This story says it all. It's obvious to those of us who deal in facts Trump is terrified of his tax returns being revealed. Of course he lied about releasing his tax returns during his campaign, and he has fought tooth and nail to prevent them ever coming to light. Wonder why?
I'll wager anything from 41 to a $1000 he's in hock to Russia, Saudi Arabia, or both. Any takers? Make it light on yourself!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … spartanntp
Im not going to take your bet. Trump is terrified that his jig is up already and is making noises to deflect attention from him. That's how the government caught Al Capone, you know. If they can't catch a crook one way, just audit his taxes.
If the democrats prevail and take down Trump, I'm pretty sure the next time a Democrat takes the oval office I won't be inclined to defend fairness and non-partisanship when tit for tat begins.
I've only seen people targetting an individual here, not a party. If Trump goes down, it's still a Republican who's going to be president, right?
Targeting an individual, repeatedly, for political gain. Short on facts, overloaded with vitriol, obvious lies and subterfuge.
In many ways it's good. It is showcasing what everyone has grown sick of in Washington.
My point is, if the American public is going to use personal opinion of their like or dislike of an individual, ignoring policy and progress for the economy to selectively decide who gets the benefit of fair play; as far as politicians are concerned I won't be concerned about fair play when they ridiculously demonize another individual.
This has surpassed any reality I could have imagined and stumbled into the realm of surreal.
This is the problem. How can you expect, what most people see as a reprehensible human being, to lead a country? Such people have difficulties leading a small business. Trump demonizes himself with his behavior. Now, do I think the media always treats him fairly? Of course not. How can you when he's dubbed you the enemy of the people? At any rate, if the R's had put someone in who wasn't one hundred percent trash and a TOTAL crook who clearly has other priorities beyond being President, we wouldn't have all these complaints. Just maybe he has all these complaints because the shoe fits. Say what you want about Obama or Bush, but there is no way either of those men are the trash that Trump is...and it shows.
I would not say they are targetting without facts when the person they are targetting is the one proudly claiming to have done the things he is being accused of. Also, opinions don't really matter, the facts are being looked into.
Also, something from Reddit which I find true, do you disagree?:
Same old pattern.
Trump: does bad thing
Someone: "Hey uh, the President did a bad thing..."
Supporters / GOP: "Nah bro, the President would never do that."
Trump: "I DID IT"
Supporters / GOP: "Oh. Well it's not a big deal anyway."
People: "Uh, it's kind of a big deal, though..."
Supporters / GOP: "Well who can keep track of all these rules anyway? It's not like he's purposely doing bad things."
Trump: "I'D DO IT AGAIN."
You could add "and then Trump does it again."
Not necessarily, Bando, if Pence is caught up in the Ukraine mess, then the speaker of the house--Pelosi--would become POTUS.
Yes, I do know that, but I was countering the point that the people were only doing this out of spite for a particular "party".
I’ll start believing in the Christian version of God if that happens.
Not necessarily. If Pence is implicated, and he is being investigated for his role in the Ukraine fiasco, he will be out also. The next in line is the Speaker of the House, and wouldn't that chap some GOP's behinds.
Likewise, if a Democratic president demands a foreign country investigate a Republican political rival in exchange for receiving Congressionally appropriated funds, that will be a-okay with you.
If Trump can abuse his presidential power in this way, anyone can, right?
As far as the Ukraine incident is concerned, the transcript doesn't support the accusations. What I find hilarious is that the front runner for the democratic party actually did what Trump is being accused of, as far as quid pro quo is concerned. The Obama administration did exactly what Trump is accused of, as regards using a foreign government to work against a political rival.
I don't know about the topic of this OP, but I've heard wolf cried often enough to be suspicious.
Is your desire to take down a sitting president because of your dismay at not getting Hillary instead so all consuming that you can't see the insanity?
What will you do if the democrats win the next presidential election, the Republican party wins the House and we see this circus start all over again?
Have you seen the news this morning? A little thing about text messages....
The circus is nothing new. Trump, however, has brought us to unparalleled heights of lunacy. We can't even call him and his cabal "clowns" anymore. Clowns are too smart. Mafia Don is as stupid a corrupt president as he is a businessman.
Then you haven’t read the transcript have you? Or, listened to Trump admit it all b
I've read the transcript. Not with ingrained bias skewing the view. But, I hear there are texts. I need to find them, just them, without some pundit leaning whatever way they do. If there is a smoking gun there; then that's different.
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache … -03-19.pdf
The texts start with the attachment on page 4. Though I should point out this has nothing to do with the IRS thing but rather the Ukrainian thing.
"I have a favor to ask, though" (to quote Trump to Z as he asks him to investigate the Bidens)
Read the Texts - it is a slam dunk from here. Ask yourself - why did Sondland tell Taylor to "Call Me" rather than simply respond "No".?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics … index.html
I am wondering about your enthusiasm regarding the text messages. I don't see any damage to Pres. Trump or his efforts.
Mention was made of: 2016 election, no quid pro quo, and one texter, (Bill Taylor), was quickly informed the president was firm that there be no quid pro quo when he mentioned it.
What am I missing? I sure don't see your slam dunk. Contrarily, I see a confirmation of Pres. Trump's declarations that this is about 2016 corruption, not 2020 election interference.
Which of the texts do you think are "slam dunk" proofs of Trump's guilt?
Tell me GA,
1. Why, on 7/21, before the call, did Taylor say "Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics." IF Ukraine wasn't already being pressured to hunt for dirt to help Trump with his "domestic, reelection politics"?
