Another Fine Mess: Trump, UkraineGate and the Specter of Impeachment
I’ve never sung the praises of Donald John Trump, surely the most ridiculous president in the history of the republic. Aside from his general oafishness and glaring deficits of character, his offenses of thought and deed would rival the charges leveled against King George III in the Declaration of Independence.
A latter-day Declaration might put it this way: He has sown discord among our citizens, lied blatantly on a daily basis, staffed his administration with swamp monsters intent on destroying their own departments, swelled the deficit by slashing taxes on the rich, threatened to cut benefits for the poor and elderly, fantasized endlessly about an impossible border wall, instigated a needless tariff war, coddled dictators and insulted allies, demonized immigrants both legal and illegal, rolled back federal consumer safeguards and environmental protections, trashed the accomplishments of his predecessor, declared journalists “the enemy of the people,” hurled half-demented tweets at second-tier celebrities, bullied his foes and alienated most of his associates.
He sucks the oxygen out of our lives and exhausts us. He is, in short, a Major League piece of work.
Is Trump crazy? That’s for the professionals to decide. But I’ve concluded that he’s the cause of craziness in others. We’ve seen how he whips his fan base into a collective frenzy by singling out the people they’re supposed to hate, much like some of the more unsavory twentieth century dictators.
It’s also increasingly apparent that Trump has unleashed a kind of half-cracked bloodlust among his foes. Once-dependable CNN has gone off the rails with its rabid nonstop anti-Trumpery, moving leftward of progressive stalwart MSNBC in recent years. So, too, have legions of liberals who display “Hate Has No Home Here” signs on their front lawns; now they’ve morphed into a colossal lynch mob intent on destroying Trump, marginalizing old white men, punishing heretical thought crimes and, while they’re at it, promoting a fringe culture obsessed with “intersectionality.”
In other words, Trump has helped turn us into a nation of certifiable, 24-carat, foaming-at-the-mouth loonies.
But does Trump deserve to be impeached? That’s the billion-dollar question, and we’re about to get an answer. Ever since Trump snatched his unlikely victory from the jaws of Hillary Clinton in 2016, partisan Democrats have been conspiring to overthrow him – legally if possible, by stealth and innuendo if necessary.
The infamous Steele Dossier, commissioned by the DNC to expose Trumpian mischief in Moscow, turned out to be baseless. The Mueller Report, for all its fastidious detective work, uncovered no conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to subvert the 2016 election. Trump remains perpetually suspect, but until now the opposition had uncovered no smoking gun.
Welcome to UkraineGate, a crisis precipitated by a nameless whistleblower who knew somebody who talked to somebody who insisted that Trump deliberately withheld aid to Ukraine until its newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, agreed to dig up dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The younger Biden had secured a profitable position on the board of Ukraine’s largest gas company, Burisma, which was being investigated for corruption before the investigator was abruptly terminated at the instigation of the elder Biden. According to the accepted version of the story, prosecutor Viktor Shokin’s firing was unrelated to his investigation of Burisma – but that didn’t stop Trump from prying into the matter.
The transcript of the phone conversation released by the White House revealed a friendly, casual, no-pressure chat between Trump and President Zelensky. According to the transcript, there was no quid pro quo – no threat of denying aid until Zelensky complied with Trump’s request. The conversation could be summarized as “I’ve been very, very good to Ukraine.” “Yes, you have, Mr. President – you’re the greatest.” “Oh, by the way, could you do me a little favor if you get a chance?”
Was Trump abusing his Constitutional authority, committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” by conspiring with a foreign power to undermine the Democratic candidate most likely to challenge him in 2020? Digging up dirt on political rivals is a time-honored American tradition; the issue here is whether asking a foreign country to shovel that dirt oversteps the accepted boundaries of dirt-digging.
Some of the lustier Democrats have been accusing Trump of treason, which is palpable nonsense. Ukraine is an ally, not an enemy power; Trump hasn’t endangered American security through his machinations. Of course, Trump has returned fire by wildly accusing both the whistleblower and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff of treason. Both sides are out for blood.
Treason is a capital offense. The mere fact that both Trump and his enemies are throwing the term around so recklessly is proof enough that we’ve crossed over into the Twilight Zone.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yielded to pressure and launched an impeachment inquiry, the first of several steps required to remove a sitting president. Where it will lead is anyone’s guess at this point; the Republican-controlled Senate is the final jury, but a handful of GOP defections could doom Trump before the 2020 election.
Some Democrats are even taking aim at Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo, hoping for a clean sweep that would clear the way for Pelosi to assume the presidency until their party clinches the 2020 election.
Would Joe Biden find himself tainted by a Congressional investigation of UkraineGate? In my darker moments, I suspect that eliminating Biden could be part of the Democrats’ game plan. The sharp leftward shift of the party is endangering relative moderates like Biden, just as the Republicans’ rightward shift during the Tea Party rebellion doomed their own centrists.
Impeachment is a national ordeal, and we probably don’t need any more ordeals during this fractious time in our history. But the miasma of political hostility on both sides has grown so putrid that I’m starting to believe impeachment could cleanse the air.
To use a cruder analogy, it’s as if we’ve overindulged in food and drink at a party, and our body tells us that this episode won’t end well. Rather than hold the noxious stuff in our system, it might make more sense to head for the bathroom and let our stomachs do the thinking for us. A few minutes of misery – followed by immeasurable relief!
Yes, Trump’s removal from office could precipitate a right-wing revolt – whatever that would look like. A California megachurch pastor, retweeted by Trump to the howls of outraged Democrats, warned that it could cause a “Civil War-like fracture” that would be irreparable. It’s a plausible scenario, and we don’t want to tempt fate by going there.
For me, the ideal solution would be to let the impeachment proceed, acquit Trump of “high crimes,” and allow him to stay in office but lose to a better (and preferably more moderate) person in 2020. Four years of Trumpian melodrama is more than enough for any functioning republic to endure; eight years could shatter us beyond repair.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. His three darkly amusing essay collections are available in e-book form on Amazon for $2.99 each. (Just search under “Rick Bayan.”)
THE NEW MODERATE 
Rick, again a good summary of the events unfolding.
You stated at the end “For me, the ideal solution would be to let the impeachment proceed, acquit Trump of “high crimes,” and allow him to stay in office but lose to a better (and preferably more moderate) person in 2020. ”
You leave out two points here. Letting the impeachment proceed —-at maximum effective speed.——- Do you believe that will happen? I suspect another Muller type investigation at a speed to make sure this is front and center for the election. Remember, the Senate began the Watergate investigation in the spring of 73. Nixon would have been impeached the fall of 75. So anyone that expects this to be completed well before November 2020 may be disappointed.
“Preferably more moderate” person in 2020. We know that there is a 99.9% chance Trump will be the GOP candidate, so that moderate would be Sanders or Warren. Biden’s going down since he is trying to cover up something that may not need to be covered up. He has said he has never discussed business dealings with his son. Now this picture appears. Now we know there a many who believe everything what politicians say, even if they say February has 30 days, but many wil ask, “how do you play 4 hours and 18 holes of golf with your sons business partners without discussing business?” For me, that never happens.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7523253/Photo-reveals-Joe-Hunter-Biden-golfing-Ukraine-gas-company-executive-2014.html
So can Warren defeat Trump, especially when the tech giants will never get behind her campaign due to her promise to break them up? And can Sanders defeat him with all the money he wants to spend?
Biden is toast.
Various groups are claiming that either democrats or republicans deliberately hung him out in this.
Probably both are True.
It is pretty clear from the Zelensky transcript that Biden was NOT Trump’s bullseye.
Both the transcript, the whistleblower complaint and the responses by both parties make it clear that the investigation of the investigation is what the left wants to kill and republicans want to proceed.
I do not think impeachment is going to proceed with speed.
I do not think the full house is ever going to vote on any aspect of impeachment.
I think that what we see at the moment is all you are going to get.
Adam Schiff prancing arround claiming his is conducting an impeachment investigation.
I think Schiff will move his hearings behind closed doors – because they have gone horribly when conducted publicly.
I do not think that Pelosi is going to risk a house vote on anything.
It is increasingly aparent that democrats do not have a candidate aside from Biden that:
Appeals to moderates.
Appeals to blue collar democrats.
Appeals to the money men.
One recent poll noted Warren’s support among dems has skyrocketed – but her overall support is weak.
The 7 dwarves can not win an election, and Biden is mortally wounded.
If Trump deliberately plotted this – which I doubt, it was a brilliant maneuver.
Good points, both of you. I’m still shaking my head over the dearth of moderate Democrats campaigning for the nomination. You’d think any sensible adult would be able to beat Trump, but aside from Biden, the front-runners are unabashed lefties who would never win the “flyover” states.
Biden is actually an old-time liberal (although he’s moderate enough for me). I won’t dismiss him as “toast” just yet, but what looked like a sure path to the nomination is looking increasingly rocky. The Democrats have some decent candidates in Andrew Yang, Mayor Pete and Tulsi Gabbard, but these three still aren’t ready for prime time. (Maybe one of them will be a VP choice.)
I do not think Biden is an “old school liberal”.
He is(was) left of the country’s center – but not by much. He WAS a voice of blue collar democrats – and that was his huge threat to Trump.
Even if he merely slightly eroded Trump with blue collar voters – He would likely win, because for Trump PA, OH, WI are must wins.
Biden was not humphrey or monohan he might be slightly left of Bill Clinton.
I am however deeply disturbed by the allegations regarding Biden.
For nearly all of his career he had built a reputation as a clean politician.
I do not recall that either he or his family went into the VP with significant wealth.
There are 3 questions regarding the recent revalations:
Did Joe/Hunter do anything actually wrong – i.e. did they actually sell influence.
I doubt that, and even if true that is very hard to prove.
But I have no doubt that Hunter Traded in a very big way on his relationship to the VP, and that Joe knew it, and that to atleast some extent he helped that.
And that was NOT the blue collar Joe of most of his carreer.
This is not the Biden whose son Beau served with distinction in the military and tragically died of cancer.
The last issue is bidens role in the Ukraine – in sacking Shokin and in the corrupt investigation of Ukrainian corruption.
That stinks to high heaven. 20 years ago Biden would have been smart enough to remove himself from the entire mess. His sons involvement meant he could not be involved PERIOD.
Giving Biden the benefit of every possible doubt – this is still wrong.
And honestly Biden caught doing what Trump is constantly accused of.
