary:
"noun: A person who lacks the capacity to think beyond simple thoughts, and masks his ignorance by reciting information he heard on CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Cramer.
Often times, a simpleton will call another person a simpleton for no apparent reason other than to call that person a simpleton."
Trump, instead of using CNBC's Jim Cramer, he uses Fox News' Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Rush Limbaugh for advice on how to run the country. Wanting to shoot illegal immigrants in the legs is a simple thought.
Getting the president of the Ukraine to announce dirt on the Bidens' is a simple thought. Pardoning a Seal for war crimes is a simple thought. Firing the Secretary of the Navy for not agreeing with him is simple thought. Pushing the launch button on ICBMs is a simple thought. He is a simpleton because he does not consider the consequences of those thoughts for himself and others.
Placing tariffs on China is a simple thought. Thinking China pays for our imports is also a simple thought. Subsidizing the farmers who have lost their market share is a simple thought. He just does them without the fear of consequences.
If you don't agree with him, he just fires you because it is a simple thing to do. Now with the Secretary of the Navy, he will have to find a replacement. But he completed that part of the action that was simple.
Putting incompetent people into cabinet positions is a simple thought. The only criteria is that they agree with him. Their qualifications for doing the job don't matter. If you contribute 1 million to his campaign, like Sondland did he will make you ambassador to Europe. It's all very simple.
This defense of Trump and his wind turbine comments is the lamest thing I've ever read. Burning wind turbines, Oh MY!!!
I took three Master's level courses on energy technologies, but it only takes a lick of common sense to understand that Trump is spewing . Happy New Year. Let's usher it in with a thousand new coal plants and rid the world of the scourge that is wind power..and cats, lol.Do you guys think that we can cut through some of this BS?
Do conservatives have a problem with FactCheck .org, which says that Trumps statements about windmills were inaccurate and exaggerated? Why would I not be surprised, doesn't he behave that way about virtually everything?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/trump … ind-power/No, they think Factcheck is a far-left communist conspiracy.
Well, here I see another source that basically corroborates what was reported on FactCheck.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/23/politics … index.html
I guess that I will need to check Breitbart or the Drudge Report to find out where the Trumpers are getting their information?
Funny, I remember the situation in Scotland, being petty about all this is typical of Agent Orange. Why would I not be surprised that he would bring his childish biases to the national and international stages?You should not be. BTW, I disparaged FactCheck by saying they think it is a far-left Communist rag. I forgot that Communists (Putin) are Trump's friend.
Investors seem to believe Trump is an economic messiah. The volume beginning the moment Trump was elected is noticeably remarkable. I think a new record was hit this morning.I already posted the link about the market in comparison with Obama, which you ignored and explained away very unconvincingly in defense of your Chosen One. Anyway, most of us understand the market is not the economy and Presidents don't deserve all the credit for either. Oh yeah, unless Trump is your chosen one. I know, Trump is fabulous.
On the contrary, I did not ignore it. I posted an entire paragraph from the link/article, that you provided, that oddly contradicted it's own title.Cnn is fakenews. For instance. Trump did not claim: Wind turbines kill more birds than cats. Setting aside that cats kill birds to eat and survive compared to wind turbines just massacre birds wanton fashion..Trump simply said they are bird graveyards. Contrasting the 2 for comparison is dishonest. Almost as dishonest as cnn.
PhoenixV: There is no contrast. It says more birds are killed by cats than wind turbines. Those are just facts. What is dishonest about that?
"Bird Deaths
Trump referred to wind turbines as "a bird graveyard" telling the crowd that if they "go under a windmill someday, you'll see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life."
Facts First:Research suggests that while wind power does contribute to bird deaths, more birds are killed by cats or other types of power plants.
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, collisions with turbines kills between 140,000 and 500,000 birds annually. Other energy sources, such as coal, oil and power lines, contribute to millions of bird deaths. However, cats remain the biggest threat to birds, killing an estimated 1.3 to 4 billion birds each year."
CNN is not dishonest, only if you believe Trump, but Fox News is dishonest and that is the truth. They and Trump promote conspiracy theory like the deep state and TDS, neither of which have ever been proven and never will because they do not exists.I have never seen what looks to be a bird graveyard where cats are responsible.
You wanna see a bird graveyard?
You wanna see more dead birds than you have ever seen?
I have deliberately chosen not to post photos of dead birds at these wind farms because of the sensitive nature.
Furthermore, which seems impossible for you to grasp, is that it is irrelevant. Trump never claimed windmills kill more birds than something else.
You should consider writing for snopes if journalistic integrity is not your cup o tea.
Have a good evening.
PhoenixV: Trump said this.
Trump referred to wind turbines as "a bird graveyard" telling the crowd that if they "go under a windmill someday, you'll see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life. "More birds" is an indefinite superlative where a definite conclusion cannot be made. The article even quantifies how many more birds are killed by cats than wind machines.
How does he know how many birds a person has seen in their life? That is typical Trump truthful hyperbole, exaggeration.propaganda.
And yet you think that Trump has to state that cats kill more birds than windmills, So therefore, if Trump doesn't state that fact, then that makes the article invalid and fake news. You need to take a course in propaganda techniques and logical reasoning.
Cheers,
Damn, Manufacturing CONTRACTED for the 5th month in a row!!!! Good going TraitorTrump.
perhaps a bit more information would be beneficial?
""The creation of this many jobs definitely bodes well for a strong holiday sales season and bolsters estimates for broad economic growth next year," Bryce Doty, a senior portfolio manager at Sit Fixed Income Advisors, said in a statement Friday morning.
Dec 2019
Manufacturing, likewise, enjoyed a solid month, though the report attributes much of the sector's 54,000 new positions to a correction from a General Motors strike in October. Striking workers were initially left out of October's jobs report, and analysts expected the returning workers would add between 45,000 and 50,000 positions to November's numbers.
"Other data indicates that manufacturing remains stressed because of trade tensions and tariffs, as well as the struggling global economy,"
https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/art … -positionsYou give me one number at a point in time which means nothing and I show you a trend which means everything.
First the PMI source: https://www.instituteforsupplymanagemen … .cfm?SSO=1
Job Growth: Consider the difference between Hires and Fires for the last 16 months, July 18 to Oct 19 (I don't have the November numbers yet), notice the Trend (000): 145; 127; 55; 307; 249; 362; 297; 140; 221; 203; 195; 203: 168; 160; 153; 128. Do you notice the trend the last 7 months down.
Job Openings - Same July 18 - Oct 19: 7077; 7293; 6960; 7131; 7166; 7335; 7625; 7087; 7474; 7372; 7384; 7248; 7174; 7301; 7032; 7267. Do you notice the Trend for the last six months - down
If what you say is true, then
Shouldn't manufacturing be expanding rather than contracting like they actually are?
Shouldn't Hires minus Fires be going up rather than going down like they actually are?
Shouldn't Job Openings be going up rather than going down like they actually are?
Exactly as I said. You ignored and explained away the fact that the article was indeed truthful, and you continue to do so. The article's caveat did nothing to contradict the title. What it did was offer something you seem to be incapable of...acknowledging that the truth is not always so cut and dry and that neither the Obama or Trump economies are/were perfect. That line you cited was exactly part of what I wanted you to read. You jump in to defend Trump when anyone states he is not perfect about anything. When someone defends one person over and over again, even when that person needs no defending, it shows an odd loyalty to that one person that I could never achieve.
According to some liberals here, these windmills are NOT putting off toxic fumes.
Tryna getta closeup of that one photo looks like a Bald Eagle divin for the flight deck..Losin' your touch, Joey. Not funny at all...
"If I keep my eyes closed and put my fingers in my ears....I cannot be proven wrong."
Of course, she's a Trump enabler. She knows no better. She will learn much in the coming weeks I wager.
IF the Democrats are successful in stopping McConnell from ramming through a not guilty verdict without evidence being presented.
McConnell's statement re his partiality to the POTUS has a few Republican senators thinking now. It only takes a few to vote for witnesses and documents in the Senate trial. Hopefully they want to see a fair trial and not simply cover everything up.
Trump is conducting a cover-up.
McConnell, Graham and a bunch of other Trumpicans want to help him cover it up.
Fortunately, there are hopefully enough ethical Republican that will vote force Trump to present the witnesses and documents he has blocked. That said, I really don't think that any impartial juror needs any more evidence that what the Democrats have obtained so far plus these latest bombshell revelations.True, there's already enough info from career diplomats to assure any impartial jury of Trump's guilt in this matter, but we're not dealing with impartial jurors in this case.
There is no evidence, and McConnell is not about to join in furthering the Dem's searching endlessly for a crime that just did not happen. They have made complete fools of themselves.
- wasn't you who claimed to want a fair trial in the senate, Shar? Fair for who? With new evidence coming to light everyday showing Trump did just what the WB claimed is making it increasingly difficult for Moscow Mitch to sweep it under the rug.
Stay tuned for more damaging evidence to come to light proving Trump abused his power in the Ukraine affair. And now rhe court has ruled Don McGhan will have to testify about his actions before congress. Still want a fair trial, Shar? There is no crime in your mind because you don't think what Trump did was illegal to start with. But, the fact is you are in the very small minority who believe bribing a foreign official using the power of the Presidency to help him with his next election is NOT an Abuse of Power.
Trump doesn't think so because he is amoral and is above the law. You are probably moral but a delusional Trump supplicant.You are correct in the case of the two articles of impeachment I do not believe he did not abuse his power or do I think he obstructed Congress.
"But, the fact is you are in the very small minority who believe bribing a foreign official using the power of the Presidency to help him with his next election is NOT an Abuse of Power."
You, as usual, assume too much... I have not ever stated I believe bribing a foreign official using the power of the Presidency to help him with his next election is NOT an Abuse of Power. I have stated I do not feel there is any evidence that President Trump abused his power to help him win the next election.
The theory is almost ridiculous, with all the Dem's impeachment rhetoric, Trump will win the election. Biden or the rest of the crew have a chance at beating Trump. He needed no help, his job performance is all he needs. He is certainly not political and does his job
no matter what political game the Dems play.
I assure you need not worry about my state of mind. I see clearly, use common sense, and don't thrive on looking for problems that have not occured. No If Comes...TraitorTrump's job performance certainly didn't help in 2018, did it?? Since it has gotten worse and almost all women, with a few exceptions like yourself, abandoning him, how do you think he can win??
What voters has be picked up in four years? I can certainly point to a lot of voters he has lost.
As to the evidence - you don't want to see it because you don't think what he did was wrong. Clearly 17 dedicated, patriotic civil servants thought what he did was wrong. Also add to that 1 Trumplican who bought himself an Ambassadorship."What voters has be picked up in four years? "
That's an easy one: women are going to Trump in droves,
and there is a virtual tidal wave of blacks and Hispanics doing so.
LOL What is comical is that everyone repeats what they would like to see happening, and there is always something on the web that will support them. It's more important to spout what we would like to believe that it is to stick to truth (if it can be found and determined). And that goes for both sides of the equation - it is my observation that everyone in these forums simply claims a bad source when presented with something they don't want to hear."That's an easy one: women are going to Trump in droves,
and there is a virtual tidal wave of blacks and Hispanics doing so." - THIS PROVES Wilderness is as delusional as Shar.
Who the hell do you think cost Trump the 2018 midterms so badly? Never mind, you probably think the Trumplicans won that in a landslide.
And I suppose the 2018 results as fake news anyway, lol.I would supply you with half a dozen sites saying women are going to Trump...except you would simply denounce all of them as fake news while producing your own quotes showing every woman in the country deserted him a year ago. Which is exactly what I said and is exactly the point I was making.
"Since it has gotten worse and almost all women, with a few exceptions like yourself, abandoning him, how do you think he can win??
Do you have a source to back that statement up? I totally realize you don't need one, but I do.
I predict he picks up more of the popular vote in 2020.
" Clearly 17 dedicated, patriotic civil servants " Each claimed under oath they had no evidence of a Quid Pro Quo. That is just a fact. Opinions just ar, not facts. You above all should realize that you are wrong so frequently.
But asking a foreign official to help clean up corruption taking place in their country, even if it results in cleaning our own swamp at the same time, is NOT an abuse of power.
Not even when your imagination spins it, attempting to turn it into something that it was not. Still not an abuse of power.He didn't do that, did he Wilderness. What Ukrainian did he ask to be investigated by name? NONE.
When did TraitorTrump ever mention corruption to Zelenskyy? NEVER.
When did TraitorTrump tell Sondlund that the only thing that mattered was the investigations into the Bidens? At least once.
Open Your Eyes to the Truth
Shar has a lot moxy to say 70% of American's who think Trump did something illegal are fools.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/ … ngs-Nov-18
Your Gold Standard Fox says that 54% of Americans think Trump should be impeached - FOOLS ALL
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-poll- … ce-1477340
Here are more Fools - https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/u … s_v1_JB.pd
HOW MANY FOOLS want Trump Removed from Office?
Registered Voters: 51%
18 - 29: 59%
30 - 44: 57%
45 - 54: 55%
Only when you get to older, more conservative voters do things flip.