2. Why was was the issue of withholding aid until Ukraine promised to get involved in our election (keep in mind that quid pro quo is not an element of the crime Trump is committing in getting foreign help to throw the election in his favor)
2. Why didn't Sondland, on 9/1) simply say "NO!" when Taylor asked " Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"
3. Why did Sondland say "Call Me" rather than give the obvious answer that the meeting WAS NOT "conditioned on investigations"?
4. Why did Taylor even ask that question if it wasn't a concern.
5. Why, on 9/8, did Taylor say "The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.) " if there wasn't talk of holding aide up until Trump got the help with the election that he wanted?
6. Why, on 9/9, did Taylor say "The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. WITH THE HOLD ON, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario."?
7. Why did Taylor say a little later (9/9) "As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." ?
Please don't be obtuse, GA, you are better than that.
I am getting a sense of deja vu. I think I might have already answered these questions. It must have been on another thread.
Obtuse? If so it is unintentional. I can only hope your perception is wrong.
To your first question, it appears that President Zelenski may have thought it was about election politics. I can see that as a strong possibility.
However, Sondland, as the EU Ambassador responded that he understood that possibility, (my interpretation of "absolutely" and "irrespective") but stressed the importance of building a relationship between the two presidents beyond the apparent pretext of this first issue.
Further, Ambassador Volker explicitly stated that perception was unacceptable, the focus must be on 2016 issues.
Next, your first #2, what do you read in the texts that says that was the case?
To your second #2 & #3, why is Ambassador Soundland saying "No" not unequivocal enough for you? Could the simple explanation be that a phone call would be more appropriate for a detailed explanation?
For #4 it appears the appearance that there was a linkage was a concern. But as with the prior questions, Envoy Taylor's thoughts were addressed by Ambassador Soundland - calling them incorrect. Once more we are dealing with perceptions that are clearly clarified as not the purpose or intention of the ongoing efforts.
Regarding #5, you are weighting your question on Envoy Talor's concerns, which had already been addressed as not the effort's intentions. I don't see evidence of Taylor speaking of "talk of," I see him speaking of his perception.
What was the reason for "the hold" mentioned? Do you know? I don't.
And finally, for the third time in your questions, it was one man, Envoy Taylor, that expressed this concern, and as previously noted, Ambassador Sondland explicitly told him his perception was "incorrect."
Hopefully, my effort to not be obtuse was successful Scott, but if you still think my efforts to explain are such, then so be it.
If a drug dealer referred only to "the deliverable" on the phone, that wouldn't invalidate his calls being used as evidence of drug dealing.
Likewise, the fact that Sondland (a hotelier with no government experience prior to him donating $1 million to Trump and getting appointed US ambassador to the EU) referred to "the deliverable" and said Taylor (a career diplomat of 42 years) was wrong in his characterization of the situation, does not invalidate the use of those texts as evidence of a quid pro quo.
A prosecutor would simply advise a court that "the deliverable" was code for drugs, or in this case a Biden investigation. I know we're not discussing a court case, but the same principle applies.
So I think your perception that these texts don't do "...any damage to Pres. Trump or his efforts" is a misperception. These texts do, can (and likely will) form part of a body of circumstantial evidence, outside of the Trump-Zelensky call itself, that demonstrates a pattern of behavior from which we can reasonably conclude there was quid pro quo at the heart of this sordid affair.
You don't seem to support "fairness and non-partisanship" now, so why would you later on?
I am sorry Live, but your blind support for such an obviously flawed, amoral, unethical, criminal is impossible for my mind to comprehend. You give the same kind of unthinking belief in your leader that Hitler defenders have to him. And yes, it is hard for an outside observer to tell the difference between the two men.
It is very scary to me that that kind of devotion to a demagogue even exists in America today.
You have a short memory. This is kind of tit for tat over the witch hunt for Bill Clinton. In Republicans' eyes, a little personal adultery is much worse than continued violation of national security.
Bill Clinton was not the president before Trump. If they want to go the impeachment route they need to follow the rules. Bring it to a vote. If they don't, that says it all.
Trump blowing his own whistle: https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1 … 0827503617
by Don W 20 months ago
There has been a whistleblower complaint from within the Intelligence Community, but the Director of the National Intelligence (a political appointee) has refused to comply with the law and pass the complaint on to Congress.What's supposed to happen? When the Intelligence Community Inspector...
by Readmikenow 20 months ago
Interesting how the Intel Community changed the requirements for a whistleblower complaint to no longer need to have firsthand knowledge to make a complaint in August of 2019. In September 2019, a whistleblower complaint based on second-hand information is filed against President Donald...
by Credence2 4 hours ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
by Randy Godwin 19 months ago
It sure looks like there's going to finally be an impeachment as Nancy gave an interview this PM. The Whistleblower incident has the new DNI in a bind, and now the person filing the complaint wants--and is going to--appear before Congress this week. The DNI broke the law by not turning the...
by IslandBites 8 months ago
How many more? But you, Trump supporters, surely know better.I spent over 300 mornings in the Oval Office briefing the president and his senior staff. I had the privilege to manage, edit and deliver the president’s Daily Brief a summary of the most timely and critical intelligence threats to the...
by Don W 19 months ago
AG William Barr was implicated in the formal complaint submitted by a Whistleblower in the Intelligence Community (there are reports of a second whistleblower complaint , but I don't know if Barr is implicated in that complaint also). It's alleged he was instrumental in Trump's attempt to get a...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|