I would further note that watching Biden in this camapign should be torture for any moderate.
and should expose the massive problems that democrats face.
Biden was being dragged far tot he left by the campaign.
Most of us could choose to beleive that biden would govern closer to the center.
But that required NOT beleiving what he said during the campaign.
And that would be a major disadvantage against Trump.
Trump goes into 2020 saying – Trust me, I do what I say I will.
Moderate, left, right, you KNOW where Trump stands and you KNOW what he is going to do.
No one has to hope that he keeps is promises or hope that he does not.
You KNOW.
There is not a single other candidate that is true of.
I have met Warren – before she was in politics, She taught my wife in law school at UofP.
While she was not “conservative” she was on the right side of the left at the time.
It is possible – maybe probable that she will govern that way.
I beleive Ben Shapiro had her as a law professor at Harvard and said much the same.
She was often wrong – but well informed and would have shredded those on the left trying to sell the garbage she is selling now.
So to elect warren – you have to bet that her entire political persona is a lie.
Trump will obliterate her in a general election – and she likely has the BEST chance of the remaining democrats.
I am constantly carping about democrats and the left – they are NOT the same thing.
The GOP had a similar problem in the 80’s and 90’s with social conservatives controling the party. To win in the primaries – a republican HAD to Kowtow to the religious right.
But to win in the general he had to somehow tack back.
The releigious right in the GOP no longer has the power to demand obsequence.
Much of the fighting in the GOP over the past 20 years has been the re-alignment caused by the weakening of social conservaitves.
I keep constantly pointing out that generally this is a good thing for republicans and the nation – it is a shift towards the center.
Trump could not have run as a republican prior to 2016. Social conservatives had way too much power.
But he spotted his moment perfectly and aside from the nasty tweeting he actually ran a near perfect campaign – and he governs exactly as he ran.
He is completely genuine.
This is TNM – supposedly “the New Moderate” – as Republicans go Trump is quite Moderate.
And he is honest about who he is and where he stands.
Despite all the crook, crook, crook, liar, liar, liar nonsense. No one in the country should have much doubt how Trump will government post 2020. And those who voted for him in 2016 – got pretty much what they voted for.
We have not seen that in a very very long time.
Democrats meanwhile have problems much worse than republicans in the 80’s and 90’s.
They can not win a national election without the left – which has shifted farther left than ever, and they can not win a national election if they elect candidates that the left will support.
This is actually a direct consequence of the republic shift toward the center.
That actually increased the power of the democratic far left.
But it increasingly alienates the center.
I am not honestly sure this is a fixable problem.
Even all the never Trump neocons – probably are not voting for Warren or Sanders – even if they do not vote for Trump.
And any effort by any democratic candidate to shift towards the center will either destroy them or destroy their support.
Democrats needed to deal with this post 2016. They did not, and instead wasted the past 3 years blaming Russia for their loss. They are past out of time to fix their problem.
I am not entirely sure that it is possible for them to do so.
Lastly – should by some magic A warren or Sanders win, and should they govern half like the speak – that will strengthen the GOP across the country.
Lets just assume a world in which some democrat wins, and almost nothing else changes – except growth returns to sub 2%.
Democrats need Trump to have a recession before 2020, or to be re-elected and have one in his last 4 years – and the worse the better.
We have an incredibly long economic record now.
Reagan – strong economy – Bush weakened, Clinton strong economy, Bush weakened, Obama Weakened, Trump – better than the bushes and Obama.
We have really really good clues what works and what does not.
Every democratic candidate can promise whatever they want.
But so long as it is beleived they will also be a return to the Obama economy – they are DOA.
Democrats are doing absolutely nothing to position their party to credibly deliver a strong economy. They are not addressing the fact they have a credibility problem in that key area.
And calling Trump “liar, liar, liar” is not getting them anywhere – not even with much of the media behind them.
My daughter is chinese, my son korean – we are following Yang closely – and have donated substantially to his campaign.
But he is not winning, and he is not moderate – though he is not a total wing nut.
I do not know Gabbard well – but I am impressed by what I know.
She should be a front runner – if democrats actually wanted to win.
But she is not.
I will also note that Democrats are in danger of losing many of they top ranked young moderate candidates – or other potential people like them.
The distance between Connor Lamb or McCreary and the GOP is miniscule.
Lots of people – both the moderate freshmen – and potential future top tier democrats are watching. If there is no future for moderate democrats – there will be no moderate democrats.
All the bluedogs eventually lost to or became republicans.
Democrats have spend the past two decades telling us that demographics is destiny.
Yet that has not worked out for them.
Trump is making inroads in minorities – small inroads, but very real and important ones.
Republicans do not need to win the minority vote.
All they need to do is reduce the democratic dominance of it – and democrats are in deep shit over the long term.
Erosion of the jewish vote, the hispanic vote the black vote are very dangerous to democrats.
The recent FL elections that went very well for republicans were decided by 300,000 single black female parents with kids in charter schools. Gillium made it clear he was shutting those down – so Santos won the vote of those black mothers.
Minorities can loath republicans – they are not voting against the future of their children.
And republicans are winning that argument.
Cyber charters and charters are not perfect and they are not for everyone.
But if you are a single female black with a young child that you want to have some hope of a better future than you have – cyber charters and charters are their best shot – at avoiding F’ing up their lives.
No single black mother give a shit if their child can get free college – if by the time they are ready for college – they are in jail with two kids and no partner.
Is Biden really toast or elected handily? I guess 7 million more Americans prefer toast to rotting pumpkin guts.
“No single black mother give a shit if their child can get free college – if by the time they are ready for college – they are in jail with two kids and no partner.” You are racist garbage. N.B. Trump telling black voters “What do you have to lose?” didn’t get him out of the single digits with them.
Hi Rick–As with all of your postings, there is much truth imbedded in this one. I am disappointed with your conclusions. Trump is hardly an exemplary figure, but most of his policies have been solid. Absent a heavily biased media spin machine and opposition politicians eager to lie(knowing they won’t be held to account by that media), the policies have been well thought out. The real crime involving the phone call is that it was leaked. The call itself was innocuous, unless spun to suggest motives that were not expressed. A room full of lawyers dissecting your every word and attaching hidden meanings, innuendo, and claims of speaking in code could take your next innocent phone call to a relative, and make it “terrorism related”. Please take a step back and reconsider some of the content in this blog. I would hate to see my favorite blogger overcome by the weight of the constant negative drum beat from the press that is saturating our country with Trump hate.
While I do not agree with some of Trump’s policies – your overall assessment is correct.
Blot out tweets and all the public political warfare, and Trump is a ‘B-C’ president – who is following a pair of ‘C-D’ presidents and therefore looks good.
I do NOT think our economy is booming. It has just come closer to normal.
But not having seen that for decades, to many of us normal looks fantastic.
Further even in the areas I disagree with Trump – the consequences of his actions have NOT been disasterous. I will be happy for protracted debate about trade. But Trump’s trade policies – no matter what my criticisms have not tanked the country. The damage is small,
and there is no president ever I have agreed with 100%.
Take away the public spittle contest and and Trump is a pretty middle of the road and bland president. He is not the antichrist.
And in somethings he is pretty good.
He appears to have chased Neo-cons out of the GOP – good riddance. It took him too long. Though from the campaign he has run as a non-interventionist, he kept trying to make this bromance with the generals and neocons like Boulton work, in the end his presidency has been the most non-interventionist thus far since Reagan. AMEN.
Democrats promised to get us out of foreign entanglements – they not only failed – they plain flat out lied. There is zero evidence they ever took what they said seriously.
Which is another BIG thing about Trump that might have a collosal long term impact.
Trump has kept most of his campaign promises and striven valiently to keep the rest.
That could have a huge impact on future politics.
How would future elections go if we expected that politicians would not break their promises and that they actually meant what they promise ?
Robert: I’m not suggesting that Trump is impeachable based on that phone call with Zelensky. It struck me as innocuous, too. And unlike most folks who didn’t vote for him, I do give him credit when he does something right (just not in this piece).
The main reason I’m OK with impeachment is that there seems to be no way to prevent it. The Democrats have been after Trump from the outset. They’re like feisty terriers who have locked their jaws on the mailman’s pants and won’t let go. So I say let them have their impeachment — a fair one — and live with the outcome. If Trump is cleared, then they have to back off. (Of course, I’m assuming they won’t hatch another plot against Trump.)
Excellent response.
I do not care if the process is “fair” – I would greatly prefer that it was open.
As congress sits in judgement of Trump we sit in judgement of them.
Impeachment has consequences for everyone involved.
If Democrats succeed AND do not themselves face negative consequences,
they will have defined the constraints of impeachment in the future
if they make it easy and trivial – and the people allow that – then it will be employed with ease over trivial matters in the future.
My greater concern is they make it harder.
I think it is already too hard.
The threat of impeachment should have been a check on some of Obama’s lawless conduct – but it was not.
If as seems near certain this blows up in democrats faces – it will make constraining presidents HARDER in the future.
We are long past the point of a good outcome.
All results of this are in someway bad.
My long term hope – and expectation is serious consequences for democrats at the ballot box. 2016 SHOULD have caused a reset. Hopefully 2020 will.
I am not with Ron or Robby that this will continue forever,
I expect that 2020 is going to be a rude awakening for someone.
Though even there – should Warren or one of the other 7 dwarves manage to win.
Even that is a bad result for democrats.
Very little thought is given to how disasterous Obama’s election was for democrats.
Something like 3800 seats across the country flipped from blue to red.
I beleive about 2000 have since flipped back.
But a democratic victory would likely result in even greater gains for the republicans.
This does not get fixed until democrats deal with the outsized influence of their left flank.
I do not see anything but massive losses driving that message home.
Seriously, Name two “solid policies”.
“I do not see anything but massive losses driving that message home.” Then you certainly did not see coming the Republicans losing both the WH and the Senate.
Rick, at this point, I am of two minds regarding impeachment.
If Trump had actually done anything remotely approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors,” I would agree impeachment was the appropriate resolution. And part of me thinks that getting this over with, might end the insanity.
But we all know ~ regardless of whether or not we think that it was inappropriate for Trump to bring up Biden’s corruption in a phone call ~ that this impeachment is about the Democrats trying to satisfy their rabid base, made up of Trump haters who are irrational in their desire to see him dragged through a kangaroo trial, and not about any sort of crime or misdemeanor at all.