Independents: 47% Approve, 40% Disapprove
Republicans: 17%! Approve, 80% Disapprove
Women: 54%
Ind Women: 48% Approve, 34% Disapprove
Rep Men: 21% Approve, 77% Disapprove
Rep Women: 11% Approve, 85% Disapprove (I didn't see that coming but then most women have left the Republican party. (share of women in the Dem (plus lean) and Rep (plus lean) Party has changed (Pew), 1994 - 2017, from 48% to 56% and 42% to 37%, respectively)
MORE FOOLS:
Moderates: 57%
Conservatives: 23% Approve, 74% Disapprove
Less than College: 49%
College: 52%
Post Grad: 60%
Poorish: 53%
Middle Income: 50%
Rich: 50% Approve, 47% (the rich no where they stand)
White: 46% Approve: 48% Disapprove
Hispanic: 74% Approve (Wilderness, take note)
Blacks: 75% Remove, 17% Keep
Evangelicals: 35% Remove!, 53% Keep
non-Evangelicals: 48% Remove, 48% Keep
Christians: 44%
Non-Christians: 72%
There are a lot of FOOLS out there."Shar has a lot moxy to say 70% of American's who think Trump did something illegal are fools."
Shar never even considered the poll you speak of. Shar offered her own opinion. Shar is not big on polls... Polls are fleeting and skewed demographically.
Plus, your links are old and known to be biased.
IAC/InterActiveCorp
The company was owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp and the estate of Sidney Harman, with Stephen Colvin of The Daily Beast as CEO. In August 2013, IBT Media acquired Newsweek, leaving The Daily Beast under the management of The Newsweek Daily Beast Company, which today operates as a subsidiary of IAC.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/da … media-bias
I can see where you get your opinion from, explains a lot.After researching it, I accept AllSides as legitimate. I do disagree with one rating, however - Classifying the Washington Times as somewhat Right. I read that occasionally and to me, it is clearly far-Right.
What is "old news" to you, Shar - yesterday?
Those links were neither old nor biased to any significant degree (although you must say that to keep your sanity).
Fox is rated an A-/B+ and leans slightly Right
Ipsos is rated B- and leans a tiny bit Left
Morning Consult is rated B-/C+ (mainly because it is an on-line survey only) and leans a tiny bit Left.
All the polls were Dec 19 or Jan 20.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
BTW, since you didn't even look at the Newsweek poll, maybe on purpose, you didn't notice that the poll they are reporting on was a Fox News poll. Oops.
Oh yeah, by ignoring polls, you have no legitimate way of making an informed opinion about what people, in general, think at a given moment in time. Your only alternative are anecdotal reports or believing Trump. You can't use studies since they use statistical surveys as well.
Another piece of history:
"As global affairs analyst Max Boot pointed out Friday on CNN, the US has not killed a senior military leader of another country since 1943, when it shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the mastermind of Pearl Harbor." - CNN (note, we were engaged in a world war at the time)Scott:
I'm hearing that people think that Trump was justified in taking out Solemani, because Obama took out Bin Laden. What they don't understand is that Bin Laden was not a member of a country. He was head of a terrorists group.
Solemani, on the other hand reports to the head of Iran. In their eyes I'm sure they must see this as an act of war and and an assassination of a high ranking military leader, even though he ran proxy terrorists groups.
It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds. Trump said he did it to prevent war, but I think we are in for some kind of a war. It may not be conventional, but asymmetrical involving cyber attacks and other types of warfare.
Trump never stops to consider the consequences of his decisions, especially when he thinks they will benefit his self interest, like taking the focus off of impeachment and looking good for re-election. However, there is a price that is paid for all decisions, but this time I think he screwed the pooch.Let's just give 'em Trump and call it even!
I don't think the Trumplicans understand the difference between a nation and a terrorist organization.
Trump's not considering the ramifications of his actions is a symptom of his mental illness.
I hate to always be right... It should embarrass you? But you just jump on another crazy bandwagon.
And you think it prudent to supply Iran with cash when they are the number one supporters of many terrorist groups? I could care less if it was their funds. And who joined in on the stupidity...
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … terrorism/Sharlee: It's Iran's money, they can do with it as they wish. We could not hold it back, because an international coalition agreed to it.
So you would rather believe Investors Business Daily than the Fact Checker article because it confirms what you want to believe?
This is a classic example of bias confirmation. We, I say we, because I do the same thing. We find something that confirms what we want to believe and then we defend it to the end.
We also have cognitive dissonance. We rationalize that we are right because we have too much invested to be wrong. When we do that it makes us feel good. The same thing with confirmation bias, it makes us feel good to find something that fits our beliefs.
It's not so much that we think we are right, it is more about getting the other person to think like us. By the way having a consensus of international heads of state is not stupidity as you stated. It's called a coalition or a treaty...So you believe your article while I will believe mine.
Here are the sources for Fact Checker
Trump, Donald. Ceasing U.S. Participation in the JCPOA and Taking Additional Action to Counter Iran’s Malign Influence and Deny Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon. Presidential memorandum. 8 May 2018.
Farley, Robert. “Trump’s Fanciful Iran Negotiation.” FactCheck.org. 8 Jul 2016.
Szubin, Adam. Acting secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Written testimony for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 5 Aug 2015.
Trump, Donald (@realDonaldTrump). “The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they can’t give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?” Twitter. 12 Dec 2018.
Farley, Robert. “Trump Misleads on Corker.” FactCheck.org. 9 Oct 2017.
Where are Investors Business Daily's sources?
Cheers.Hands over eyes and fingers in ears...as I said earlier.
You forget, PeoplePower, Shar and other Trumplicans don't care about facts or truth. The fact that the money returned to the Iranians was Iran's in the first place is of no nevermind. It detracts from their propaganda attacks.
I must point out, as a rule, I try to offer resources that I have considered when coming to an opinion. As Does PeoplePower. You on the other hand rarely leave any form of resource. I certainly care about facts and am willing in some cases wait for outcomes before projecting an opinion as fact. And no I do not care where the funds came from. I care about how stupid it was to provide those funds to a country that promotes and is well known for financing terror around the world. Now, that's a fact. It's disgusting Obama suppled more funds for Iran to pay for killing civilians as well as military personnel? It is clear he just did not either realize or perhaps just not care about the destruction that cash would bring.
Many of your statements are the very definition of propaganda. You tend to insult others without provocation.
prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
PeoplePower has a good memory, and I am very sure he can make his own decision on who cares about facts.You'd be fine with another country seizing US money in their country then, I suppose. Do you realize there's World Court to consider, Shar? I doubt it seriously...
Randy, do you actually know why Iran's money was seized? I suggest you check that out, and by the way, we have never attacked a foreign embassy to kill and take hostages. So I guess if America was a committed terrorist act in other countries we would deserve to have our money seized. It well appears you can't find much good about America? I would also suppose you supported giving Iran a known supporter of terrorists all that cash?
And of course Shar skips right over the fact that Obama stopped Iran from getting the Bomb while her boy is all but guaranteeing they will produce and test one.
BTW, it was part of the sanctions against Iran for bad acts. That was one of the sanctions removed to get Iran what we, not you, wanted - no nukes.I would change that sentence to read ... Obama may have stopped Iran momentarily from getting a "Bomb" or maybe not? Iran did not keep to their agreement to let UN inspectors in to make sure they were not continuing with their nuke program. So, Who knows if they have a bomb. It appears you take a terrorist state to be truthful. That's very unwise of you. You seem not willing to face clear truth if it does not suit your opinion?
None of that really matters right now, because Iran has dropped out the nuclear deal...thanks to Trump taking the shot.
National Security advisor Bolton has volunteered to testify. Trumplicans are peeing all over themselves trying to figure how to stop him from doing so.
McConnell is making the rigging tighter - so much for all of the Trumplicans whining about "lack of due process" and the Democratic "process not being fair" when they actually don't want it in the first place.
Trumplican = hypocrite.Game changer, Scott! The HP enablers are quite mum on this revelation. And we know why....
Would it not be smarter to see what Bolton has to say? What irritates me is that Congress never actually subpoenaed They certainly could have pushed the issue... So, I would not count any chickens before they have hatched.
I was discussing the news Bolton has claimed he would be willing to testify at the Senate impeachment trial. Which MY ESOTERIC deflected to. I am fully aware of the fact that many are very much in agreement that President Trump is a danger to America. However, it would be futile to continue this line of conversation, I have made it clear I am satisfied with the job he is doing.
In regards to Trump taking out a well-known terrorist. He claims that this man was planning a terrorist attack against American's. I prefer to wait and see what is said in the closed-door session that is scheduled where Congress will be informed of the threat.How are you going to know what is said inside a "closed-door session," Shar?
Or is it you don't remember when Congress met about the WMDs during Dubya's ill fated war in Iraq? We didn't learn about those against his plan until years later.
Remember the fake drawings of the mobile chemical labs Dubya's administration used to convince some they actually had WMDs? Bullshit it was, and we need to be sure we're not being played again .Well, I would look for leaks from the Dem's... Hey, they're famous for their leaks, if the leak benefits them. LOL
On a more serious note. I am very sure there will be a few news conferences on what the Senate and Congress learned in regards to the intelligence report that prompted Trump to take out Soleimani. It's been reported the intelligence was showing he was going to kill Americans in the next few weeks. As I mentioned I think it best to wait and see what comes out on the intelligence report.
I can't conceive Trump would have killed this man without good cause. He has shown great restraint with Iran in the past. Not, sure why some prefer to always just assume the worst?
Randy, this kind of hysteria makes no sense.So you think Soleimani was going to personally kill Americans in a "non-Imminent" time frame. And even if he wasn't going to do it himself, you must think killing him would stop someone else from doing it. Since he is a commander of a lot of subordinates, why do you think killing him would stop the attack??
Now, if you change your "few weeks" to a "few days", then you might have more of a point. But you still have the problem of if he is killed, is the attack stopped, don't you.
BTW, it just came out today that it was Pompeo who wanted Soleimani dead and he campaigned to make that happen. Pompeo has been talking about killing Soleimani since he was a congressman. (Of course, I am not saying Soleimani didn't deserve to die, he certainly did; but should Trump have destabilized the entire world for no apparent benefit)
Why were Republican Senator's Lee and Paul so upset with the drivel the executive branch gave Congress today? (I will say Republican Rep Will Hurd, had a different viewpoint). I haven't heard anything else out of the briefings yet.)
Sharlee: You are but one person. My concern is half of the nation thinks the way you do and to me that is a very scary thought.
40% is my estimate, but then I am conservative, lol - still very bad, but not catastrophic.
Does your club charge dues? Do I have to bring my own choir robe?
GA
Yes, I am one person with one view, as are you. I will be very interested to hear what Bolton has to say. Hopefully, it will be something that will be shared. I would think his testimony will be open, due to he would be appearing at the Senate impeachment trial.
If you're fearful in regards to toTrump's action in taking out a Terrorist that is responsible for the death of many Americans as well as many other human beings. A terrorist that has been on the terrorist list for many years.not sure I can understand your logic?
It's been reported that this man was in the process of planning to kill more American's. I don't choose to not believe this as being true. I realize that the Senate and I believe the Congress will be supplied with the intelligent reports today. As I stated I prefer to wait and get more information on that intelligent report.
It is clear we have different views on the killing of this terrorist? I think Trump certainly has taken a different approach to deal with Iran. I don't feel any of the three previous presidents made any progress with Iran. They have become very powerful in the past 35 years.
Yes, I can see this is all "scary", but in my view necessary. I feel Iran has been put on notice, and they also realize Trump took out ISIS. I think they realize this president will no longer put up with their aggression in the middle east, and across the world.Your "view" relies on a person not many trust to keep his word about anything.
And yet I have not witnessed him not pretty much keeping his word. He continues to work at all of his promises. Yes, he has had stumbling blocks but works around them.
I am very proud of how he has handled Iran. Hopefully, you listened to his speech this morning. I don't think I could have been more pleased to see him draw back, offer an olive branch. Yet add good warning not to mess with us. He is already reaching out to other countries to back up sanctions to help bring Iran back to the table. No cash just the offer to do the right thing or pay due to more sanctions.
My views rely on Trump's factual job performance. Not all the Bias if comes from Media. If comes that just never come...The "other" countries hate America because of Trump; they won't do diddly-squat.
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-eur … than-iran/Britain gave a statement of support for the taking out of this terrorist. And yes, other countries will not help, this is a given. This is why I love Trump's America first agenda.
These other countries could help with enforcing tariffs, they don't. They are oil-dependent on Iran. They could care little about Nuclear proliferation. They will leave that hard work up to us. Yeah, pretty disgusting.Why would they want to help Trump when he is out to hurt them? He makes no secret of it.
Sharlee: Every decision we make has a price that we pay for it. They are all trade offs in one sense or another. They took out a head of state who is responsible for the deaths of many people. The question is are we better off now that he is gone?
All Iran has to do is replace him with someone else who is capable of the same thing. We now have Iraq who has been an ally and is now are potential enemy who wants our troops out of the region because they and Iran are all members of the same Shia sect. I don't think Trump and his cohorts even realize that fact.
Trump has brought in more troops who are in harms way. He said he did it to prevent war, however we are on the brink of another war that he and his cohorts have created.