And, since the so-called “whistleblower” had no first-hand basis for his complaint, other than his own hatred of Trump, it will now be possible to continue having “whistleblowers” who have heard “bad stuff” from “WH officials” continue to come out of the wordwork, protected by a law that was not meant to protect vengeful gossip-mongers, and accuse the President of all sorts of things. Not paying his taxes or being in debt to “Russian oligarchs” will doubtless pop up shortly. It is not likely to end quickly, or with a clean verdict.
And what of the right of all citizens, presumably including the President, to be able to confront their accusers? By proceeding into impeachment without a formal vote, purely on the say so of the Speaker of the House, based on an anonymous accusation not backed up by the evidence, Trump is not even being afforded a modicum of due process.
Is there a better recipe for destroying our Constitutional system of justice, and creating bitter anger and hatred on both sides? We’ve already had suppposedly serious Democrat presidential candidates declare that they will confiscate legal weapons from American citizens, create a health system under the control of the government, use taxpayer dollars to pay for healthcare and education for all illegal immigrants, decriminalize illegal border crossings, criminalize offensive speech, and so forth. All the better to wipe out constitutional protections, before we start dismantling the Constitution.
Putin doesn’t hold a candle to these people…
“Putin doesn’t hold a candle to these people…”
And, by that, I mean In undermining our electoral process and our Constitution.
Priscilla, I was of two minds on impeachment, too. As much as I dislike Trump, I’ve come to resent the rabid leftist vigilante mob even more. Part of me would love to deny them the satisfaction of impeaching Trump, but I realize that they will never shut up until they’ve received satisfaction — almost in the archaic manner of a duel. At this point I just want them to shut up.
I don’t really know the protocol for impeaching a president; I’d think that the process would give him the opportunity to confront his accusers and grill them, but that’s just a guess. He’d be given due process during the actual impeachment hearings, wouldn’t he?
One major concern that I hadn’t thought about until now is that the impeachment would most likely drag on through 2020. What happens to a sitting president during campaign season if he’s undergoing impeachment? Could he still be the nominee? Both Nixon and Clinton were in their second terms when the prospect of impeachment arose. We’d have to go back to Andrew Johnson, who was impeached during a campaign year and didn’t run for a second term. I wonder if he was forced to sit on the sidelines during the campaign of 1868.
D
Rick;
When I was raising my kids we tried to follow a serious of guides called “Love and Logic”.
One of the premises was that – parents should not protect children from the natural consequences of their own actions – so long as the consequences are not permanent.
That we learn from the bad results of our own mistakes.
With respect to impeachment – I have no desire to interfere with democrats efforts to do something I beleive is self destructive.
I do not beleive they will get very far – but I do not care all that much if they do.
I am not even especially concerned about the highly unlikely possibility this makes it to and through the senate.
If Trump is successfully impeached and removed republicans will be justified at impeaching at the drop of a hat. Future president will be substantially disempowered,
That is not the way I would seek to reduce the power of the federal govenrment – but I am fine with it.
With respect to protocols:
First impeachment and trial and removal are independent processes.
Impeachment is fundimentally similar to indictment. The house is the investigator and the prosecutor. There are not alot of rights for the accused in an investigation and impeachment.
Impeachment is the exclusive domain of the house. But the constitution gives that power to the house as a whole – not the speaker of chairs of various committees.
There have been many impeachment attempts in the past – 3 of presidents. Aside from a constitutional requirement that the act and power is one of the house as a whole – not the speaker of the house, the rest of the rules are “tradition” – the constitution allows each chamber to make its own rules. I am not sure how much leeway the courts will give the house, I strongly suspect that absent a formal vote of a majority of house members to proceed with an impeachment inquiry that the courts are not going to act as if there is an actual inquiry. That would restrict the house to oversight powers not impeachment powers.
And there is a substantial difference.
More importantly – the less the House sticks to prior rules and standards they less credibility they have, and the more partisan this looks.
With two possible outcomes – first, the house gets bitch slapped by voters in 2020, or future impeachment over trivialities become commonplace.
I have argued strongly in favor of gridlock before – House democrats are pushing for total gridlock in the future.
I look at this as much like the recent battles over Senate Rules – the elimination of the Fillibuster etc. Both parties have threatened these for years – But democrats moved first, they gained a very shortlived advantage and have subequently been on the recieving end of the consequences for their own idiocy.
Whatever happens with impeachment is much the same.
I would further suggest that Democratic behavior is a very good predictor of future republican behavior. The recent conduct of house democrats – both in the minority and the majority has been brazenly obstructive. I would suggest that you should expect that not only are future republicans going to behave more like Adam Schiff – but that voters in very red districts are going to elect ever more aggressive and polarizing republicans.
There is no precedent for most of your questions.
But I would suggest that:
If the house has not voted articles of impeachment, and the senate has not held a trial by the end of a session of congress, that the process dies or must be started over.
That no part of the process – including Trumps removal by the senate – prohibits Trump from running in 2020, and becoming president should he win.
Absent this proceeding extremely quickly – which is highly unlikely – Trump is almost certain to remain the Republican nominee in 2020.
Johnathan Turley has an interesting article on how a Senate Trial might proceed and why no one sane in Washington would want a Senate Trial on the grounds the House is trying to proceed on.
Or expressed in a different way – in a senate trial Trump will have extremely broad latitude to defend himself. He could call Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden as witnesses.
Frankly He could Call Sen. Menedez as well as pretty much every other Senator who has threatened a foreign power.
When you push batshit crazy interpretattions of the law – you provoke others to either do the same or to make arguments that no one ever thought would have to be made.
Guiliani is talking about filling civil rights and defamation lawsuits against members of congress. These would normally be extremely difficult to win – the standard for a public figure is actual malice. But then again, there are tweets from Maxine Waters as an example that are dreadfull- they are clearly defamatory, and pretty self evidently actual malice.
Sekelow was arguing that Congress has a serious legal problem with their “grounds”.
The US has treaties with foreign govenrments on law enforcement. These treaties are explicitly intended to foster cooperation in prosecuting crimes and in instituting investigations.
Sekelow is arguing that it is not only a power of the president, but it is also a duty – in otherwords that Trump was obligated by Treaties with the Ukraine and Austrailia to ask for investigations – even of Biden.
I think the duty claim is a reach. But then the entire democratic claim of misconduct is based on over broad interpretations of the law – and what is good for the goose so to speak.
Regardless, I think that democrats do not grasp that far from undercutting Trump,
they have energized his base.
Democrats are taking pleasure in the fact that a much larger minority of people now support impeachment. but 47% of the country adamantly does not beleive impeachment is legitimate.
Former Sen. Flakes claim that there are 35 Senate Republicans ready to vote for impeachment is nonsense. I think the real question is how many senate democrats are unwilling to vote for removal.
But I highly doubt this will make it to the senate.
Rick and Dave, very interesting comments. This whole episode is soooo reality-show! Trump has literally driven the Democrat Party insane, if they think that this is going to help them or the country.
Although, I’m already getting Facebook and Twitter ads about impeaching Brett Kavanaugh, so I guess they think that this “impeachment gambit” is a winner for them.
Rick, I have to take a moment to compliment you (I try not to do that too often, for fear of giving you a swelled head 😉 ). I know very, very few people who dislike Trump, yet fully understand how terrible this current political jihad against him is for the people of this country. Most of them have a visceral disdain for “the Orange Man” and want to see him, not to mention his wife and children, suffer terribly for the crime of defeating Hillary Clinton. If there were more like you, and less who think that being a flamboyant showman, who figured out how to get the GOP nomination and defeat the Democrat candidate, is a crime worrthy of impeachment ~ or in the case of many Democrats, a crime akin to treason, for which Trump should presumably be hanged in the public square (the better to warn all wealthy businessmen, and/or TV stars to stay out of D.C. if they value their life)!
It’s a level of hate and insanity that I never thought I would see in modern America. Part of the problem, I think, is the current inability of the Democrat Party to win national elections. It can pull off the much ballyhooed “popular vote” victory, because it owns NYC and California (without the votes from just that specific city and state, there would have been no precious popular vote victory by Hillary), but it has gone too far left to appeal to voters outside of its base.
You cannot win the presidency by saying that the other guy is a mean Tweeter ( I can’t believe I even typed that, lol!). You can’t win it by promising to allow millions of welfare-seeking immigrants into the country, or taxing the middle class to death as part of a Green New Deal, or destroying the private healthcare system and nationalizing doctors and hospitals. You can’t win it by telling white people that they are racist pigs who deserve to have their property taken away and redistributed to all of the minorities that they have supposedly discriminated against.
So, although I am no longer a big fan of the GOP (contrary to Roby’s, who apparently thinks I’m a propagandist shill), it is currently the only realistic option for white working class voters, who have been left behind by the Party of Intersectionality. Frankly, polls show that many black voters are switching away to the GOP as well, as Democrat cities fall into extreme poverty, homelessness, and violence, while the Democrats spend their time harassing the president.
So, impeachment is the hot new way to win the presidency. It probably won’t work, but it will go a long way to destroying the America that we have all grown up in . And, I guess, to the Left that’s good, since they believe that America is a racist hellhole, filled with privileged white men who vote for the wrong party….
What happens to those reprobates like you, who have no affinity for Republicans, but are being left behind by Democrats?
I know I sound like a broken record, but the FUNDIMENTAL issue is that you can not use force against others without justification – not even when you are in the majority.
When you do – everytime you succeed you build opposition.
I keep saying over and over Trump is a CONSEQUENCE of the past overreach of the left.
Get rid of Trump, and you do NOTHING about the underlying factors that brought him into existance and into power.
Republicans were near certain to win in 2020. While a president Cruz or Rubio might have been SLIGHTLY less contentious – it still would have been bitter and unpleasant.
We would still have all this “hateful hating hater” nonsense.
One of the places I part ways with George Will and many whom I respect but can not palette Trump is in the argument that if Trump were just a bit more subtle a bit less offense, a bit less of a bull in a china shop – everything would be OK.
No it would not.
We must get past this nonsense that there are different rules for right and left.
It is HIGHLY damaging.
There are lots of things Trump does I disagree with.
They are no different from the things Obama or Bush or … did that I disagree with.
I think that his actions in this Ukrainian mess are WRONG.
But WRONG because we should stay the F out of the affairs of other countries.
We have not followed that since Washington.
And so long as we are following the law as it is – rather than as I want it to be.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking a foreign power to enforce its own laws.
There was no “quid pro quo” here – but even if there was – it would STILL BE LEGAL.
There is only one thing that would make Trump’s request improper,
and that is if he were asking the Ukraine to investigate something that was NOT a crime or that there was NOT sufficient basis to allege a crime.
That would be what the Obama administration did.
But back to my point, it is absolutely crystal clear to everyone who is driven by facts, not emotion, that democrats are imposing a standard of conduct on Trump they do not impose on their own.
So long as that is the case – I am not interested in George Will or any other republicans disdain for Trump because he does not behave better than perfectly so as to not antagonize the left.
The left is going to be angry NO MATTER WHAT.
It is not possible for Trump or any other republican to do what they were elected to do without pissing off the entire left.
I do not want to hear arguments that “While not ilegal Republican X could have done this differently and not caused a firestorm”
That is exactly what the left wants. Handcuffing you so that you are impotent.
or forcing all republicans to be left wing nuts.
To the Robby’s and other “moderates” out there – Kaisich was not elected, and no one like him is going to be elected. They will not win the GOP nomination, and they would not win the general – and even if they did they would be slandered and maligned regardless.
Dave ” One of the places I part ways with George Will and many whom I respect but can not palette Trump is in the argument that if Trump were just a bit more subtle a bit less offense, a bit less of a bull in a china shop – everything would be OK. ”
Dave, what you seem to be unable to understand is positions of people like me. Like you said, much of the hateful haters hate would still be present, just like it was with Obama.
However, I dont know how many voters like me are voting in 2020. i would love to vote for Trump due to his policy positions. I find it extremely hard to vote for him due to his personal persona, actions and words. Maybe I am the only one that has that feelings about him. I dont know.
But for me, if Trump would act like a leader instead of a N.Y.City mafia Don, I could find him an attractive candidate to vote for. Unless its Clinton, as rumored to be interested again, voting against the democrat does not outweigh Trumps personal actions.
I have held trump to the same standards as Obama.
The more I learn the more Naive I beleive I was about Obama.
Regardless, the standard of conduct is the same for republicans as democrats PERIOD.
If well behaved republicans would get us anywhere – Romney would be ending his 2nd term.
This “if only republicans would not poke the beast, or do this stupid thing” is nonsense.
It is also impossible. It is not possible to behave such that everyone will be happy.
It is possible to hold everyone to the same standards.
The worst outcome of this is to replace Trump with a democrat who with absolute certainty differs from Trump in policy – not conduct, and for everyone to turn a blind eye.
That is the scenario that could result in thousands with AR-15’s storming the capital.
The law is blind. Standards are the same regardless of party.
Aparently Trump very nearly negotiated a very good deal with the Iranians – getting the to PERMANENTLY foreswear nuclear aspirations, AND Terrorism, in return for lifting sanctions.
But Rouhani renigged AFTER agreeing,
That sounds like a leader to me.
The US embassy is in Jerusalem – sounds like leadership.
We are out of Syria – leadership
We have not gotten into any new wars – leadership
Our growth has improved by 50% – leadership
on and on.
Trump has a long and growing list of accomplishments,
And they have occured with little help from republicans and none from democrats and without violating the law or overstepping his constitutional authority.
Is Trump perfect ? Not even close.
Is he an improvement over Bush and Obama – absolutely.
That is leadership.
“Aparently Trump very nearly negotiated a very good deal with the Iranians – ”
Almost as good as the very nearly good deal he negotiated with his tariff ploys.
How’s that worked out?
He’s leading us all right, right into the toilet,
If 3% growth and a reduction in global wars in which we are involved is “the toilet”
“Please sir can I have more”
Rick, another issue with the current process. This is an “impeachment inquiry”. It is not an “impeachment proceeding”. Queen Nancy has not ask the full house to vote on a formal impeachment proceeding. I heard this morning that this does not allow the house the same latitude in calling for testimony of individuals as would a formal process.
My point. This is all a political ploy to satisfy the rabid anti-Trumpers without putting your full house on record for or against an impeachment like Gingrich did with Clinton and cost them congressional seats.
Until the house actually votes for something, this is just politicians spouting off and trying to wrap what they are doing in a mantle of significance without taking the steps needed to make it actually significant.
“I don’t really know the protocol for impeaching a president; I’d think that the process would give him the opportunity to confront his accusers and grill them, but that’s just a guess. He’d be given due process during the actual impeachment hearings, wouldn’t he? ”
You don’t and I’m sure you never bothered to find out.
While there are lots and lots of nits I could pick – the sins of George III were ACTS that limited individual liberty – not fractious tweets – regardless an excellent post.
The qualifications to be president are in the constitution.
Absent committing an actual “high crime or misdemeanor”, the choice of president is up to the voters.
Where I would most diverge from your post is that the most fundimental issue is not the character of the president – or any of the rest of those we put into power – we are virtually guaranteed to put the wrong people into the house the senate and the presidency.
What we should be paying most attention to is the power we give them.
The problem with far too many – today particularly the left, is that they assume they will someone get the perfect leader (every time) and that they want to assure that when they do that leader will have sufficient power to make all their dreams come true – without having to go through the much more difficult process of persuading the people as a whole and justifying the use of power for whatever their dreamed end is.
Our government was – mostly – well designed to be run by crooks. But we have continuously erroded the impediments to their ability to use power as a weapon.
George Washington would be foaming and frothing about Trump’s phone call to Zelensky.
That is pretty much exactly what washington thought our govenrment should NOT do.
But Trump’s phone call is innocuous, because Washington aside, presidents have been doing exactly that for 200+ years.
To those frothing and foaming about Trump – it is near certain that I will get 100% behind proposals to restore our federal government to the much more limited powers that our founders intended.
“it is near certain that I will get 100% behind proposals to restore our federal government to the much more limited powers that our founders intended.” Too bad Trump and his cronies were of the opposite opinion. Theirs matters, yours doesn’t.
Apparently another reason that Pelosi is proceding with Faux rather than real impeachment is that in an actual impeachment inquiry the minority party has subpeona power.
One of the bad consequences of the GOP loss of the house is that they have been unable to proceed with the investigations that were conducting.
That ends the moment they vote for impeachment.
Another item that leaked is that Pelosi apparently saw the whislteblower complaint before it was released – possibly before it was filed.
And there are rumors that Schiff had some role in its creation.
Rick, its a good piece. I agree with a lot of it. The part that loses me is the idea that it was just a nice little innocent conversation that trump had with Zelensky.
OK, everyone here agrees that much of the left is foaming at the mouth crazy. But there are a long line of conservative figures who see this conversation in a dark light too, are they also crazy? George Will, Judge Napolitano, George Romney, Jonathan Turley for example wrote:
“…If one agrees that the windfall contracts secured by Hunter Biden were obvious influence peddling, then Trump pushing for an investigation into that possible crime becomes more defensible. It does not, however, make it right. Trump clearly tripped another wire for possible impeachment, immediately after the special counsel made his final report on prior controversies. Congress is justified in investigating, and the transcript is not the entirety of the evidence that might show the intent or act or corruption. All this is why House Democrats still need to find the quid.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/462969-trumps-ukraine-transcript-unwise-words-but-no-proof-of-a-crime
This in Not an exoneration of trump and Turley’s piece had very clear words about the harmful nature of trump’s conduct, albeit the quid pro quo was implied and not explicit. Turley says its very appropriate for the democrats to dig deeper for explicit evidence. They are doing so.
I can find words that are much more vivid from some honorable conservatives on the nature of trump’s conversation with Zelensky, but this quote will do.
There is an argument that is above my pay grade about whether the conversation Zelensky is criminal, and the merits of impeachment are very debatable, with quite of few of both conservatives and democrats seeing a clear and dangerous abuse of power in trumps actions but doubting whether impeachment is worth it, I can mention David Brooks in this vein. I can also mention George Conway as evidence that it is not a sign of left wing insanity to hate the very idea of trump, who you described quite accurately in your piece, being president. All that aside, passing this conversation off as harmless is a perfect example of how we are now in moral free fall.
Never has a POTUS in my lifetime faced such razor sharp criticism of a former nominee of his party, I mean George Romney. Forget the left wing insanity, explain that Rick. Much of the left is crazy; it does not mean that they do not have something to be upset about with trump.
In my eyes trump was doing his own political business in that call to Zelensky, not the country’s business and he had very recently withheld American resources for the Ukrainian military and had not yet released them. Just a coincidence? Really? Give me a break. This to me, and yes I am not a purely objective soul on trump, is an ugly abuse of power and merits impeachment. I do not care about calculations about whether it hurts or benefits the democratic party. Someone has to attempt to keep some kind of standards in the age of trump, where there no longer seem to be any standards at all for some people.
Finally Rick do you doubt that had Clinton become president the GOP would have impeached a second Clinton already? Their cries of “oh, the terrible harm in impeaching a president” are purest hypocrisy. We are supposed to be terrified that if trump is held accountable for abusing his office, again, then angry white men will lose all control with god knows how many casualties. That is obviously no basis for making decisions, no matter how many guns they have been stockpiling for just such an excuse to lose control. I am going to believe that our police and if necessary our military will contain such violent thugs and they and their cause will go down hard. I have the deepest and angriest contempt for this argument. Thugs will not frighten us out of this inquiry.
The problem with “implied” anything – is that it requires mind reading.
And humans suck at it.
You are correct – it is in theory possible that trump was through a complex multifaceted web of almost subliminal messages communicating to Zelensky that if he did not find dirt on Biden there would be no military aid.
What is possible is not fact it is conjecture.
It is a fact that Biden blackmailed Ukraine into firing Shokin.
It is fact that Shokin was investigating hunter.
it is fact that Biden knew that.
The jump from probable cause to proven corruption – is real – and it is small.
With respect to Zelensky the far more credible “implied” threat/quid pro quo is – “work on the EU for more money before coming back to me. ”
Even that is not clear.
There is not even an indirect connection between the biden mention and the military aide.
You have to do serious mind reading to get there.
State departments – under both Obama and Trump have sought to limit aide to Ukraine.
DOD under both has tried to limit aide.
a bipartisan consensus in the house and senate has resulted in Ukraine getting aide that the executives of two administration do not wish to give.
Yet, you jump to the immediate conclusion that Trump had unique – and unexpressed motives for withholding aide – though witholding aide is not ever mentioned in the transcripts.
We are all aware what you BELEIVE was occuring in that phone call – and it is atleast in theory possible, But it is mind reading – not fact, and the odds HEAVILY favor your being wrong.