The Arabs are very cunning people when it comes to retaliation. Look at what they did in Falllujah during the Iraq invasion. They let our troops come in and let them think they were taking over the city. Once they were all in, they attacked with a vengeance and we lost the city to them. After that, we have been in the region forever in one form or another.
I think Iran is playing the same game with rocket attacks that miss their targets on our bases. They want us to think they are not good at targeting. But when we least expect it, they will come on with a vengeance again.
Bin Laden said America will die with 1,000 small knife cuts. Of course Obama took him out, but he was not a head of state. He was the leader of a terrorist group, the same as the head of ISIS. The difference being Soleimani was the head of state of a sovereign nation...big difference.In my opinion, Trump took out a well-known terrorist, a man that was on a terrorist watch list. He was responsible for killing not only Americans but his own people or anyone that got in the way of his well-planned terror attacks.
Yes, Trump made the decision to kill him, as other presidents should have done. We have been notified that this terrorist was planning an attack in the next few weeks. If this is true, and I believe it is, Trump made a good decision. If intelligence was given to the president of his plan to kill Americans. Trump made the right decision in my view,
I have put my finger on why we much of the time disagree. I do not use if comes or this might happen when developing an opinion. I stand back, as a rule, wait for facts. You seem to make a long list of what-ifs. You also do not appear to add know facts. For example, you give the impression due to this terrorist being part of a government, even though he is on the terrorist list and known to commit crimes all over the world as well as his own country, he is off-limits. Let me remind you Iran is a rogue nation, and they are the number one supporter of terror.
"
I think Iran is playing the same game with rocket attacks that miss their targets on our bases. They want us to think they are not good at targeting. But when we least expect it, they will come on with a vengeance again. "
You assume too much. We have no way of knowing what Iran will do from minute to minute. One thing we do know is that they can not be trusted.
Hopefully, you listened to President Trump's address to the nation this morning. he showed strength, yet offered an olive branch. I trust that he will be prudent as he has been dealing with Iran in the past. I was pleased to see him add more sanctions and encouraged them to do the right thing for their people. Keep in mind Trump promised to avoid war. I trust he will... Perhaps you need to take a wait and see attitude. All the predictions just may not come true. And if they do, you will have the privilege of being correct about Trump, and his inability to govern.There are reports that Iran let at least Iraq know the attack was coming, if not America.
Since they didn't come from Trump, there is more of a chance they are truthful.Now even Republican Senators are complaining about the briefing they had from the WH today. One called it most insulting and insane session he'd ever experienced in his 9 years of service in the Senate.
Mike Lee (R) Utah, was obviously irate by what he's heard as evidence for an imminent attack as claimed by WH officials when he said this. Rand Paul agreed with him.
Lee also said they wanted us to not debate the issue and to not voice any opposition to the strike because it would help Iran. Unbelievable!!
No, I disagree, Iran has not been put on notice (other than to modify their tactics a bit). We are going to pay as a nation for years to come because of Trump's action (unless it actually turns out there was truly an imminent threat that only Soleimani could carry out).
Why for "years to come"? Here are two examples.
Nine months after the Captain of the Vencennese who accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger liner, they blew up his car with his wife in it - she lived.
Somewhere around nine months after Sheldon Adelson, the Republican megadonor, said America should drop a nuke in the Iranian desert and then tell them the next one is on Tehran, the Iraqis took out one of his casinos with a cyber attack. It took him a long time and a lot of money to fix the damage.
No, they are a long way from being finished retaliating.
WHY do you keep repeating that "Trump took out ISIS". Let me say it again "it was Obama, Trump, and the Kurds who kicked the crap out of ISIS". But, as I showed you earlier, because Trump didn't finish the job, they are on the rise again. AND NOW because of killing Soleimani, he had to stop fighting ISIS altogether.
REALLY SMART of him wasn't it?
Trump "claims" - BUT Trump lies all the time; you never know when he tells the truth anymore.
I am waiting for the Democratic report from that Gang of 8 meeting, they are the only ones who will tell the truth. Already we know from Warner that there were threats and plans; he just isn't sure they met the "imminent" requirement.
Yes, it would be smarter to listen to Bolton, but Trumplicans say they aren't interested.
Had D's subpoenaed Bolton, they would still be waiting because Trump obstructed Congress. Since they had enough evidence already to establish probable cause to indict Trump, they didn't need him. They could wait for an unbiased trial to present that evidence should it become available.Trump did not in any respect have any control to stop Congress from subpoenaing Bolton or anyone else. he did not at any point use his executive power to stop them.
You are reading something that was never there. I saw no factual evidence as I have said on several occasions here on HP. Only opinions and hearsay. Congress had accomplished nothing but making themselves and the Dem party of looking foolish.
I support Trump and have no problem with Bolton giving testimony In fact I will go out on a limb and predict whatever he has to say will most likely help Trump or be more personal opinion.Great, but Mitch and his crowd will do everything they can to prevent Bolton from speaking, is my guess.
We have no way of knowing what Mitch will do at this point. We will have to wait until Nancy hands over the articles. I would think if the Dems want to call Bolton as a witness he will be called. Although, the president may just request him as a witness.
Sure we do, Shar. He said so himself. He's threatening to start impeachment proceedings in the Senate whether Nancy sends him the articles from the House or not.
And you obviously don't understand how Mitch controls the Senate. Unless there's a 51 vote majority on having witnesses testify--Bolton in particular--they won't be allowed.Shar apparently missed
- McConnell say he will not be impartial.
- She also missed where he intends on breaking his oath to the Constitution for impeachment which requires him to be impartial.
- She missed as well that McConnell has already broken his normal oath of office by failing to uphold the Constitution many times already.
He is as amoral as Trump is.
Shar apparently believes Trump's father was born in Germany.
Damn, I hope he does. Bolton will crucify him over the Ukraine "drug deal". We already know the outlines of his testimony based on the testimony of Hill and Vindman and it won't be pretty.
"Trump did not in any respect have any control to stop Congress from subpoenaing " - YOU ARE obviously trying to be devious. OF COURSE, Trump could not stop the House from subpoenaing - duh. In case you missed it somehow, Trump has claimed "blanket immunity" for anyone that works for him or ever works for him. He has effectively Obstructed Congress for a couple years now.
OF COURSE, you have seen factual evidence, you simply refuse to recognize it as such. Almost all of the testimony offered up would be admissible in any court.
But that is beside the point, isn't it? The investigation was NOT a court of law, was it. It was an investigation to find probable cause that Trump committed an impeachable offense.
So Bolton comparing Trump's actions to a "drug deal" doesn't bother you? Or is that another fact that you ignore.
I don't why you choose to be so blind to the truth, but that is certainly your choice.'Trump has claimed "blanket immunity" for anyone that works for him or ever works for him. He has effectively Obstructed Congress for a couple years now."
The president has no authority to give blanket immunity. He could use his executive privilege to make an attempt to block one of the members of his cabinet. You make vague excuses to suit your view. The fact is the Congress could subpoena anyone they wanted to. I am not sure Trump made that statement, and if he did, he should be made to realize he does not have that power.
And no secondhand or would not be admissible in a court of law. In fact, an attorney would not even ask an opinion or make an attempt to enter secondhand info before a court.
In regards to the testimony that was given where the person claimed Bolton stated that sentiment, we have not heard from Bolton on his explanation in regards to that statement or if he ever made that statement. Have you considered he may testify he never made the statement or that his intent was misunderstood? This is why one should wait for both sides, a clear explanation.
I certainly am not blind to facts, in the example, you have given I would prefer to wait to hear from Bolton. I would consider it ill-advised to believe anything that has not been proven with facts. I don't join in hysteria, spreading possible " what ifs..Shar, the House received a letter from WH council stating they would not cooperate with them on anything. No witnesses, no documents, nothing.
Subpoenas would take months if not longer to even reach the courts. According to the constitution, the House has sole power of oversight and impeachment process and doesn't require them to have to go to the courts to do their duty.
So waiting was not an option. Understand now? If not, I give up.How was it not an option? So it takes months - so what? Pelosi is apparently in no hurry to complete the task, so what difference would it have made?
Be honest Wilderness. If Pelosi had submitted the articles on day one, do you think McConnell would be holding a trial today?? No. So in terms of not being in a hurry, that is simply deflection.
What is ironic is that now that Trump has really pissed off the Iranians, they are going to go diving through the holes he left in our cyber security in his effort to take the blame off of the Russians for their interference in the 2016 election. I suspect the Iranians will simply follow the Russian playbook and run through the hole in our security that Trump has left wide open.
Worse for Trump is that the Russians will probably help the Iranians because they can no longer tolerate Trump's unpredictability.
The Dem's claimed it was very important to proceed quickly with the impeachment. I would assume they were very aware that Congress runs the inquiry, and the Senate would run the trial. This is what was done with Clinton, this president deserves the same. It would have been smarter for Congress to use their power to subpoena whoever they wanted to. They were fully aware that it would be a possibility, most likely a given, that they would not get the witnesses they wanted if it went to the Senate. They fully knew this possibility.
They are not stupid, they know there is no there there, this is a political ploy that went bad. Common sense should tell you that. Each day the Dem's look more foolish than the previous.
If they believe what they are trying to prove they should have been prudent and taken the time to get those witnesses. They don't believe in there cause they care about tearing down the president.
They look more foolish today with their ploy to tie the presidents' hands They know that once again this will be voted down by the Senate.
He killed a terrorist, he has Iran standing down. What more could we ask? They backed down, the first time in 0ver 40 years. That so far is a fact.
Will his move with Iran cause a war with Iran? None of us know. Once again the Dem's are wringing their hands feeding out an "if come". One would think more would wake up to the fact that this kind of politicking is getting them nowhere, and making them look for the lack of a better word --- Crazy.
Keep in mind, we really as of today do not know what kind of trail the Senate would run. Mitch claims it will be fair. Why not proceed? If the Senate appears to unfair in its rules,
we the public will see the unfairness, and judge accordingly. I am not willing to jump on a bandwagon to believe predictions in regards to how the trial will be conducted. I want to see this play out and save my judgment as to facts playout. Have you ever asked yourself,
what if the Senate proceeds with a fair trial? It appears you always borrow into the negative?
Randy the reality, the Congress could have called witnesses, and they did not. If one wanted to speculate one could say they did not because they did not want positive testimony, now would they?
This is an example of If come thinking, it is useless because there is no way of knowing why the Dems did not call more witnesses.
Nacey needs to do her job and send the case over to the Senate. It will be interesting to see how they proceed. If they choose not to go to court, this will indicate they can't defend Trump. If they do I would think they will be able to exonerate him.
If she does not hand them over, this will look like a pitiful political ply that went very bad.I've made it very plain why they could not call witnesses, Shar. The election would have been underway or past before the courts would rule on witnesses who should have spoken at the House Impeachment proceedings. Apparently you just can't get this through your head.
No POTUS has ever completely stonewalled Congress like this before, and it must be stopped or future presidents will abuse their power as well.And I made it very clear that it would have been the right thing to do. The election should have not even played a part in this impeachment. In fact, the Dems would gain respect for doing it the right way. However, it is very clear this was all about the election, as you yourself have almost admitted in your comment.
If the Dem's in Congress believe the president committed an impeachable act or acts they needed to follow through by bringing any and all in to testify, no matter the election.
I read the entire 8-page letter you spoke of, I suggest you read it from start to finish.
This impeachment was and is a political ploy, and it just really backfired on them. They look ridiculous and really should have just worked on finding a good candidate.You misunderstood my meaning re the election, Shar. The point I was trying to make is, the house investigation had many respected witnesses testify with the result being Trump tried to cheat in the election by holding up needed funding to Ukraine.
Does this reassure you he won't try again? Especially if he gets away with it this time....
You're smarter than that, Shar.....I hope.The House "investigation":
Did not have a single "respected" witness
Did not have a single witness testify that the knew Trump tried to cheat the election. At most they gave their opinion of that but then the country is filled with Trump haters that will say the same thing, and without any more evidence than those "respected witnesses" had. None, in other words.
On the other hand we have the Democratic party conducting the biggest witch hunt in the history of our country...in an effort to cheat in the next election. I assume that you find that it is fine to use the FBI as a tool to guarantee an election, but most of us do not.Yes, they didn't have witnesses or documents because Trump stonewalled the House. If Trump were so lily white, he'd have no problem letting them testify. But then, he knows the Senate will protect him no matter what he does.
And your remark about the FBI cheating in the election is laughable, particularly as Comey probably cost Hillary the election when he reopened the investigation.Why do you suppose the country is filled with people (well over 50%) who are anti-Trump? Could it be that TraitorTrump deserves it with his incompetence, anti-social character, his NPD, his psychopathy?
Because the country is filled with liberals - liberals that hate anything connected with conservatism and deny that any good can come from any of it. When a Republican was elected as President against all the odds the partisanship hit a new low (or high, depending on your viewpoint), and the result is the almost complete defiance of anything Trump does. That he does fit the image of the suave, well spoken diplomat that they wanted doesn't help, either.
No.Trump's a buffoon. he does not, in any stretch of the imagination, "fit the image of the suave, well spoken diplomat."
He's one of the most low class individuals I've ever been unfortunate to witness.How about that. We agree! Trump doesn't fit your vision of what a president should be (regardless of the results he produces) so you will hate him, call him names and generally degrade everything he does.
What Randy is saying is Trump degrades America. What Randy didn't say, but probably will, "what few good results Trump has produced (and there have been some) they are far out-weighed by all of the bad results."
Dan 's only excuse for being a Trump enabler is we "hate" him. Watch Fox News and they continually use hate as a reason the Left wants Trump gone. Not because he cannot be trusted to honor his oath of office as he's already shown, but because we hate him. What a farce of an excuse!
What liberals hate is hurting America and its citizens. Trumplicans want to do both. Name one good thing conservatives have done for America and its citizens. Would it be:
- Working hard against the end of slavery?
- Working hard against women's right to vote?
- Working hard to defeat the civil rights act?
- Working hard to defeat the 13th Amendment
- Working hard to defeat the 14th Amendment
- Working hard to defeat the 15th Amendment
Just a few of the things conservatives worked hard for.
I must again point out that ALL the House needed to do was provide Probable Cause that Trump committed an impeachable act. They did that in spades
"The election should have not even played a part in this impeachment."
Amen! For all the righteousness of the Democrats' claims, and even if their claims are valid, this political ploy of timing determined by the coming election does nothing to buttress their position. To my thinking it harms them by portraying their actions as less that of patriotic Americans and more as political machinations.
GA
They are looking only more politically motivated, notThe way I see it, the Democrats are trying to prevent Trump from rigging the 2020 election. Now you may not think that a noble cause, but I certainly do.
It boggles the mind why some think Trump won't try again to sabotage any threatening democratic candidate. It's like, "he won't do it again, just let him get by with it this time." Any person who truly believes this is ignorant of Trump's past.
And they will do so by trying to remove their primary opposition. Sound familiar?
Kinda like Trump was trying to remove Biden, Dan?
Good. You caught the irony and stupidity of crying that Trump was doing something you're doing yourself.
The democratic party is imploding before our very eyes, it's baffling, and almost appears they are hell-bent on doing so.
What I find odd that they just did not spend their time finding a good candidate to run in 2020? Instead, they seem to have sought to provide hyperbolic hysteria, and just hope that ploy would work to get a Dem back in the White House.
The Dems did do it the right way.
And it is your opinion that because Trump can do no wrong in your eyes, but is doing wrong in the majority of American's eyes, that Pelosi ought to disregard the Constitution and do nothing.Again let me remind you Congress had no time restraints, they could have called witnesses to prove their theory that the president abused his power, as well as obstructed Congress. The argument that Congress did not want to possibly have to take some to court to get them to testify is ridiculous.
Impeachment should not be taken lightly, and time should not even be considered when conducting an investigation. Congress was willing to start an investigation to impeach the president. We the people deserve a proper investigation, not one that has time restraints on it due to a pending election. Congress used a flawed process. They presented nothing but secondhand information, that would not be considered as facts.
And in regards to my opinion that Trump can do no wrong. We were discussing the Congress and how they are handling this impeachment.
So, far I have seen no evidence to determine Trump did anything wrong. Perhaps if Congress pursued witnesses that could offer first-hand information I would have felt differently? Congress failed to do a proper inquiry and wasted their time and our tax dollar.
And by the way, Pelosi had deeply disregarded our Constitution simply
by bringing forth an impeachment process that she had no provable wrongdoing that could be proved, not to mention the haphazard way she put a time restraint on the inquiry.
I never disputed Nancy had the right to start a procedure to impeach the president. I have said she should not accuse the president of a crime, and then search for a crime, and proof of that crime. She is still searching for this very day.
This is a political ploy, and she shredded the Constitution to pursue this shameful political ploy.So the House was responsible for not getting the witnesses and documents they needed? I give up, Shar!
This should not confuse you it was up to The House Of Representatives (Congressmen and Congresswomen) that were conducting the impeachment inquiry certainly had the power to subpoena anyone they wanted to. Are you under the assumption they could not have not only asked but subpoenaed witnesses?
I thoroughly realize I used the word Congress incorrectly and should have referred to them as the House or to be more precise the House Of Representatives. I was referring to Congressmen and women.
Seems you did not address my main thought. And that is the House should have been prudent taken the time to subpoena any and all witnesses no matter how the hell long it took... Impeachment is serious, and should not be half done or speeded along. Let me remind you of how the Dem's cried about giving Mueller all the time he needed to complete his investigation. Does it seem that those that choose to believe "The House" has done their best are not considering Impecjment should be taken very seriously, and the proper time should be allotted to complete an extensive investigation?
So, why not converse on the subject, and that is why weren't witnesses subpoenaed? If you prescribe to "it just would take to long". We have nothing more to discuss on the subject.Sharlee: What was the time restriction that Pelosi put on the process? Was it a week, a month, or what? Pelosi subpoenas the first hand witness. Trump orders them not to comply. He sends an eight page letter that he is not going to cooperate. Then you say it's up to Pelosi to file court orders no matter how long they take in order to execute a proper impeachment process.
The risk is they would take so long, Trump may not even be president when they reached a conclusion. The reward for the GOP is that the trial would be delayed until the cows came home and it would be way after the fact.
After two years, the courts just came to the conclusion with Hillary's charge of illegal business dealings while being a candidate and they found no basis for the charges, but the case is still open. By the way, Trump was trying to find dirt on Hillary...sound familiar? It's typical Trump deflection. Start an open ended conspiracy theory. If it proves he was wrong, then he starts another investigation. That's what he does to protect himself and to keep everybody off balance."Sharlee: What was the time restriction that Pelosi put on the process? Was it a week, a month, or what? Pelosi subpoenas the first hand witness. Trump orders them not to comply. He sends an eight page letter that he is not going to cooperate. Then you say it's up to Pelosi to file court orders no matter how long they take in order to execute a proper impeachment process. '
This is a sad excuse. They certainly could have subpoenaed witnesses and put the iodous on the White House, and even if they did not push the subpoenas it would certainly bode well for them trying. They, have no case and have just tried to garner attention. However, this certainly backfired.
I am trying to be polite, but it appears you are making very poor excuses. I would have had respect for the process if it would have been handled correctly. If they wanted to prove their allegations time should never have played into the process. They knew what they were doing from the start, and they proved nothing left Trump's base stronger than ever, and none of us will get to see this play out to a settled conclusion. It leaves liberals defending something that is clearly a bad political ploy and hanging onto wait for more... Many already predicting what the Senate will do with the trial. And you know what they will do the same a cheap political ploy. Just Like The House perpetrated. Just ask yourself if this is just not common sense?
Hillary is old news, do not have the energy to go there...Sharlee: What do you mean they have no case? Pelosi did her job. Trump has been impeached by the house for abuse of power and obstructing congress.
They are in the process of writing protocol for sending the articles of impeachment to the senate. That is not an excuse. That is fact.
There will be a conclusion in the senate and it will be that Trump will be exonerated. It requires 2/3 vote of the senate to do so and they will get it because the GOP is in the majority.
However, if Trump and McConnell would allow the first hand witnesses to testify, it could change the outcome. But they will never allow that so it is foregone conclusion.
The house wins in their efforts and the senate wins in their efforts. Now a precedent will be set where any president can do the same thing and operate above the law. Therein lies the risk in this process. The reward goes to Trump and his supporters and they are free to move around the cabin. (airline reference).I think you might be surprised. When it gets to a vote for witnesses (and McConnell can't stop that) I have high hopes that Collins*, Murkowski, Romney, Gardner, Sasse, Ernst*, McSally*, and Tillis (maybe)* will vote to hear witnesses and see documents. The ones with '*'s will likely lose their Senate seats if they oppose witnesses.
That is not to say they won't set him free, regardless of what the evidence shows. I have no doubt that if it was proved that he committed murder on 5th Ave, the Trumplicans would vote to acquit.Yes, all of what you have said is true to a point. My point is not at all being addressed after I have posted it over and over.
So, once more. "The House" had the power to subpoena all of who they claim they need to hear from in the Senate trial. I will not go through the list. It is very clear Pelosi knew and knows how this trial will be conducted, in fact, we all do. And Pelosi is and was depending on good old Mitch to do what has been predicted.
It odd you don't realize this was a poorly orchestrated political ploy? Nancy could have had any witnesses she wanted, and she did. LOL
I am hopeful most American's can see through this unsuccessful grift."So, once more. "The House" had the power to subpoena all of who they claim they need to hear from in the Senate trial. " <-- AND ONCE AGAIN, I ask you, SO WHAT?? They had what they needed to provide probable cause that Trump committed impeachable acts - and they did that in SPADES.
Given you want to let Trump off the hook, I am guessing you don't want any criminal investigated or tried. That is what it sounds like.
It originally looked like Trump broke the law and Pelosi did what the founders wanted her to do, call him out on it. Now, because she did, not only did she establish probable cause to send it to trial, she, IMO, proved her case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only grifter is Trump, btw. One of the best con men that ever lived.
So in the meantime, can you assure the American people Trump will not attempt tp meddle in the election? No matter if it takes a year or so for the courts to allow witnesses and documents? Are you willing to be responsible for any illegal or unethical action he takes in this time span?
O are you simply wanting to let him get away this time in hopes he's learned a lesson? I'm not, as he's already shown he thinks he's above the law."So in the meantime, can you assure the American people Trump will not attempt tp meddle in the election?"
About as much as YOU can guarantee that the Democrat party won't meddle in the election. Are you suggesting that we lock up every Democrat in the country, or perhaps in Congress to prevent the continuation of such an action?
They have (particularly in the person of Pelosi) indicated that she is above the Constitution in her demands that the Senate conduct their trial according to her specifications rather than those given by the constitution, which leaves it to the Senate. Should we not lock them up to prevent the meddling they are attempting, or is it just Republicans, particularly the president, that should be removed to prevent such meddling?Hillary wasn't POTUS, Dan. She didn't have the power to abuse her office like Trump did. Or is it you simply hate Hillary.
Re the impeachment process, if Barr had done his job he would have appointed a special prosecutor--as in both the Nixon and Clinton proceedings--the documents and witnesses would have been scrutinized in a grand jury and the House wouldn't have had to do their own investigation.
You seem to be satisfied with Barr's inaction, but don't like what the House had to do about it.It isn't so much as "inaction" on Barr's part, it is active obstruction and partisan interference.
So you find it OK to try and meddle illegally/unethically in elections. Illegal aliens voting, dead people voting, gerrymandering, miscounting ballots, etc. as long as you aren't the president. You can even play political games designed to eliminate a sitting president from the next election.
I disagree.We don't find that OK, that is why we favor convicting Trump of doing just that. It is your side who favors the meddling because you support Trump doing that.
You know, don't you Wilderness, that the only proven case of widespread voter fraud was the Republicans in North Carolina. Please look at your own house rather than trying to disparage one who is playing by the rules.Give me proof any of that happening, Dan. You're spouting the FOX News line as usual. Trump's own investigative team could not find evidence you claim is true. Typical from a Hillary hater.
Wilderness can prove the gerrymandering, mainly by Republicans.
Yes, he certainly can. And he can prove that the dead have somehow cast votes. And that illegal aliens have voted. All are documented in small amounts - small because Democrats vehemently prohibit any real investigation into them. Reasonable as they are all (to date) voting Democrat.
Strange things have happened, I agree, and you might be able to find anecdotes of a few dead people and others not qualified to vote, but as EVERY study shows, it is an unimaginably small percentage of the vote and has NEVER impacted an outcome.
Republican cheating, however, is well documented in North Carolina and it was so bad, they had to redo the election.
"Democrats vehemently prohibit any real investigation into them. " - LOL, another of those Fox generated BIG LIES. Hell, Trump put together a commission to prove it and they couldn't. Give me a break."as EVERY study shows, it is an unimaginably small percentage of the vote and has NEVER impacted an outcome."
"All are documented in small amounts - small because Democrats vehemently prohibit any real investigation into them." Just as they prohibit any form of voter ID that would stop it.) We spent 3 years and millions of $$ looking into the malfeasance of a single person accused of colluding with Putin: how about we put 10 years and 10 billion $$ into the problem of illegal aliens and dead people voting? Or people voting twice or more? Wait - how about putting it into voter id's - for what we spent showing Trump did not collude with Putin or any other Russian we could provide every live American with one."small because Democrats vehemently prohibit any real investigation into them." " - PROVE that BIG LIE.
Mueller MORE than proved Trump et al "colluded" with Putin. He indicted lots of people and put many Trump associates in jail because of it. You have a real problem with reporting the truth, don't you Wilderness."PROVE that BIG LIE."
You claim it is a lie without ever checking - prove you aren't lying. Most rational people, finding a problem, will try to ascertain, at the minimum, just how big that problem is. You, and your fellow Democrats, refuse to do so...because you KNOW it isn't bigger than what was already found. Just how you KNOW that, though, neither you nor anyone else has ever said.
Wilderness: The constitution specifies that the house will conduct an investigation based on precedent and rules that they set. The constitution also specifies that the senate will conduct a trial based on precedent and rules that they set.