Regardless, one of your fundimental problems is that you ALWAYS beleive republicans – especially Trump are corrupt – even though the evidence is not there.
and you ALWAYS beleive democrats are innocent – no matter how strong the evidence is.
There is no clear proof Bill Clinton’s .5M speaking fee was some quid pro quo or influence peddling – though it stinks to heaven – much much worse than the Zelensky call and almost as bad as the Biden Blackmail.
Everything that went on in the Clinton foundation – stinks. There is actual evidence of possible quid pro quo’s – but not absolute proof, there is a clear PATTERN of disturbing conduct and preferential behavior.
Yet you want to tell me – Trump had a clear implied quid pro quo and Clinton was innocent ?
So long as you can not see actual misconduct by democrats and always see misconduct by republicans – no matter how thin the evidence – you are not credible Robby.
Finally – this all can be addressed regardless.
Make laws – laws that apply equally to republicans and democrats – laws that we can expect republicans will enforce against their own AND democrats will enforce against theirs.
We have three tiers to this.
Where proven conduct meets the requirements of the law narrowly interpreted – there is a crime and it should be prosecuted.
For the president and many other appointments, conduct that ins not provably criminal but is sufficiently offensive can result in impeachment.
I would have impeached Obama for exceeding his legitimate constitutional authoruty.
I would not have done so with malice, but to restore executive compliance with the limits of the constitution. Find conduct of trump’s that is outside his constitutional powers – and I will do the same to him.
You and Pelosi can impeach Trump for whatever you want – with the understanding that the political reward of cost will be paid by you,
At the far opposite extreme is voters – they have the final say about who they vote for.
They are not required to justify their vote.
They are free to decide whether they think Trump’s conduct is inappropriate or not.
And they get to decide if democrats have overstepped or not.
I have been completely consistent here from near the begining – impeach if you want.
Go for it. I am not stopping you.
I am not getting between you and your own self destruction.
There are bazillions of arguments being made “out there”.
I do not think anyone here is arguing “the terrible harm of impeaching a president”.
Again “go for it”.
But despite Pelosi’s claim – it is not happening – not because I oppose – I do not.
But because Pelosi and democrats know this is a really really stupid and dangerous idea.
I do not know where Pelosi will go from here. I do not think she has the votes to start impeachment – and even if she can get them – absent more than your “belief” – impeachment will fail – probably without getting out of the house.
Regardless there is infinite difference between the actions of the house – and those of a special counsel. We have been playing games over SC type investigations for decades now.
Nothing we have tried works well. The process becomes political and dangerous.
SC’s are big game hunters – if they do not come back with BIG scalps they look bad.
Put simply the incentives are wrong and that produces bad results.
I am open to suggestions.
The house is however politically answerable. they can investigate – and they will pay the consequences for failure. that should limit proceeding to compelling cases.
I have no doubt that if Clinton had become president – republicans would have wanted to impeach her.
Whether they tried would have been up to them, and it would have been up to us to judge their efforts at election.
Short something more egregious than this – I doubt republicans would have moved to impeach. but that is speculation about a hypothetical.
The argument that you are mischaracterizing is NOT “if I do the right thing, I will be punished by angry white men”.
You are so wrapped in this religious belief in your own moral correctness that you are blinded to even the possibility that you might be doing the wrong thing and that rather than being martyred for doing the right thing you might be facing quite appropriate punishement for doing the wrong thing.
I have no problem with your proceeding to impeach – BECAUSE the rewards or punishment for doing so will fall on you.
If that result is punishment – it is not because you did the right thing no matter what,
it is because in the judgment of the majority of americans you were WRONG.
But expaning on the angry backlash argument.
Already you are proceeding with impeachment – without following the rules.
More of this ends justifies the means bullshit we have to deal with from the left all the time.
FOLLOW THE RULES. If you do not – the consequences will be even worse.
At the most extreme –
“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ”
If you can not follow the rules – there is no social contract. there is no legitimacy to government, we are lawless and violence is near certain the result.
Will hundreds of Tea Partiers with AR-15’s descend on the house ? Probably not.
That said – at some point when government does not follow the law – even that is JUSTIFIED.
I am constantly asking you to justify your actions.
One of the reasons is that it is LEGITIMATE to respond to the unjustified use of force with force.
That is the extreme case and we are still likely far from that – but we are headed relentlessly in one direction regarding lawless conduct. We could get there.
Further – I will be happy to join you in impeaching Trump for actually exceeding his constitutional authority – I have not seen that – have you ? Please be specific.
But I can list a dozen instances in which Obama exceeded constitutional authority.
Whatever the law is – it must be the same law – for Trump and Obama (and Clinton).
““whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ”
If you can not follow the rules – there is no social contract. there is no legitimacy to government, we are lawless and violence is near certain the result.
Will hundreds of Tea Partiers with AR-15’s descend on the house ? Probably not.
That said – at some point when government does not follow the law – even that is JUSTIFIED. ”
Congratulations, you have now entered Timothy McVeigh territory. Internet commentary is a swamp with its swamp creatures. See you later.
The difference between McVeigh and Washington is justification
Something you keep ducking everywhere.
Government is only legitimate if its use of force is JUSTIFIED.
The declaration of independence was the JUSTIFICATION for taking up arms against Britian.
If you continue with lawless and unjustified acts – then YES, Armed militias descending on Congress are JUSTIFIED.
We have a ways to go – but you are relentlessly headed in that direction.
I have told you repeatedly – if you want to impeach – GO AHEAD, and face the consequences, If you beleive you are justified – they will be to your benefit.
If large portions of the electorate DO NOT think you are justified – they consequences will be dire.
Proceed with Impeachment – however you wish.
Follow the Constitution and the past process – or act lawlessly,
AGAIN – the consequences will be yours.
Thousands of armed Citizens are NEVER going to descend on the capital,
If you act within the law and with justification.
You brought up Bill Clinton.
There were atleast 5 actual fellonies that Clinton committed WHILE PRESIDENT.
There is no debate over them. He lied under oath – MULTIPLE TIMES.
He persuaded another to lie under oath. He asked them to destroy evidence.
You have nothing regarding Trump that is a crime.
You are proceding on the basis that he did something that offended you.
The constitution allows impeachment for that.
But it has never been done before.
If you go forward – your actions will be judged by the people – all of them, not just left wing nuts. If you beleive that a simple majority – which you still do not have, is suffficient – go ahead. If you beleive that it is OK to discount the choices of almost half the country without providing a justification that they accept – go ahead.
I am done trying to save you from yourself.
I hope you get the country that you are asking for.
It is unfortunate that the rest of us are going to have to suffer in it alone with you.
And you are unlikely ever to grasp that You made this mess – not Republicans, not Trump.
When you do not get your facts right, when your arguments are fallacies, when you seek your objective by slur and insult, when you make false moral claims of others.
YOU bear the full responsibility for everything that follows – including violence should it come to that.
BTW – I do not expect the violence to start with even the extreme right.
It has already started on the left.
There are no mobs of conservatives beating up speakers they do not like, or journalists they disagree with.
Roby: I’d guess that the more respectable Republicans (like Romney and George Will) are distancing themselves from Trump and his mob because — well, they’re respectable men and they deplore what’s happening to the GOP and the “clean” conservatism established by William F. Buckley and his peers over 60 years ago. Trump is driving that bus off the road, and of course, they’re right to deplore the driver.
As for the infamous phone conversation, I’m not shocked that Trump would ask a head of state to dig up dirt on his opponent. If it’s acceptable to uncover dirt from a domestic source, why is it any different to use an allied foreign source who would be privy to possible chicanery committed by Americans his country? The quid pro quo (withholding aid until Zelensky complies with Trump’s request) hasn’t been established yet, although I don’t rule it out. If proven, that would tip the scale against Trump because it would be tantamount to blackmail.
One question that didn’t occur to me until now: DID Zelensky finally supply information to Trump, and if so, was it damaging to Biden? It was already known that Hunter Biden served on the board of the Ukrainian gas company, and that Joe Biden was instrumental in firing Shokin, the man who was prosecuting that company. From what I’ve read, Shokin had stopped his investigation before Hunter Biden came on board — so his firing might have been coincidental and unrelated to anything the younger Biden may or may not have done.
I guess the bottom line is that I haven’t been whipped up into impeachment fever over Trump’s Ukraine call; it seems relatively innocuous compared with the corrupt lobbying deals that go on right under our noses in Congress. Now, if someone could uncover the root cause of Trump’s strange alliance with Putin, that would be another story.
Rick;
I have probably been with you on this most of my life.
But no more.
Romney was treated little better by the press and the left than Trump.
Trying to not rock the boat gets you nothing.
Worse it makes you impotent.
Romney would have been a lousy president.
I think he is a decent person. I think he is a respectable person.
But decency and respect are a liability in the current political environment.
The same people who were pissing over Grassley for the past several years – are fawning over him because he made a favorable comment on Whistleblowers.
Grassley does not seem to get that the requirements of THE LAW for CREDIBILITY – which is legally the same as NO HEARSAY, are there for an important reason.
When you allow whistleblower complaints like this – you destroy rather than build the process.
This person is doing a disservice. He has politicicized and corrupted the process and that will have negative consequences for future whistleblowers.
Zelensky did not provide information to Trump – Trump did not ask Zelensky for information – another error in the “spin”
Trump asked Zelensky to look into a long list of potential corrupt activities – including Hunter Biden.
It was a request, not a demand – even though the US Ukraine law enforcement treaty would have allowed Trump to DEMAND an investigation.
The was not a quid pro quo – even though that is legal.
Through most of the call Zelensky brought things up – like military aide and corruption and Trump responded.
Trump did not initiate the discussion of military aid.
He did not initiate the discussion of corruption.
He could have done both legally – but he did not
and yet we are all still here having a debate over a non-crime and a legitimate excercise of executive power.
I think Guiliani is reaching by claiming democrats and even the whistleblower are engaged in obstruction of justice. But it is less of a reach than the ludicrous claims democrats and the media have bought regarding Trump.
Regardless – one standard BOTH parties.
If you can not do that – do not sell me “respactable”.
There is absolutely no where in the phone call that Trump asked for dirt on anyone.
He asked Zelensky to investigate a long list of criminally suspicious activities.
The only political benefit Trump would have gotten from that – is if Zelensky actually found malfeasance.