Pelosi can't tell the Senate how to conduct their trial. But she is not obligated to send the articles of impeachment to the senate until she believes everything is in place for a fair and impartial trial.
Trump and McConnell have already said they are not going to cooperate with Pelosi. McConnell wants to start the trial without any witnesses.
Both sides have to interface with each other on agreeable terms. It's like an agreement of a contract by both parties involved. The risk is mainly on Pelosi's side because the deck is stacked against her with the senate being composed of a majority of GOP Trump supporters. The reward is on McConnell's side because Trump will be exonerated by Chief Justice Roberts as presiding judge. But Trump has already been officially impeached by the house and he will wear it like a scarlet letter.And the Right will bitch like heck when a future Democratic POTUS can point back to this precedent of being able to abuse his/her power because Trump got away with it.
At any rate, the enablers here don't seem to understand the rules of the House or Senate because they keep crying foul on the process. Why can't they understand Barr caused all of the confusion by not doing his job?"Pelosi can't tell the Senate how to conduct their trial. But she is not obligated to send the articles of impeachment to the senate until she believes everything is in place for a fair and impartial trial. "
LOL Way to spin it. Here, let me aid in removing that spin: as you state the Senate is to use their own rules for a trial, but Pelosi refuses to send the articles until those rules match what she wants to see. Constitutional? Yes. Ethical? No. Violation of the intent of the Constitution? Absolutely, for the Constitution intended the Senate to make their own rules without requirements from the House.
Interestingly, I saw reports of a senate proposal to either go ahead with the trial or simply dismiss the impeachment entirely - it is their own internal rules that require those articles be delivered, not a constitutional or other legal requirement. And suddenly Pelosi says she is going to finally fulfill the duty that the Constitution laid on the House now that there is a real possibility she will lose it all, rather than just the cherry on top.
Again, LOL. You may see it as a scarlet letter: most people will see it as a neon sign that the House Democrats played politics rather than be serious about what is probably the worst duty they will ever be required to undertake; the removal of a president.
(As a side comment, have you considered that while the Senate is stacked against her, the House was most definitely with her? And that were the parties split right down the center, D vs R, Pelosi would have lost the House vote, with enough D's voting against her to throw it the other way? Just an interesting little aside...)
Your deflecting and projecting again, Wilderness. Why would the Democrats want to interfere with the 2020 election in the way that Trump did (or Republicans in North Carolina did).
They know if they can guarantee a fair election, they will win. I guess your logic is that by the Democrats trying to make the election fair, that is de facto "interfering with the election". I suppose that does make sense to you.
You are quoting the lying McConnell. Where did Pelosi ever "demand that the Senate conduct their trial according to her specifications" OR are you just making that up to argue? All she wanted to know was what rules McConnell was going to play by so she could put together her prosecution team.
Also, she doesn't trust McConnell not to cheat again. After all, he is not even trying hide the fact he is violating his oath of office."Why would the Democrats want to interfere with the 2020 election in the way that Trump did (or Republicans in North Carolina did)."
Are you serious? You can't figure any reason the Democrats would interfere in an election that could give them the presidency (and it's associated political power) or leave them where they are or even worse? You can't think of any reason for them to cheat?
No, all she wanted was most definitely NOT to simply know what rules would be used, and you know and understand that very well. She demanded (not wanted - demanded) rules of her own making or she would not continue her constitutionally mandated duty.Yes, I am serious. Unless Trump rigs the election again, the Ds will win (unless maybe they put forward Sanders)
I don't believe he did anything in the election in 2916, and certainly see no evidence that he needed to or is trying to win in 2020 by having anything but his job performance as well as his agenda. With all that has been thrown at him, common sense will still win out over crazy theories. I in my long life have ever witnessed such hysteria.
If Bolton testifies, you may have to rethink your loyalty to such a person. You don't wonder about his hidden school grades, his hidden taxes, his concealing documents and witnesses and even had his medical records forcefully taken from a doctor's office. Your lack curiosity about such things is something to behold.
Biden was leading in the polls and Trump tried to leverage the Ukraine to do his dirty work--or drug deal as Bolton called it--for him. Can you assure us he won't try again?I am willing to hear the truth whatever it may be. I have stated I hope that Bolton testifies. If the House would have taken the time to subpoena hin we most likely would have heard from him. It appears now they knew he was not worth going after, and just hoped to use him as red meat for their slappies. In regards to all the "hidden school grades, his hidden taxes, his concealing documents, and witnesses and even had his medical records forcefully taken from a doctor's office." No, I am not interested in seeing any of what you listed. His taxes are his business as mine is mine. His school records? OMG... He has had three physicals by three different doctors and two at Walter Reed in Washington. He is not required to have yearly health exams, yet he has... You seem to be into any conspiracy you can find on this man. Why not pay more attention to what he is doing daily, his job performance.
Again - WHY should they have waited?? They had the probable cause they needed to write the articles of impeachment. They didn't need Bolton for that.
From my reading of it all, the jurors don't need anything more either to convict. Hearing from people like Bolton during the trial will just make it all that more politically uncomfortable for those Trumplican Senators who will violate their oath of office and vote not guilty.
This is especially true of the obstruction of Congress charge.
I know why you don't want to see his taxes, you don't want proof of his financial crimes. Fortunately, you will see them sometime this year.
"His taxes are his business as mine is mine. " <-- ONLY if they don't contain evidence of a crime. de Blasio recently turned over the records he has to the state prosecutor clearly showing Trump valued a particular property at a low value in order to cheat on his taxes and the same property at around the same time at a much higher price to use as collateral for a loan.
I would think even in your book, that is a crime.
I do think all presidential candidates ought to have a confidential, in-depth mental evaluation. The results of which would only be reported if the determination is made that the candidate is unfit to be President.
"Why not pay more attention to what he is doing daily, his job performance." <-- I DO and it scares the hell out of me and most other Americans. - His assassination of Soleimani being the latest example of dangerously reckless behavior."His taxes are his business as mine is mine. " <-- ONLY if they don't contain evidence of a crime. "
This is so ridiculous... Do you think our IRS has given him a pass to break the law? Put him above the law before and after he became president. You live in a world I can't comprehend? His taxes are clean and clear of problems.
"de Blasio recently turned over the records he has to the state prosecutor clearly showing Trump valued a particular property at a low value in order to cheat on his taxes and the same property at around the same time at a much higher price to use as collateral for a loan. "
You need to provide a resource to this accusation. This is once again rediculous, and you need to prove such a statement.
""Why not pay more attention to what he is doing daily, his job performance." <-- I DO and it scares the hell out of me and most other Americans. - His assassination of Soleimani being the latest example of dangerously reckless behavior."
In regards to Trump killing a terrorist. he did his job... And that's a plus in my opinion. And it would scare me if he did not take one out when he could. Sol --- whatever his name is was a murder of his own people, and ours. Oh, I forgot you thought Obama did the right thing when he let Assad kill on and on and on. You know when his redline was crossed, and we had to sit by and hear the loud pledging from the Syrian people to and watch GENOCIDE. Now that was scary.Once again, why he is he hiding his taxes, school records, medical records. You would be concerned if a Democratic POTUS was suspected to be in debt to a foreign country.
I don't want either a Dem or Con POTUS to be compromised and we need to know they're not by some means.Remember, the IRS is in Trump's pocket - he appointed the commissioner who, if he is like most of his other appointments, is in his pocket. I think he is being investigated for a fixing things for Trump.
Ask and you shall receive - https://www.propublica.org/article/trum … nhattan-da
"In regards to Trump killing a terrorist. he did his job." - SO, IF Trump had nuked Iran, who is a terrorist state, you would just say he is doing his job? If not, why not?
As to Syria, I disagree with Obama's handling of that whole situation. I much preferred Clinton's and Biden's solution of no-fly zones. Regarding the chemicals. He did get the Russians to convince Assad to get rid of "all known" supplies. That was a good thing."Remember, the IRS is in Trump's pocket - he appointed the commissioner who, if he is like most of his other appointments, is in his pocket. I think he is being investigated for a fixing things for Trump."
You are a bit too far out there for me... This is absolutely a delusional statement. I will say no more. LOLThen you don't really keep up with the facts, Shar. Trump did indeed appoint the IRS head and he's already refused to cooperate with the House and Ways committee.
The SCOTUS will rule on this in March so we will more than likely find what Trump is afraid of.It's not unusual for a president to appoint an internal Revenue Service commissioner due to one stepping down? He had to fill the position. Trump replaced an Obama appointee, John Koskinen, who stepped down in November at the end of his five-year term. Yes, I realize House Ways and Means Committee subpoenaed several years of Trump's tax returns., and he has vowed to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court.
I believe Trump's attorneys are falling back on a law that stipulates there must be proof of the need for the taxes for them to be released, and House Ways and Means Committee has not yet produced a logical reason. It sounded very complicated to me. The case will make it to the Supreme Court. Although I guess if they don't rule the way some want them to, it will turn into another conspiracy.
It would be very interesting to see Trump's tax records and it is commendable to see they are willing to take it to the SCOTUS."I believe Trump's attorneys are falling back on a law that stipulates there must be proof of the need for the taxes for them to be released" <-- PLEASE provide the statute you are referring to - I don't think it exists.
The IRS commissioner that Trump picked is financially beholding to Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/05/politics … index.html
It's factual not conspiracy, Shar. And if you believe the Doctor who claimed he was in excellent shape, I have some beautiful swamp land you'd be thrilled with.
I have to wonder about someone who doesn't care if a POTUS is in the pocket of a foreign power or not. That's why all modern POTUS show their tax returns. But then, you think he's an honest guy wouldn't lie about it, right?Randy, Make that, doctors. As I said he is not required to have a yearly check-up but has at one of the finest hospitals in our country. I am I to believe you don't trust any of the Doc's or tech's that have performed any tests on Trump is in on a conspiracy to lie in regards to results?
I would think he is in good shape for his age. I have not witnessed him even being down with a cold in three years? Not that that would be unusual, just making a point.
He has not indicated or appears to favor any given country? I have no idea why he won't show his taxes other than he claims his attorney told him not to until his audit is complete. I fully trust the IRS to catch a tax crime if one was committed. You don't seem to respond to my opinion in regard to the honesty of the IRS. Does it seem you have closed your mind to trust the IRS? Aws well as that there have been several doctors and other hospital staff that have been in on Trump's physicals? Please tell me they all lie or are in on a conspiracy to just say he is healthy.
." That's why all modern POTUS show their tax returns. But then, you think he's an honest guy wouldn't lie about it, right?"
What's to lie about? Just wondering what you feel has slipped by the IRS? No, really this sounds really silly, time to drop the tax conspiracy.
You guys just need some new conspiracies. This crap is getting old, and it baffles me why these subjects are even being mentioned after three years.
School records... OMG RandyYou mean the discredited doctor who he nominated to be VA Secretary?
"He has not indicated or appears to favor any given country?" <-- Russia is not a country? Let's see:
- He turned over Syria to the Russians
- He hindered Ukraine's fight against the Russians
- He believes Russian intelligence more than he believes American intelligence
- He is trying to shift the blame for the 2016 election interference from Russia to Ukraine.
- He looks the other way when Russian captured a few Ukrainian ships and crew.
Need I go on or do you want more?So, now Trump has control not only over the IRS but Walter Reed hospital and all of its staff. Do you ever calm down and realize how foolish this all sounds?
You do realize he has had three physicals? Make that, doctors. As I said he is not required to have a yearly check-up but has at one of the finest hospitals in our country, Walter Reed. I am I to believe you don't trust any of the Doc's or tech's that have performed any tests on Trump is in on a conspiracy to lie in regards to results?
The rest of your comment is repetitive, and none of it is factual, just old accusations from the hysterical left.
Then you need to read the Mueller report. While there quite enough evidence to prove Trump and his administration's activities amounted to criminal conspiracy, Mueller did present many, many pages of examples of how they colluded.
Why is it hysteria in trying to stop Trump's criminal activity. Do you actually WANT a criminal for president?I have the Mueller report and did read it word for boring words. The one thing that stuck out is his statement to the Nation was clear and could not be misunderstood or even twisted out of context.
"In a carefully worded nine-minute statement, Mueller stuck to the conclusions of his team’s 448-page report: that Russia systematically interfered in the 2016 election by hacking, that investigators found “insufficient evidence” to find any Americans conspired with the Russians in that effort and that his team pointedly did not say whether or not Trump obstructed justice during the investigation."
And no Mueller did not present any form of factual evidence that anyone conspired with Russia to affect the election.
The only hysteria is being perpetrated by some that accept theories instead of truth. Read the report in full..."that investigators found “insufficient evidence” to find any Americans conspired with the Russians" <-- Do You see the word I bolded? That means the evidence of "collusion" he presented was not sufficient to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt for "criminal conspiracy".
That is not to say he didn't find evidence of "collusion" as we understand the term - meaning to sides got together for some nefarious act. "Collusion" is not "conspiracy", it is "conspiracy lite" and there were many, many examples of collusion. Hell, Roger Stone, Trump's confidant, when to jail for lying about it.
Now I realize you can't afford to understand the difference between "collusion" and "conspiracy" in order to maintain your pro-Trump stance, but both are bad; only one, however, is criminal.
"And no Mueller did not present any form of factual evidence that anyone conspired with Russia to affect the election." <-- THAT is a true statement. But what is ALSO a TRUE statement is:
"And no Mueller did not present any form of factual evidence that anyone colluded with Russia to affect the election.?
On a side note (and yes, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a legal background courtesy of the Army), I think Mueller did present enough evidence to press criminal conspiracy charges against Paul Manafort, based upon what I read in the report.
Unlike the others who colluded, such as Trump Jr., Manafort actually conspired with the Russians to provide polling data to help them target their propaganda campaign for Trump. Why Mueller didn't charge him with that, I don't know - maybe because he had so many other charges.Funny the House did not address any of Mueller's findings in the inquiry. Why didn't they? Because there was nothing that indicated he did anything with Russia.
They discussed adding the dozen obstructions charges in another article, and may still do so.
I have heard that it will be interesting to see if they decide to slow it down and look for other articles. Nothing would surprise me.
I thought you believed they were going too fast with the proceedings? Now Don McGahn can tell us how Trump told him to lie for him. That's good news, right?
Sharlee: Your argument is if Pelosi could not get prime witness, why did she take the time to work with secondary witness. She should have gone to the courts to get those witness to appear?
My argument is why did Trump stop them from appearing if he has nothing to hide.? It is much simpler and honorable to tell his prime witnesses to appear than for Pelosi to have to go through the court system to get them to appear.
She did not create the obstruction, Trump did by not playing by the rules and creating his own rules that are not in compliance with the constitution. But we can't nail him or his people because of executive immunity. Welcome to a 3rd world country.Both Clinton and Nixon eventually allowed all witnesses to appear. Bill should have asserted Executive Privilege to keep Monica from testifying if Trump's excuse for EP is any indication I suppose?
The Right would've had a shit fit!
Why? Because Barr and Trump were Obstructing Congress so they moved on to something much easier to deal with - Trump's bribery of Zelenskyy and Obstruction of Congress.
Sharlee: Again you are calling the house of representatives congress. They are only one half of congress, the other half is the senate. Sorry, but we need to keep the terminology straight. It's confusing enough without mixing up terminology.
Speaking of terminology, let's talk about innocents and guilt. If a person has been charged with guilt and they can prove they are innocent by using first hand witnesses to prove there innocents, don't you think they would allow the first hand witness to come forward?
On the other hand if a person is charged with guilt and they don't allow the first hand witness to come forward, aren't they covering up their guilt? And by not allowing their witnesses to come forward, they are proven guilty by omission until proven otherwise.
I know in a court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty, but if you have witnesses that can prove your innocence then the courts will have them come forward to prove their case, especially if they are first hand witnesses and have been subpoenaed.
So I ask you, what is Trump afraid of if he is innocent? The notion of taking too much time or not enough time is nothing more than a distraction in my estimation. Trump and McConnell are both using a cover up to protect Trump.
Pelosi worked with what she had been given and that is second hand witnesses and she was still able to conclude abuse of power and obstruction of the house of representatives investigation, enough to write articles of impeachment.
See if I would have said congress, it would have been a misnomer. That is why it is important to keep the terminology straight.Wasting your time, Mike. She can't keep the Senate and House separate entities in her mind, as well as understanding why witnesses didn't appear as the "House" wanted.
"As per the Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives makes and passes federal laws. The House is one of Congress’s two chambers (the other is the U.S. Senate) and part of the federal government’s legislative branch. The number of voting representatives in the House is fixed by law at no more than 435, proportionally representing the population of the 50 states."
Please let me clarify. The conversation was in regard to the impeachment inquiry. I did refer to those responsible for the impeachment inquiry as Congress. I should have referred to them as Congressmen and Congresswomen or the Lower House of Representatives.
I can assure you I understand The House Of Representatives. I should have been more precise in my comment and pointed the finger at Congressmen and Congresswomen. And yes I made it confusing by not doing so.
Speaking of terminology, let's talk about innocents and guilt. If a person has been charged with guilt and they can prove they are innocent by using first hand witnesses to prove there innocents, don't you think they would allow the first hand witness to come forward?"
Yes, I agree. I have not been able to find any form of documentation or live interview where the President claimed he would prevent witnesses from appearing before the impeachment inquiry proceedings. The fact is anyone could have been subpoenaed, anyone. Although there was lots of media stating "The House" wanted a list of persons from the White House to testify, and claimed they would not pursue subpoenas due to it would turn into lengthy court battles to make it possible to hear their testimonies. My point was, I think we the people deserve to have an impeachment process that was not set with any form of time restraints. But, a fact-finding procedure that would lead to all stones unturned. If Schiff felt Bolton, and many others that worked closely with Trump had information that would lead to clarification of their articles, they should have taken the time to get every one of these persons to give testimony. So, I can not agree that Pelosi did the best she could in regard to work with. She should have continued in the courts to get her witnesses if she hoped to prove her articles of impeachment.
As of today, this entire impeachment process was handled poorly, she should not have ever put a time restraint, impeachment should never be taken so lightly. As I said this now looks clearly like a cheap outrageous political ploy that has marred the Democratic party. I just can't understand how anyone could look at this differently. Even if you are 100% convinced that the president deserves to be impeached, are you convinced this impeachment process was handled so far properly? I am not referring to how Mitch will handle it when it lands in his hands. Because I prefer to wait and see how he handles it... I am referring to thus far." I have not been able to find any form of documentation or live interview where the President claimed he would prevent witnesses from appearing before the impeachment inquiry proceedings." - YOU HAVE been presented such proof already, please read it."
All Pelosi had to do was present probable cause that an impeachable offense has been committed. They did that in spades. It is up to the Senate trial and the prosecution witnesses to prove guilt.
That is the way trials work in America.
Here are more examples:
"“This morning, one minute before his scheduled deposition was to start, Mr. Mulvaney’s outside counsel informed us that his client had been directed by the White House not to comply with the duly authorized subpoena and asserted 'absolute immunity,' " the official said in a statement."
"Yet President Donald Trump has ordered all of his current and former senior advisers to defy congressional subpoenas to testify in the impeachment inquiry. Trump is claiming the subpoenaed witnesses have “absolute immunity” against civil or criminal liability for refusal to provide testimony. However, “absolute immunity” is a creation of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. No court, statute or constitution has ever recognized it."
"The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that high-level presidential advisers have “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoenas for their testimony, according to a letter sent Sunday.""All Pelosi had to do was present probable cause that an impeachable offense has been committed. They did that in spades."
They certainly did...as long as you define "probably cause" as a handful of people giving opinions but offering no hard evidence. The only real question is why they didn't just put a bunch of Democrat House members on the stand rather than bringing in people from all over - they could have given the same opinions with much less effort.Once again you persist in repeating shop worn lies, Wilderness. SAD.
Really? Tell me, then, which one read Trump's mind and KNOWS his phone call was to fix the next election. That's the claim - which "witness" KNOWS it to be true because they witnessed the thought processes?
Many people have been convicted on very strong circumstantial evidence where if it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it can be assumed beyond a reasonable doubt it is a duck.
That is the position TraitorTrump is in. EVERYTHING points to his guilt and NOTHING points to his innocence. Was there ANYTHING Trump could use to refute the mountain of evidence, some of it 1st hand and much of it admissible 2nd hand, he would have put it out there.
Even Trump Obstructing Congress is good circumstantial evidence of his guilt."Many people have been convicted..."
That's a pretty long name, and I don't recall seeing it on the witness log. Is that the person that read his mind and gave positive proof?
Yep - everything points to his guilt, just as it did with him colluding with the Russians. As long as the hate is strong enough to override reason and even common sense it works fine. Why you can take an opinion that Trump made the phone call to hassle his political opponent and turn it into a "mountain of evidence" rather than the grain of sand it is.""Many people have been convicted..." <-- this is Wilderness being obtuse.
" just as it did with him colluding with the Russians. " <-- this is Wilderness simply lying. Mueller presented dozens and dozens of pages of examples of "collusion". You should try reading it rather than misreporting it.
"Why you can take an opinion that Trump made the phone call to hassle his political opponent" - AT LEAST Wilderness is now admitting the phone call was about "hassle his political opponent". That is a major step forward to reason taking over. Now we have to figure out how to convince Wilderness that "hassling his opponent" by using a foreign power to do it is 1) illegal and 2) exactly what our founders did not want happening.*shrug* You're the one claiming witnesses viewed/heard/know why the phone call was made. So who were they, and what evidence did they offer beyond an assumption.
Nope - Wilderness did nothing of the sort. You may claim he did, the comment was that the assumption was just that; an assumption without evidence beyond an opinion.
THEY WERE NOT Subpeniad --- FACT
The House had the power to subpoena any and all ... FACT
Yes, they may have had to fight for their witnesses ...Fact
But they did not ... Fact
Impeachment is a very serious undertaking ... Fact
The House should have done a throw job, they did not... Fact"THEY WERE NOT Subpeniad --- FACT" <-- True, but So What, Who Cares besides you?
"The House had the power to subpoena any and all ... FACT" <-- True, but So What, Who Cares besides you?
"Yes, they may have had to fight for their witnesses ...Fact" <-- True, but So What, Who Cares besides you?
"But they did not ... Fact" <-- FALSE, they subpoenaed all they needed to make a probable cause case.
Impeachment is a very serious undertaking ... Fact <-- True, I wish the Trumplicans would treat it as such rather than tell the world they will violate their oath of office and not be impartial.
"The House should have done a throw job, they did not... Fact" <-- FALSE The House did what it needed to do to establish probable cause to send it to trial in the Senate. - FACT.A "throw" job? I suppose she meant "thorough."
Maybe you should address the subject. I guess it easier to find a misspelled word? I guess I should start doing the same. Address the subject or have I beaten that dead horse enough?
It's useless to discuss a subject you just cannot understand. You've made it plain you believe none of the evidence witnesses at the impeachment trial. Why would they lie? Ask yourself that.
Lie about what? They gave opinions? Nothing more nothing less. Not sure what testimony you are even referring to? Yes, those that testified did not like or understand why Trump held up aid, they were not present on the notorious call, one witness did say he overheard a call that Trump was on the other end. All this adds up to nothing. It is useless to continue the conversation.
I think we all knew once this reaches the Senate it will be settled. There is just no evidence to pursue a trial."They gave opinions? Nothing more nothing less." - THAT IS the lie. They testified to what they saw and heard and, gave EXPERT opinions (admissible in court, btw) in the subject area they are EXPERT in. Duh.
Of course you are going to say they were expert in nothing, they were just dumb bureaucrats out to get Trump. (BS of course)
Yes, we do know how it will turn out in the Senate because your side had RIGGED the outcome.Forget it Scott, she's convinced Trump can do no wrong. No matter how many facts you present, she will give alternate facts--AKA Kelly Conway--to counter them. It's a complete waste of time.
No doubt, but I am giving that study I wrote about earlier a chance - That if you tell a Trumplican the TRUTH often enough, they will finally start believing it.
I have never said any of the witnesses lied. I simply said they gave on the evidence of any impeachable crime. They gave their individual opinions. Most have never even been in the same room as the president. I am in no way impugned their opinion. I belives each one was offered well-educated testimony on their thoughts, answering the questions honestly. None of their testimony actually hurt the president. It was clear all were very professional, but y just could not add any factual evidence that could be considered anything but opinion-oriented.
I get it, Shar, even though they were highly recommended for their positions, their opinions on what happened meant nothing up against Trump's claim. And we all know how honest he is...
To repeat -- "I belives each one was offered well-educated testimony on their thoughts, answering the questions honestly. ". " It was clear all were very professional,"
Not sure why you would feel I don't respect these witnesses' credentials or their opinions. I clearly did not express that in my comment. Please read my comment again. I in no respect impugned them in any respect. Not sure how much more clear I could have been.
I fully respect each and every one of the witnesses' educated opinions and certainly feel they were truthful in their opinions. The keyword here is opinion. It is just my view they offered no evidence other than their opinions.Giving educated opinions is the job of many of the witnesses who testified. What reasons do you have to suspect their opinions were wrong? Because Trump said so when he denigrated them?
Randy, We are talking about what amounts to a crime or wrongdoing by a president. I never said their opinions are wrong? not sure I could be more clear than that? Your comment makes no sense. I in no way disparaged any of the witnesses at any time on HP or claimed I disrespected their opinions. It's clear you are being argumentive, why, I do not know.
"I fully respect each and every one of the witnesses' educated opinions and certainly feel they were truthful in their opinions. The keyword here is opinion. It is just my view they offered no evidence other than their opinions."
I think at this point I will just be polite, and not respond to your comments. We don't appear to clearly understand each other's opinions. I felt we could be civil to each other? Just throwing in the towel.What part of my post wasn't civil, Shar? If those witnesses' opinions weren't trusted by the US, they wouldn't have their positions in the govt.
The fact they basically all agreed with each other adds weight to their testimony, which you prefer to call "opinions.""The fact they basically all agreed with each other adds weight to their testimony, which you prefer to call "opinions."