There is nowhere in the call that Trump claims anything beyond that a host of conduct from 2016 looks like corruption and ought to be investigated.
There is no evidence that Trump would have gotten any political benefit – unless Zelensky found actual corruption.
There is nowhere in the call that Trump even violated the presumption of innocence.
It is trivial to find a remark by Pelosi or Schiff or Waters that is actually defamatory.
My guess is some Trump tweets are actually defamatory too.
But the phone call was not.
Biden’s admitted threat regarding Shokin was corrupt, extrortion, a conflict, and defamatory.
Not one of those is present in the Trump call.
Trump is not a saint, but if you can not represent a short phone call accurately – then DON’T,
We can all read it.
Rick;
With respect to Shokin and the Ukraine – someone is lying.
Either John Solomon – a respected reporter, who has been following this story for years and has gathered hundreds of documents to support his assertions – from the Ukraine, from its courts, From the US State Department, from the FBI, From Burisma’s lawyers,
As well as atleast half a dozen news stories over the past 4 years from NYT, WaPo and others are lying and have forged documents – something that is proveable.
OR
The entire media narative of the Biden story is FALSE.
To address the points of disagreement.
Burisma is mostly owned by a corrupt RUSSIAN Oligarch.
Who was banned from Travel to the US because of CORRUPTION,
until a few weeks after Hunter Biden took a seat on the Burisma board.
There are numerous bits of evidence that Joe Biden Knew Hunter was on the board of Burisma and under investigation.
All the claims that Shokin was corrupt – came from the US – after Biden joined the Burisma board.
There is absolutely no evidence of corruption on the Part of Shokin.
If he was corrupt – he was very bad at it – he did not spend copious amounts of money on wine, women and song, and he is not wealthy or even close to it.
The investigation of Burisma AND Hunter was active at the time Shokin was fired – Hunter was scheduled to be questioned when Shokin was fired.
Hunters lawyers called the new PG the same day Shokin was fired to schedule a meeting.
They were able to get one a week later. Both the Lawyers and the new PG kept notes, Solomon has both and they agree – Biden’s lawyers appologized for Shokin’s firing and claimed to have no role in it.
Burisma investigations continued through 2018.
Lutensko settled one allegation for a steep fine in 2017 and the last one for an even steeper fine in 2018.
Shokin has testified under oath that he was fired because Joe Biden demanded it, because he was investigating his Son.
Maybe all of the above is “made up”, Maybe Solomon’s documents are all forgeries, Maybe the WaPo and NYT reporters who wrote stories in 2015, and 2017 are liars.
But lots of this can be verified – if you want to go to the trouble to do so.
In my view – the likelyhood that Solomon is lying is pretty much zero.
It would be way too easy to catch him.
If Solomon is correct – or even 50% correct – or even 10% correct, there is ample basis for Trump to ask the Ukraine to investigate.
Though my guess is the Ukraine can’t. Because Ukraine has double jeophardy laws just like the US and the Burisma cases were settled and re-opening them would be double jeophardy.
But any claim that Burisma or Biden was exonerated is garbage.
I am personally very disturbed. I liked Joe Biden. I really thought he was an honest politician.
I am trying to console myself with the view that Biden was a decent and honest man – until he found himself in bed with Obama and the Clinton’s and lost his son Beau tragically.
Regardless, unless an awful lot of documents are false – Biden is dirty.
My daughter is chinese, my son korean – we are following Yang closely – and have donated substantially to his campaign.
But he is not winning, and he is not moderate – though he is not a total wing nut.
I do not know Gabbard well – but I am impressed by what I know.
She should be a front runner – if democrats actually wanted to win.
But she is not.
I will also note that Democrats are in danger of losing many of they top ranked young moderate candidates – or other potential people like them.
The distance between Connor Lamb or McCreary and the GOP is miniscule.
Lots of people – both the moderate freshmen – and potential future top tier democrats are watching. If there is no future for moderate democrats – there will be no moderate democrats.
All the bluedogs eventually lost to or became republicans.
Democrats have spend the past two decades telling us that demographics is destiny.
Yet that has not worked out for them.
Trump is making inroads in minorities – small inroads, but very real and important ones.
Republicans do not need to win the minority vote.
All they need to do is reduce the democratic dominance of it – and democrats are in deep shit over the long term.
Erosion of the jewish vote, the hispanic vote the black vote are very dangerous to democrats.
The recent FL elections that went very well for republicans were decided by 300,000 single black female parents with kids in charter schools. Gillium made it clear he was shutting those down – so Santos won the vote of those black mothers.
Minorities can loath republicans – they are not voting against the future of their children.
And republicans are winning that argument.
Cyber charters and charters are not perfect and they are not for everyone.
But if you are a single female black with a young child that you want to have some hope of a better future than you have – cyber charters and charters are their best shot – at avoiding F’ing up their lives.
No single black mother give a shit if their child can get free college – if by the time they are ready for college – they are in jail with two kids and no partner.
“If it’s acceptable to uncover dirt from a domestic source, why is it any different to use an allied foreign source who would be privy to possible chicanery committed by Americans his country?”
The question boggles the mind Rick.
The job of the POTUS is the work of the people, not collecting dirt, at home or abroad. He works for all Americans not himself. He has political staff and they are paid by his campaign, not Federal funds, for political activities. The job of the POTUS when dealing with foreign leaders is not to ask them the “favor” of using their country’s resources to search for dirt he can use on his American political opponents, no, that is not the legitimate function of the POTUS. When the country in question is receiving military aid from the US, which I presume has been appropriated by congress BTW, the timely and expected flow of that aid is not a lever that POTUS can use to lubricate the willingness of a foreign government to search for his political dirt. Dirt is called dirt because its dirty. The job of the POTUS is not to soil our relations with other nations with his personal political search for dirt.
In this case, to make it worse, the Biden matter had been looked into long ago by Ukraine adn they found nothing. Thus requesting the “favor” of going back and looking again raises the question of whether they were under pressure to manufacture something to make the Godfather, er POTUS happy.
Yes, if you are Ukraine you do want to make the US government happy, that is a given. Like if you were a composer and you had a wealthy patron and needed the money they provided to live then if the patron asked for a favor it would not be the same as a favor between two ordinary people with no such dependent relationship. The pressure is there built into the relationship.
Collecting political dirt is not a favor in an any case, collecting someone else’s dirt is a nasty crappy job for the president of a country to be tasked with.
trump put Zelensky between a rock and a hard place and it was in no way in the national interest.
Imagine a world were this IS considered proper. G7 meetings would just be an international meeting of mafia dons shaking each other down.
trump promised to drain the swamp. This is not draining the swamp, its expanding it overseas.
Today:
Asked if he had requested President Xi of China to investigate the Bidens Trump said, “I haven’t, but clearly it’s something we should start thinking about.”
You do understand that undercuts the narrative that the Trump Zelenzky call was about Biden ?
Trump, Guilliani, Barr, Durham have been seeking investigative assistance accross the globe – and Democrats are fuming.
The UK, Italy, Austrailia, and The ukraine.
Only one of these The Ukraine – has anything to do with Biden.
Only the Ukraine has the most tangential connections to candidates in the 2020 election.
It should be crystal clear What Guiliani, Trump, Barr, Durham are chasing – they are looking into the foundations of the investigation of Trump.
Barr was in italy looking into Mifsud – he was interviewed by Italian police very early in this,
There is a rumour that Mifsud is now cooperating with Barr.
A proper investigation – unlike the Mueller investigation actually turns over all stones.
Like does what Mifsud told the italian police comport with what he is now telling Barr
Trump/Barr are after a wide variety of information regarding Adrew Downer and his involvement with Mifsud, Papadoulis, Fusion GPS, the State Department, five eyes,
Again – all things that Mueller should have but did not do.
Mueller went to an enormous amount of trouble to “break” anyone related to Trump – he presumed he knew the truth at the start and just needed to break peoples arms until they confessed. And he got nowhere.
Barr and Durham – to the extent we are aware of what they are doing – are checking EVERYTHING. Was Mifsud a Russian Asset ? an FBI Asset ? Both ? What has he told other people – put simply What is the truth regarding Joseph Mifsud. Not what does NYT want to hear, not what does Trump want to hear, not what does adam schiff want to hear.
I would note – though Trump has publicly accussed the Bidens of corruption – in the Zelensky call – he does not make an accusation. He merely states there is a basis to investigate.
Which their is.
Contra the nonsense that the media, the left, Schiff, and you are spreading – not only is there no quid pro quo – there is not even a request for dirt.
There is a request for an investigation.
An investigation only results in something useful for Trump – if something is found.
If you allege that Zelensky is going to manufacture dirt that is not there – then you must similarly accept that nothing that has come from Ukraine – regarding Trump, Shokin, Manafort, …. is trustworthy – you can not claim that a country is so corrupt it will manufacture for one president – that did NOT threaten them dirt but not for another that did.
I would further note that digging deep into Mifsud and Downer and ….
Could well help Trump. But it could also hurt him.
There is lots of evidence that Mifsud is likely a western asset.
But there is also lots of connections to Russia.
It is near certain that he atleast unofficially – like Halper works for some intelligence service – possibly several.
The “investigation of the investigation” appears to be being done THOROUGHLY.
That is important. If Durham concludes Mifsud is a western asset – we need to be able to beleive that. If he concludes he is a russian asset – we need to be able to beleive that too.
We not only need to know what Mifsud is – but we need to know what the FBI could reasonably beleive he was at the time.
Both the Comey and Mueller investigations did nothing to examine one entire facet of their investigation. They did not look into Mifsud or Downer, or ….
That would make sense – if they already knew that Mifsud was a western asset.
It makes no sense at all if he was a russian asset.
Regaredless we need to know the truth, and we need to know what the FBI beleived was true. And we need to know what Mueller knew or beleived.
And THAT is what this is all about. We do not know what the answers to that will be.
But the fear of so many on the left in the media, in the intelligence community strongly suggests THEY think there are serious problems to be uncovered.
So lets find the truth.
Robby;
Facts matter – particularly when you are alleging criminal and moral misconduct.
Read the Transcript – it is only 5 pages not much more than your post.
Your alternate universe allegations are just not there.
The Biden’s are mentioned in passing – one sentence in 5 pages, as part of a long list of items Trump asks to be looked into that you have not yet explained why are problematic.
Yet Democrats have spent days trying to stop an investigation that has nothing to do with a “political rival”
Law and Treaty – require the US to cooperate with Ukrianian law enforcement and visa versa.