I agree with your sentiment that the weight of the combined testimony is very compelling. You have hit on why I have come to have hoped the House took more time with the inquiry phase. I know not many here agree with me on that point. However, I had hoped to see witnesses that were in the room when the President made the call. They could have certainly given the first-hand testimony to what the president's conversation and what he may have said before and after the call.
I think it is important to hear from those in the room. I have heard all the reasons the House decided to rush the inquiry, but I think it should have been more thorough. Once again we have another thing that will go unsolved and cause a deeper divide. I just wanted clarity, and I feel as I have said many times, the Senate will just sweep this away. Hopefully, they fool me and do the right thing.Now the House is considering sending only one of the two articles over to the Senate, abuse of power. They can see how fair Mitch will be before sending the other article, Obstruction of Congress to the Senate.
I believe it's a good idea to show the voters how impartial the Republicans in the Senate really are.We already know what those in the House are.
And you neglected to point out my uncivil remark you claimed I made.Randy: I would rather that they would send over obstruction of congress first. That would be an easy one to prove because there are so many source of evidence for that charge. Trump's tweets, letter to the house of intent to not cooperate. McConnell's statements of not cooperating, videos, and document that are all in the public domain.
This is the first I have heard of this. And I admit to being puzzled.
Would this amount to separate trails? What if the Democrats don't like the trail process, can they save the other charge for later, hoping for a different Senate make-up after the election? That doesn't sound right to me.
GAThat was a suggestion from Katyal and (George) Conway on what Pelosi "ought" to do. Interesting thought.
Yes, the D's can have a new investigation and new articles (based on Mueller). On the off-chance (worse than the first election) Trump did win a second term, they could hope for a better Senate.
My guess is IF McConnell ends up making a mockery of the Trial, the Ds may very well start an additional investigation because many of the legal issues will have been settled.
Also, if McConnell is FORCED to present witnesses and, assuming they add to the mountain of evidence already at hand, and the Trumplicans still want to keep a criminal in office, the Ds might keep right on investigating anyway and come up with more articles. They won't wait for a new Senate.I am still digesting this possibility. Nothing about it seems 'right'.
Could this open the possibility for a new investigation and new trial for any impeachment article the House determines?
That sounds like political suicide to me. I can't imagine anyone except us forum denizens that would accept that as a viable option. I can see it pissing off the electorate to a degree that would devastate the Democrat party.
Nope, as possible as it may be, I do not see it as a viable choice.
Bring your best game now. The public will quickly catch on to such partisan shenanigans and the Democrats will pay the price for obvious political tactics like this. At least that is how I see it.
GAI do agree that the suggestion is not right.
I also assert that what McConnell is attempting to do, rig the trial, is not right either.
I further assert that the Trumplicans who will violate their impeachment oath (such as Graham and McConnell) is not right as well.
What is right is that if we have a criminal in the White House, the Democrats are duty bound to try to get him out of office as soon as possible. (and no, Pelosi's holding the articles did not effectively delay anything, she took advantage of Christmas break)
If the Senate refuses to do the right thing and call witnesses, then it is on the House to do so.
Also, if this https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics … index.html pans out, the whole process may begin again - legitimately so.Your first sentence was applicable to my comment. It would have been nice if you had expanded on that thought, but instead, you veered to a partisan rant.
Too bad. Maybe we will have a better conversation on specific points later. But I am not optimistic. Your "Trumplicans" says it all. Come on Scott, you have more to offer than that.
GAThe first sentence needed no expansion - I agree with you.
As to the so-called "rant" - is there anything untrue in what I said? Or is a recitation of truths a "rant"?Whether your points were true, or opinion has no bearing. They were simply off-point. If the topic was so broad as to include all things "not right" then every discussion would be just scatter-shot postings.
GA
And now there is this - the Dept of Energy are going to cough up some documents
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics … index.htmlThis will make no difference to the true Trump enablers. They are totally committed to the cretin.
In several "oneliners to My E you were very critical of my character. In regards to this subject, you responded to two of my comments and referred that I though "witnesses were lying. Both times I responded and let you know I did not feel any of the witnesses lied, and that I respected their positions and knowledge.
Sharlee01 profile image86Sharlee01posted 20 hours ago
RANDY GODWIN WROTE:
It's useless to discuss a subject you just cannot understand. You've made it plain you believe none of the evidence witnesses at the impeachment trial. Why would they lie? Ask yourself that.
Shar response- I have never said any of the witnesses lied. I simply said they gave on the evidence of any impeachable crime. They gave their individual opinions. Most have never even been in the same room as the president. I am in no way impugned their opinion. I belives each one was offered well-educated testimony on their thoughts, answering the questions honestly. None of their testimony actually hurt the president. It was clear all were very professional, but y just could not add any factual evidence that could be considered anything but opinion-oriented."
I felt you were being overly critical. I mean come on we are giving opinions here. It's clear much of the time we don't agree. I just had hoped to be civil. Hey, I am not here to make the rules.
Up to you to do to say speak your mind... I have got the memo some time ago."I mean come on we are giving opinions here. "
On this point, I agree. I really enjoy opinion-debating discussions. I much prefer them to cut-n-paste "fact" exchanges that just prove that Google is everyone's friend.
I even enjoy when I come across a denigater, (yeah I know—spelling), or a name-caller because that type of response usually buttresses my responses.
If you want fact-checks, have at it, but if you want to discuss opinions, these HP forums are fertile ground. And, even as ardently as I disagree with many on these forums, they are still more civilly intelligent than most of the other forum choices out there.
Hells bells, even Randy would be considered a polite moderate on most of them. ;-)
I mean, there are some really disgusting people out there masquerading as 'intelligent participants'.
GAThanks...I think, Gus.
I've been banned for so many times I do indeed try to be as civil as possible. Sometimes I'm only human though.I appreciate and agree with every word. So, once again I will take a breath, and make every attempt to think before I hit Submit. I must say it might become boring, and really hard. LOL
I disagree Sharlee. For me, it is the cut-n-paste comments, (there are legitimate exceptions, sometimes cut-n-paste does serve a useful purpose), that usually tend to be less than challenging.
Also, relative to your comment about taking a breath . . . my response was an agreement with your point, not a criticism of it. But, thinking before submitting is always a good thing. ;-)
GAWelcome to the 21st century everybody!!! Here we go again. They did it with Hillary and now they are doing it with the Biden's. Where in lies the truth?
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBYV69E?m=en-us&a … InAppShareCombine your point with the emergence of really good deep-fake video techniques and that "truth" may be harder to find than ever.
As a side note, I wouldn't point all my fingers at Russia as a worry. I recently saw a bit about N. Korea's cyber efforts - they aren't playing around.
GA
I am sorry you felt my comment was a cut and paste. It was not? Perhaps
I actually agreed with your every word in your comment to Randy?. So, not sure what you would have liked to hear? My take a breath statement was meant to acknowledge I am at fault sometimes saying things I wish I had not, and am quick in doing so... In no way took your comment as criticism.I must have been more confusing than usual. My "cut-n-paster" reference was not to your comments either. I was simply agreeing that I also prefer opinion discussions.
Looks like I really screwed up that reply.
GA
You say the only thing the witnesses did was give their "opinion" - Interesting.
Did Dr. Fiona Hill give an opinion when she testified that at a meeting with Bolton she (this is before the phone call)
* heard the Ukrainians push Bolton for a WH meeting
* heard Ambassador Sondland tell the Ukrainians that "we have an agreement with the Chief of Staff (Mulvaney) for a meeting if the investigations into the energy sector (meaning Burisma) start". No mention of corruption was made. (A meeting for an investigation, quid pro quo)
* saw Bolton stiffen and immediately end the meeting. (why did he do that?)
* heard, upon entering a meeting Sondland has called a little later) "... SondIand, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with ... Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. And my
director for Ukraine was looking completely alarmed (now why would he be looking alarmed? Are you going to tell me that Hill is incapable of telling if someone is "alarmed" or not).
And I came in again as this discussion was underway. Mr. Danylyuk looked very alarmed as well.(why) He didn't look like he knew what was going on. That wasn't the case with Yermak.
And I immediately said to Ambassador Sondland: "Look, we can't discuss the meeting here with our Ukrainian colleagues you know, kind of to
Ambassador Bolton sent me down to ask ..."
... Sondland cut me off, and he said: "We have an agreement that they'll have a meeting ...". I said: "Look, we cannot discuss this in front of
our colleagues. You know, we have to talk about ... the details of this".
And he said: "Okay, Okay, I get it."
Besides where I pointed it out, where are the so-called "opinions" in this very incriminating evidence??
On to Vindman:
At the same meeting Dr. Hill just reported on above, Vindman testified that:
* "On July 10th, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, ... visited Washington, D.C., for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. ... Volker and Sondland and ... Rick Perry attended. The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two Presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support for their most important international partner. (This is an opinion of an Expert in the subject matter)
... Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, ... Bolton cut the meeting short.
* Following this meeting there was a scheduled debriefing during which Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver
the investigation into the 2016 elections, the Bidens, and Burisma.
* Vindman stated to ... Sondland ... "that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate the Bidens had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in on push."
* This was corroborated by Dr. Hill above.
Now, tell me, besides where I pointed out his Expert opinion, where did Vindman offer your so-called "opinions" regarding this very incriminating evidence??Each and every one of your examples is secondhand and hearsay. None cooperated You use words like Heard - I noticed Bolton stiffening- as I walked in I heard - Vindman -" "that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate the Bidens had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in on push."
This is clearly an opinion. Vindman is giving his opinion on his feelings. I am not willing to go through your list, there is not on example that holds any form of factual evidence, and all you have listed are statements that are based on opinion, hearsay and second-hand info.
Pick one and I will be glad to further make my point. Give me your best...Define "second-hand" and "hearsay" - that may be where your confusion is.
Are you trying to tell me that Hill didn't actually see and hear from one of the principals in this conspiracy. Are you trying tell me that Vindman didn't listen in to the call - just like you wanted?
BTW - look up the "hearsay" rule. You will find that if someone is repeating what one of the major players in a crime is saying, that is NOT hearsay.
Vindman is an EXPERT in what he testified to, that is allowed. Vindman reported what he HEARD TRUMP say, that is not hearsay.
Since you seem to think people can't observe and report on what they see, that means anything you say personally is not relevant to anything because humans aren't capable of form conclusions from what they observe and the experience they have. I have seen people "stiffen" many times, apparently you haven't.
You seem incapable of drawing a proper connection between an action (Sondland saying the wrong thing) and the reaction (Bolton cutting short the meeting).second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule.
1. hearsay - gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth. rumor, rumour. scuttlebutt, gossip, comment - a report (often malicious) about the behavior of other people; "the divorce caused much gossip"
"Vindman is an EXPERT in what he testified to, that is allowed. Vindman reported what he HEARD TRUMP say, that is not hearsay." AN EXPERT on what reading minds? He gave an opinion on what was being said on a call. He gave his opinion on the president's words. No more no less. This has nothing to do with what he is an expert on...
His testimony was opinion. He read into what he felt the president meant.
No one at this point can tell us what the president meant. Those in the room just may have...
No confusion...
"Their opinion on what the president was conveying is strictly opinion-oriented. And yes they heard Trump ask for an investigation, they have no evidence as to why he asked for the investigation. The president could tell us why he wanted an investigation, any in the room could share what the president said before and after the call that might give firsthand information on the president's motive. This is where I believe we have not seen any evidence, only opinions, and hearsay second-hand evidence."
Your conversation is bordering on trolling. Repetitive My comments have been very clear, and precise.
I am not willing to continue this conversation. It is clear we can not and will not agree on what the witnesses offered to the inquiry.So, are you calling Hill a liar when she said she heard Sondland talk about needing an investigation for a meeting?
Are you calling Hill a liar when she saw Bolton "stiffen" and cut the meeting short?
Are you saying no expert witness can ever be called at trial because they may be reading minds?
You make a lot of inferences about what I say such as "Under a spell... What a bazaar statement" - How do you know, are you reading my mind?
Come on, get real."So, are you calling Hill a liar when she said she heard Sondland talk about needing an investigation for a meeting?"
Are you calling Hill a liar when she saw Bolton "stiffen" and cut the meeting short? ----- I did not am not insinuating she lied or did any of the witnesses. Seeing someone 'stiffen' is not evidence of anything. She did not read into his stiffening. It was simply she claimed to see him stiffen, she had no idea but her opinion why he may have stiffened
.
Are you saying no expert witness can ever be called at trial because they may be reading minds? ------ No, I did not say that at all. Expert witnesse's testimony can offer special knowledge that can help or that is relevant to the case. The House did bring in expert witnesses to give testimony on the Constitution.
I did feel your comment was odd. How do you know all Trump supporters are under a spell? Do you read minds or are we back to labeling large groups?"Seeing someone 'stiffen' is not evidence of anything. " <-- Of Course it is. It is evidence that Bolton did not like where Sondland was going with the conversation about meetings and investigations. The fact that Bolton cut the meeting short is further evidence he wanted Sondland to stop telling the Ukrainians they can get their meeting IF they conduct an investigation into the Bidens.