There are multiple ongoing investigations into the Obama administrations 2016 election interference – including many that involve items Trump mentioned. These investigations started BEFORE Barr took office.
Foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the president. Law enforcement is a constitutional power of the president.
To the extent Trump threatened Ukraine’s funding it was to leverage the Ukraine to get more from the EU. A theme of Trump’s since before the election – in fact a campaign promise.
And absolutely the legitimate domain of the president.
I drub Trump for the inarticulate way he sometimes speaks.
This is just not one of those times.
If you remove part of one sentence from the transcript – you have absolutely nothing.
The entirety of the rest is quite well expressed – especially for Trump.
That single phrase regarding the Biden’s – your hook for impeachment, is itself a perfectly legitimate request.
And I am tired of saying that Republicans should not do their job or should micro-parse everything they say to avoid ever in any context – including a highly private conversation with a foreign leader say anything that might offend the chattering classes on the left.
We do not have the converse standard.
Biden made far more damning remarks PUBLICLY.
Biden’s public remarks SHOULD have started an investigation YEARS AGO.
They should have had DOJ/FBI investigating – but that was not going to happen – because DOJ/FBI were INVOLVED, they particiated in FRAMING Shokin. The Participated in whitewashing a corrupt Russian oligarch. The participated in protecting Hunter Biden from investigation.
At the absolute bare minimum VP Biden as Vice President should not have come within 100 miles of anything involving a foreign criminal investigations of his son. Not even if the allegations were unfounded. If no one else investigated that – Congress should have.
Now – years late, you have objections ? The Obama administration was investigating Trump on far more spurious grounds during the 2016 election cycle.
Over and Over I have told you that whatever conduct that democrats and the left engage in will become normalized for all.
I can easily argue using the law that Trump’s requests for investigations are all legitimate, and Obama’s were not.
But there are no circumstances under which Obama’s investigation of Trump – or his use of foreign powers – specifically the Ukraine to investigate Trump are legitimate and Trump’s are not.
You say Trump has political people to do political tasks – Guilliani is not a federal employee.
The FBI and DOJ are. The misconduct in the Ukraine in 2014-2016 involved the VP, the DOJ, and the FBI – as well as others – both government and political, and went much beyond Biden’s son.
You have a gigantic goose/gander pot/kettle problem.
In this instance you even have several US Senators – Democrats demanding that Foreign powers refuse to cooperate with the DOJ and FBI – that they violate the law and treaties with the US.
This is not going well for you.
“Imagine a world”
It is called the real world – we already live there. The entirety of international relations rests on threats and inducements. It ALWAYS has.
Please read Biden’s blunt threat to the Ukraine.
It is WRONG as a matter of policy – we should not be interfering in foreign governments in that way – but that is a policy difference, to my knowledge there is no law precluding Biden or the president from threatening foreign countries over PG’s.
But it is criminally corrupt to make personal use of government power to protect your son from a criminal investigation.
It is irrelevant whether you think the investigation was legitimate, it is irrelevant whether you think Shokin was corrupt. VP Biden can not be involved.
But aparently only republicans are required to recuse themselves where they have conflicts.
“trump promised to drain the swamp. This is not draining the swamp, its expanding it overseas.”
You knew very little about this investigation – and nothing about the parts involving Biden until your whistleblower came forward with hearsay allegations.
To the greatest extent possible all the investigations that you are seeking to stop were being conducted quietly – the way criminal investigations are supposed to.
They were being done as criminal investigations – not quests for dirt.
Unless the press decided to take interest in 2 year old stories of Biden’s corruption,
this would only have been political dirt – if a criminal prosecution was justified.
Investigating past crimes, and prosecuting those who are guilty IS
Draining the swamp.
You have ranted about the purported profiteering of Trump – though there is no evidence of that. Here you have clear evidence of the Biden’s engaging brazenly in the conduct you can not prove regarding Trump – and you are defending it.
You do not want it investigated ?
Is it acceptable to you that the relatives of politicians follow them arround and secure lucrative deals where their only qualifications are their relationship to a powerful politician ?
Even if Hunter’s and Joe’s conduct is perfectly legal – which is far from established.
It still stinks to high heaven – and yet you are appopletic that it has been brought to the surface. Worse you are bemoaning Trump taking an interest in something that is ALREADY PUBLIC.
Joe Biden has been damaged (deservedly) by this because YOU brought it to everyone’s attention again.
While these is a very narrow legal issue of whether it was appropriate for Trump to mention Biden in his call to Zelensky – and that is trivially resolved – it is.
It was absolutely appropriate for Trump to make a huge public stink over Biden’s conduct – which he did not do until YOU made it an issue.
“Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chamber’s most senior Republican and a long-time defender of whistleblowers, rebuked President Donald Trump on Tuesday when he said that the individual behind a complaint at the center of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry “appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected.”…
…Grassley, who chairs the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus and has worked extensively on whistleblower protection laws during his time in Congress, also pushed back on the notion that the complaint should be discarded because it consists of secondhand information.
“When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren’t legal ones,” Grassley said. “It’s just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”
The whistleblower drew from more than half a dozen officials, according to the declassified version of the complaint.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/politics/grassley-whistleblower-statement/index.html
The few republicans and conservatives with the guts to go against the circle the wagons routine have my most sincere respect.
Fear of being primaried has got many Republican office holders who have any doubts silent.
From everything I can check Grassley is wrong.
I do not know about the Whistleblower protection act,
But Grassley is wrong with respect to policy and logic.
There is a reason the law only permitts the admission of hearsay under limited cicumstances – actually there are MANY reasons.
Among them is that it is very easy using hearsay to game the system.
Lets say I came forward and anonymously report to the police
“I was told by sources I am not going to identify that Robby is a kiddie diddler”
Should law enforcement investigate ?
If you say yes – you have just made it possible for people to use the police to f’ with anyone they please, you have guaranteed endless investigations of everyone.
It would be extrermely difficult to charge someone who made a false complaint based on hearsay – there is no proof they made anything up.
It would be impossible to prosecute whoever might have told them “robby is a kiddie didler” – because they did not make a false report to law enforcement.
Intelligent people do not take “hearsay” very seriously in ANY context – not in law enforcement, not in internal government matters, not inside of business.
Hearsay goes by a completely different name – which should make it clearer – “Gossip”
Hearsay is so useless and so damaging that it is condemned dozens of times in both the old and new testament.
Even the media requires that sources have first hand knowledge of what they report.
Regardless, the moral and legal requirement to report misconduct – is with those who have first hand knowledge of it.
To the extent this whislblower has even the tiniest bit of legitimacy it is not to report what he heard someone else tell him that they heard (i.e. double hearsay).
It is to report WHO has first hand knowledge.
If the IG or DOJ are required to do ANYTHING with this – it is to find out the actual sources and find out what they have to say.
And even that must be taken with large doses of skepticism – as they did not report it themselves – as they were obligated if there was something there.
But they did leak information they were obligated not to,
In this instance there are real people with real first hand knowledge.
If there was truly something meaningful – it was their obligation to come forward.
Instead of doing so – they essentially “leaked” – which is atleast a violation of the rules and their security clearances, and possibly a crime.
I would further note that there are several other serious problems with this complaint.
IG’s do not investigate crimes – Horowitz has refered the crimes he has encountered to DOJ.
IG’s do not investigate outside their domain. This was filed with the IC IG – the whitehouse is not in his domain.
IG’s do not investigate policy differences.
There is nothing in this complain that makes it a legitimate complain for the IC IG.
It was refered to DOJ – which from what I hear had something like 8 different offices each indepently looking at a number of aspects of the complaint to determine if there was an actual crime being alleged, Purportedly besides being aware of the Complaint Barr had no personal involvement. And 8 separate DOJ offices came to the conclusion there is no crime.
I am not saying they investigated and found no evidence of a crime – they examined each of several different allegations to determine if any of them was an actual allegation of a crime which would require an investigation and they found there was no crime alleged.
It is increasingly evident – this was a setup. We are not sure how far it goes – there are some sources claiming that Schiff and possibly even Pelosi participated in the creation of the complaint.
“It is increasingly evident – this was a setup. We are not sure how far it goes – there are some sources claiming that Schiff and possibly even Pelosi participated in the creation of the complaint.”
Ah, a nice fat conspiracy theory, and right on time.
I do not know what the truth is – neither do you.
There is real world evidence – from their own public remarks that Pelosi and Schiff were aware of the complaint – possibly before the IC IG.
The complaint openly admits to being the product of a “conspiracy” – i.e. information gleaned from multiple sources within government.
Regardless, you have been selling this “russia trump” conspiracy theory for years.
You have no credibility on conspiracies.
You have made inumable false allegations – false claims of facts, and false moral claims.
That comes with consequences – your credibility.
Years ago who would beleive that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennen, Clapper, Yates, Powers, Rice, Ohr, were all CONSPIRING with Fusion GPS, Perkins Coi, Steele, and Clinton to spy on and investigate – not one, but all major republican rivals.
This is not about “circling the wagons”.
Reliance on hearsay (or worse double hearsay) is poisonous to any process anywhere.
Even internal investigations inside of businesses are likely to have very little confidence in double hearsay.
Any claim of any kind is far more credible from first hand sources.
Any claim from second hand sources must be given less attention – or send hand stories become a means of destroying any institution.
Can you find anywhere in the Horowitz report ? The Mueller Report ?
Or any other substantive investigation where the investigative report contains hearsay ? or double hearsay ?
It is barely possible to start an investigation based on hearsay – it barely meets reasonable suspicion. But it will not get you a warrant, it will not get you records, or subpeonas, it will not allow you to compel anyone’s cooperation at all.
All of this is true – whether we are talking Trump – or Biden or ….
To cite a different example – Tapper confronted Rep Jordan with a hearsay claim there was no there there – “others had looked at it and found it lacking”
There are no identified others, and we do not know exactly what they said.
Conversely Shikin has testified under oath that he was forced out of office because he was investigating Hunter Biden.
Which is more credible – someone testifying under oath to things they observed directly ?
Or unnamed third parties making vague assertions about other unnamed third parties ?
Hearsay – and especially double hearsay should not be treated very seriously – anywhere and regardless of who it is about.
We do not ignore it completely – but we give it very little weight, and absent confirmation from a first hand source – it dies.