If it was OKAY for Sondland to ask the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens in return for a WH meeting, why did he "stiffen" and "cut the meeting short". If you were on a jury, you would be asked to make that assessment.
If you except expert witnesses, then why don't you accept Vindman as one, since that was his job with the NSC. Do you think he is brain dead and cannot form a valid opinion from listening to Trump on the call by combining that with the experience he gained on the job. That he is unable to understand the law regarding bribery/extortion and apply it to the situation at hand.
Spell - It is what I observe in their behavior; I don't need to read their minds.It is clear our thought process is wired differently. This statement gives good proof of that.
""Seeing someone 'stiffen' is not evidence of anything. " <-- Of Course it is. It is evidence that Bolton did not like where Sondland was going with the conversation about meetings and investigations. The fact that Bolton cut the meeting short is further evidence he wanted Sondland to stop telling the Ukrainians they can get their meeting IF they conduct an investigation into the Bidens."
You have no idea what Bolton was thinking do to his "body stiffening".
He could have been having a twinge of pain or uncomfortable from sitting So, he left a meeting, he gave no verbal reason for leaving. I can't even conceive how you think this is a piece of factual evidence? As I have mentioned previously, I find your way of thinking odd at best.
In regard to Vindman, I have never said or pointed his testimony out other then I felt all the witnesses' testimony has been secondhand or hearsay.
Please no need for you to give any further examples of why you feel the evidence is not hearsay or second hand. It is clear we can not agree on that... I have also made it clear all the witnesses were very qualified in their fields, and I have not disputed that fact.
"I had hoped to see witnesses that were in the room when the President made the call." - THEY DID, Shar. They put on Morrison (Dr. Hill's replacement a few days earlier) and Lt. Col. Vindman; both were on the call and testified they heard Trump ask Zelenskyy for an investigation of the Bidens in exchange for aid and WH meeting.
Please read my comment --- I clearly state I would like to hear from those that were in the room with the president. I feel they could give testimony on what the president may have said before and after the call. This would be firsthand evidence. I believe Vindman and Morrison were on the call listing only not present? I remember this from watching their testimony. Their testimony of what they heard is certainly firsthand. Their opinion on what the president was conveying is strictly opinion-oriented. And yes they heard Trump ask for an investigation, they have no evidence as to why he asked for the investigation. The president could tell us why he wanted an investigation, any in the room could share what the president said before and after the call that might give firsthand information on the president's motive. This is where I believe we have not seen any evidence, only opinions, and hearsay second-hand evidence.
Sharlee: Here is a thought. What's to stop the senate from calling "your"Trump cabinet members as witnesses in the trial? If they are under oath, they have to tell the truth and prove that what Pelosi's article of impeachment state are true or false.
Are we not looking for the truth? There is nothing to stop the Senate from calling the witnesses from Trump's cabinet if after considering the articles and the evidence theHouse has provided. In my opinion, they most likely won't due to weak evidence. My point was it would have been smarter for the House to take their time, get their desired witnesses, and build a better body of evidence. I realize it would have take time, but in my opinion, the American people would appreciate that the House did everything they could to prove their articles.
I certainly hope the Senate will do their job, and call any witnesses that would be useful in providing evidence. I must say, the House had the power to get these witnesses, the Senate most likely will not seek to provide anyone from Trump's cabinet.
I have become disused with comments coming my way due to my views on this subject. Most of my comments being taken out of context. You have not done this, and I appreciate it.
I am not sure why my view is being so scrutinized? I just had hoped to see this impeachment process play out fairly. with both sides getting their desired witnesses. I believe in the end we need total clarity on the allegations. I don't think we will. I think it will play out as both parties have wanted it to.Sharlee: Here is reality. What you are calling your view, "you and the American people appreciate it" is only part of the country, usually Trump supporters and what they hear on Fox News.
More than likely, the other part of the country doesn't agree with that view. You can thank Trump for that division, because he hasn't ever reached out to the other part of the country.
Why is that? Because he doesn't need them because of the electoral college votes they provide. He only needs three states to give him 7 million votes and he knows that. Those are the states where he holds his rallies. They are all winner take all states for the electoral college votes. That means all a candidate needs is the majority of the votes and they get the remain votes. That's how Trump got elected and that is what he wants to do again.Trump hasn't reached out to congress??? He has done everything but get on his knees and beg for a solution to illegal aliens and the second class of citizens Obama created with dreamers and either been ignored or had a "solution" that was no solution at all offered.
He said nothing at all about congress in his post, Dan.
Technically true - I assumed that "the other part of the country" included the Democrats in congress. Perhaps I was mistaken and he was complaining that Trump didn't email him personally for suggestions?
Wilderness: I don't mean congress. When I say the people. I mean that part of the country that doesn't support him. He has it all worked out. He doesn't need them to get re-elected.
Ah. My mistake, then. I would say, though, that neither Trump nor anyone else needs the entire nation to vote for them to be elected; it is obvious that NONE of the candidates do, or ever have, put a large effort into contacting people they know won't vote for them anyway. Why would you expect Trump to be any different?
I would also comment that it is in the best interests of ALL of us to put an end to the invasion at our southern border, and Trump HAS taken that to all of us. His efforts have made it extremely plain just how bad it is, and how badly Congress has allowed it to become with their inaction. Following the law (as he has) and using the resources granted him by Congress has resulted in a major outcry that we have a problem - should that "other half" put the blame on him rather than where it belongs does not mean he hasn't tried and hasn't done anything to show just what we've allowed to happen.Sharlee: You wrote this:
"Are we not looking for the truth? There is nothing to stop the Senate from calling the witnesses from Trump's cabinet if after considering the articles and the evidence the House has provided. In my opinion, they most likely won't due to weak evidence. My point was it would have been smarter for the House to take their time, get their desired witnesses, and build a better body of evidence. I realize it would have take time, but in my opinion, the American people would appreciate that the House did everything they could to prove their articles."
So let me get this straight. You wanted the house to subpoena Trump's cabinet members "desired witnesses", no matter how long it would take, so that they could have a proper investigation that "the American people could appreciate."
But you are now saying that the senate more than likely will not subpoena them because they would prove to have "weak evidence." But yet you wanted the house to subpoena them so that the American people could appreciate the house doing everything they could to prove their articles.Let me clarify. I don't feel the Senate will call any of Trump's cabinet due to the evidence that the House will be submitting. (The evidence the House gleaned from their inquiry). I feel the Senate will state the evidence weak not sufficient evidence due to it being second hand or hearsay. The Senate may just choose to vote not to have a trial. They may proceed with a trial but not call any further witnesses but the witnesses that were heard at the Houses inquiry. The Senate has many options and would be very surprised if they would cooperate with calling any of Trump's cabinet.
I did not want to give the opinion one way or another if Trump's cabinet would hurt or help the Houses case. I am trying to make the point they should be heard if the House feels they have information that would prove their allegations. However, I wanted to make the point the House should have taken the time to get their testimony. My other point was, it was the House that would have had the best chance of getting these witnesses to give testimony. Common sense should tell anyone, the Senate will not let any of Trump's cabinet testify in the Senate trial. If they do, it would indicate to me the testimony will exonerate Trump.
Many here are not understanding my view on the impeachment process. I don't think it needs to be repeated? After all, I am one person. In the end, it just does not matter. Let me answer your question.
"So let me get this straight. You wanted the house to subpoena Trump's cabinet members "desired witnesses", no matter how long it would take, so that they could have a proper investigation that "the American people could appreciate."
YES, I do believe many would have liked to investigate the matter completely, no matter how long it takes. At this point, we are left with another unsolved mystery a mystery that will long live as a conspiracy. A conspiracy that will make the great divide much deeper and wider.
And yes, right now I blame the House... They had the power but have made the decision to not take the time and this impeachment appears to be a political ploy of the worst kind. It should infuriate anyone that calls themself a Democrat."The Senate may just choose to vote not to have a trial." - I DON'T see that as very likely. The reason is there are enough rational Republicans in the Senate who 1) want to do things right or 2) fear they will lose their election by covering up Trump's crimes who will vote to hear witnesses.
They would be Senators:
Collins (ME)
Murkowski (AK)
Alexander (TN)
Gardner (CO)
Romney (UT)
Ernst (IA)
Sasse (NE)
McSally (AZ)
Tillis (NC)
They only need four of those.
Who do I think would vote to convict based on the current evidence?
Collins
Murkowski
Romney
Gardner (for fear of losing)"(for fear of losing)"
We are in a sad state when that rationalization drives the determination of justice in our country.
Yeah, yeah, I know it has been that way forever, but it seems that in the past it was at least a 'hidden' motive. Nowadays it seems acceptable to be an 'in your face normal calculation'.
GAI do agree, but that is the reality of it. Why do you think most of the Trumplicans are Trumplicans? They are scared to death of what Trump will do (has done in the past) to them.
As I have said before, the Trumplican's fear for their job more than they love their country.
Just to show I am bipartisan - I accuse AOC of the same thing.Your "Trumplicans" stops me in my tracks My Esoteric. I am at a loss. I am not up to your 'cuteness' level.
GAThat is the only way I can describe people under Trump's spell. They aren't Republicans because they do not believe in any Republican principles, they have forsaken those for Trump's lack of principles.
Would Trumpocrats be better?Under a spell... What a bazaar statement? It would appear by your lengthy repetitive comments that you are possibly incapable of even considering anyone else views. Even when you have not a leg to stand on, you remain adamant that you are correct. Much of the time you have no room for other opinions.
This to me would indicate it may just be you that is under some form of spell.Republicans, (or Democrats), would have been better. But no worries that "cuteness" thing is just a personal peeve. Different strokes for different folks'
I'll get over it.
GAThe point, GA, is those who don't have the guts to oppose Trump on anything are neither Democrats nor Republicans. What else can you accurately call them??
You don't want to go down that path, Wilderness, studies don't back you up on that.
*shrug* You asked what might be a better, more accurate, name to call people than the derogatory, totally false one you made up. It certainly can't be any less accurate!
Maybe you should ignore them, and keep your derogatory descriptions to yourself? I am being serious. If you feel someone's opinion is so adverse to your own, why address them with a comment? This would certainly solve your problem.
Sorry Shar, in one case, these are United States Senators who are violating their oath of office and they deserved to be identified as such. In the other, they are a danger to this country and should be identified as such as well.
Don't you think we should include the House Democrats, who declared it was of the utmost urgency to impeach Trump as he was a large and immediate danger to the country...and then waited weeks after their own vote to deliver the necessary paperwork?
What Dan, you don't like it that even more evidence has surfaced during the interval? Imagine that!
The Parnas interview was incredible. What a motley crew of third-rate hooligans. Wow.
And the House released a further trove of emails, voice recordings, and other documents tonight. It seems Barr and Pence were in the loop on the extortion scheme among others.
President Pelosi. I kinda like the sound of that...
Oh? "More" evidence? You mean someone can actually prove, finally, what Trump was thinking when he made that phone call?
How did they do that? Borrow your crystal ball?Apparently you didn't know about the two document releases, Dan. A trove of new documents yesterday and another a few hours ago. Try watching something other than Fox and you'd already know this.
The latest includes voice mails among other evidence. I know you want the truth to come out.GAME-SET-MATCH
"Parnas said that convincing the Urkrainians to announce an investigation into Biden and his son Hunter was his goal. He said that at Guiliani's direction, he delivered quid pro quo offers to Ukrainian leaders in which he offered access to or the support of the Trump administration in return for announcing such an investigation. Parnas also described his relationship with Giuliani, saying the two talked every day and claiming that he was the first person the President's personal attorney would brief after leaving the White House or speaking to Trump."Odd - I don't see anything there where Parnas guarantees he has private knowledge that the call was made in order to fix the election. If it wasn't then there was nothing wrong with it, now was there?
You don't believe documents which back his story up? What about voice mails and texts he provided. Of course, Fox doesn't talk about Parnas much that I've noticed. Don't blame them in their spot!
Parnas is really making Fake Fox Opinion look like the fools they are.
Parnas doesn't need to do as you suggest. All he needs to do is provide the connective tissue between
* the call,
* Trump's request for investigations into his political opponents during the call,
* Trump's withholding of aid and meetings to get those investigations during the call,
* Trump having sent Giuliani to gather such dirt,
* Giuliani's attempt to do so.
* OMB illegally holding up the aid at Trump's direction
AND HE IS DOING THAT IN SPADES.
You don't need to Know what Trump was thinking. All you have to know is what he did and the sum of what he did was bribe Zelenskyy in order to help himself with the 2020 election.
What he did was to request an investigation into possible corruption.
Now, you've made your statement and I've made mine. Which one is provable? When you produce your crystal ball, reading Trumps mind to prove "in order to help himself with the 2020 election." I'll give up. Until then you're continuing to present opinion as fact and that is unacceptable.You didn't believe the GAO report released this morning, Dan? It stated Trump did indeed break the law by withholding the Ukrainian funding.
Has any criminal in the history of the world had to have their mind read to determine if a crime was committed? What a strange requirement.
It's hilarious some Trump enablers are really grasping for anything they can claim which exonerates their role model. I do believe Dan knows it's a downhill slide for the cretin, but he's too involved to admit it. Now we'll hear some "hate" accusations.