Finally, the entire whistleblower act is their to protect those with FIRST HAND knowledge of misconduct. It is not there to provide protection to those who spread rumours.
To address the actual law – the Merit System Protection board adjudicates Whistleblower complaints. 97% of these are found against the whistleblower. Of those appealed 98% are lost on appeal.
Grassley is actually upset about this and beleives that both the government and the courts are misunderstanding the whistleblower act.
But it is actually the role of the courts to determine what a law says.
So many whistleblower complaints are rejected – because the overwhelming majority of them are either political or efforts of employees who are in trouble otherwise to somehow protect themselves by filing a complaint.
Grassley is likely correct in his claim that way too many whistle blower complaints are dissmissed. But he is not correct about the law or the process. And if he does not like it – he should change the law.
Off all those complaints dissmissed – many had more merit as well as first hand knowledge than this one.
And just to be clear – I am not specifically endorsing retaliation against this person.
I am just asserting that his complaint does not meet the criteria to be treated as credible – or “serious and urgent”.
The proper next step SHOULD have been to ask for his sources, and if he refused to provide them to dismiss the case.
If he did provide sources – those sources are subject to discipline. There is limited distribution for communications with foreign leaders. In many instances those who receive them are given an oportunity to read them and then must return them.
They are not free to share the content with anyone who is not also authorized to receive them – regardless of security clearance. If they have done so – at a minimum their security level should be reduced.
Regardless – those people, had the obligation to step forward, if there was a problem, and were entitled to the protection of the law. Instead they violated the law.
Not someone reporting double hearsay.
If someone does not like cnn as a source, fine have this from FOX
“Former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake made a bold claim on Thursday when he said “at least 35” GOP senators would privately vote for President Trump’s impeachment.
Appearing at the 2019 Texas Tribune Festival, Flake, a frequent critic of the president, offered his own reaction and predicted that close to three dozen Republican senators would back impeachment.
“I heard someone say if there were a private vote there would be 30 Republican votes. That’s not true,” Flake said on Slate’s “What Next” podcast. “There would be at least 35.””
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeff-flake-35-gop-senators-impeach-trump
If you beleive that – then proceed with impeachment.
I dont. I do not even think Flake actually does.
But you can test that claim by moving forward.
Clinton actually lied under oath – twice and suborned perjury.
and not one democratic senator voted to impeach.
You can not even identify a crime that people will not laugh at here.
I have no idea at all how any of this will come out, the impeachment, the Democratic party primaries, the election. There are a million paths it could take. Anyone who thinks they know the outcome of any of this could probably find a way to bet on it. It would not be me.
Anybody who thinks trump could not get reelected because at present something like 35% say he deserves reelection and something over 50% say they will not vote for him, period, is fooling themselves. trump could get reelected. He could even win in a landslide (or lose in one).
Anyone who thinks the impeachment inquiry is a totally futile dead duck is also fooling themselves. A lot can happen that we cannot predict today. Anyone who wants to mock the impeachment inquiry, you risk being very surprised and disappointed. The same goes for anyone who is certain it will convict trump or damage him even.
Much drama lies ahead, unpredictable events will happen. Nothing is nearly so certain as some people seem to believe.
One of us is completely misperceiving reality.
Only time will tell which of us is right.
But the past does give us some evidence about the future,
and the past does not favor you.
Do I think impeachment is dangerous and stupid ?
Yes,
I think that even if you succeed in removing Trump democrats seriously risk getting obliterated in Nov.
I would also note that if D’s do not procede rapidly it could play out like this:
Trump is impeached in late 2020 Pence serves as president for about 5 minutes and then Trump is re-elected.
Do not presume that because Trump is impeached he is gone.
I think that scenario is highly unlikely .
Contra Former Sen. Flake – Democrats are not likely to vote to START impeachment.
In the unlikely event they do, they will not vote out articles of impeachment,
in the unlikier event they do, they are not going to get the approximately 20 republicans they need. I do not even think they can get all democratic senators.
This is a bad idea.
The consequences if it succeeds – not merely for democrats but for all future presidents is disasterous.
You are right – nothing is certain.
Trump could be caught in the oval with a 15yr old tomorow.
But what is LIKELY is this is already dead.
Democrats are NOT going to make all house democrats vote,
and they are not going to give Rep. Collins subpeona power.
That is my read of the crystal ball.
This was a last ditch effort – a hail mary to thwart the investigation of the investigation, and it has failed.
You see republicans playing defense – I see an awful lot on offense and very comfortable with their positions.
From the Whistleblower’s Complaint:
“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.”
So: he was a direct witness to some of the events. And so stated on the form amended to the complaint.
And as to Biden’s popularity poll numbers, according to this they haven’t suffered much since the recent GOP anti-Biden smear campaign:
“The latest polling from Politico/Morning Consult of the Democratic primary shows former vice president Joe Biden with a double-digit lead over Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, with 32 percent to her 21 percent. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders comes in third place just behind Warren with 19 percent. The results are similar to those the same survey found last week, when Biden had a twelve-point advantage over Warren.l
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-ahead-in-national-polls-but-warren-leads-among-college-students/
I think that Biden has been slipping in the polls for a few weeks…I think that the rollout of the whistleblower story may have, at least temporaritly, helped him with Democrats, who don’t care about his kid making millions, as long as he can beat Trump. But the more evidence that comes out, showing that Joe was well aware that his son was cashing in big-time on the family name, the more people are going to doubt that he can .
Plus, I would guess that if Biden starts to look too dirty, Obama will disavow him, not wanting to be connected with Ukrainian corruption.
(Hopefully, that last comment made some sense. Re-reading it, it confused me!)
Nothing I have read anywhere is saying Biden has benefited from this in any way.
His numbers are tanking, his donors are fleeing.
Outside of Jay I have not read anyone who thinks this has been a good week for Biden, and not many who think he will survive.
I have however seen speculation that democrats are looking to drive him out of the race.
But mostly the major media outlets – often the very ones who wrote the stories that prove that their current spin is just spin – they are still supporting him.
“So: he was a direct witness to some of the events. And so stated on the form amended to the complaint.”
If there is something from the amended complaint that actually asserts that – please provided it. But your remarks do not.
In fact they make the problem clear.
In your own telling the WB says that he found the accounts of others credible and supported by news reporting.
Put simply he is providing something that reads like the opinion of a Judge, not the testimony of a witness.
We are not the judges of our own allegations
Nor is our own judgement of our allegations evidence of any kind much less direct evidence.
More information has come out regarding the “hearsay” issue:
First the form has not been changed – it still requires you to check whether your knowledge is first hand or not.
What has changes in the IC IG’s interpretation of the whistleblower law.
The past interpretation of the law – required first hand knowledge.
All the documentation regarding complaints says they will not be accepted if they are not first hand.
The Current IC IG claims that requirement is not in the law.
That is a very shaky claim.
The prohibition against hearsay is part of general civil and criminal law.
This is another of this idiotic instances of trying to construct a legal interpretation that is so unusual that it takes a while to grasp how deeply flawed it its.
The prohibition against hearsay is not just a procedural rule of courts – it is NOT part of any statutory law, but it is also immutable. I do not think there are any procedings in which hearsay is admissible (outside narrow exceptions that this complaint does not meet).
Hearsay is also a legal standard of credibility – and the law requires the claim to be credible,
Should this question ever hit the courts – it is highly unlikely they are ever rule that hearsay is credible.
As far as I can tell, this entire farce is a set-up by Benjamin Wittes and the Lawfare group, who have circumvented White House and State Department lawyers, specifically to recruit anti-Trump civil servants and Intelligence community saboteurs, who are trying to bring down a President whom they hate.
This is not a true whistleblower situation, it is the Lawfare Group using the Whistleblower statute for purposes that it was never meant for (ungrammatical, I know).
Confronting your accuser means knowing who your accuser ~ or in this case, accuserS ~ are, and the sneaky Dems are trying to turn this into a Star Chamber Inquiry, in which Trump has no idea who is accusers are or what they are saying, but he must answer to them, and subvert the privilege of the Chief Executive to the demands of a petty California congressman, who thinks he’s a giant-slayer.
“As far as I can tell, this entire farce is a set-up by Benjamin Wittes and the Lawfare group”
HA HA HA ha ha ha 🤣😂😅
I do not care it the whistleblower had help constructing his complaint.
The complaint never should have been taken seriously. It is by law not credible.
Those referenced – either by name or anonymously in the complaint with first hand knowledge had to come forward. They did not.
It is their credibility that matters – we went through a version of this nonsense with Steele.
DOJ/FBI represented the Steele Dossier as credible to the FISA court – despite the fact that it was double and tripple hearsay – because purportedly Steele was credible
But that is not the standard of the law. Hearsay is not adminissible – the credibility of the person spreading it changes nothing.
Evidence comes from first hand accounts, and it is the credibility of those people – the direct observers that matters.
It is not the help the Whistleblower had that matters
it is the lack of anything of substance
no first hand accounts,
no actual crime.
Nothing inside the scope of the IC IG.
Only policy differences.
So, here ya go, Jay… looks like it was Schiff and Pelosi who orchestrated the set up, not Wittes. 😇
And, speaking of California Congressmen (in this case Congresswoman)
“I’m calling on the GOP to stop Trump’s filthy talk of whistleblowers being spies & using mob language implying they should be killed. Impeachment is not good enough for Trump. He needs to be imprisoned & placed in solitary confinement. But for now, impeachment is the imperative.” ~MAXINE WATERS
Up until now, Mad Maxine has been considered a lunatic joke foisted on the American people, with her loud, hoarse “IMPEACH 45!!!!” calls, which we have heard for nearly 3 years, or the entirety of the Trump presidency.
She’s not a joke. She’s a dangerous Marxist.
“HA HA HA ha ha ha 🤣😂😅”
Wait and see, Jay. If you’re right, and this is all on the level, I’ll admit that I was wrong.
“(Pompeo) says there has been no official notice of a deposition and the department has not been given enough time to prepare the officials — some of whom have sought personal attorneys, he says, while others need more time to do so. Even after they do so, the officials and their attorneys need to meet State Department lawyers because the department has “legitimate interests in safeguarding potentially privileged and classified information,” according to Pompeo.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pompeo-accuses-house-democrats-of-trying-to-intimidate-bully-state-dept-officials/ar-AAI7oBJ
I do not know that Wittes is the “outside group” or even if there is one.
It is self evident from the complaint that there is an “inside group” to this.
There is also growing evidence that Pelosi and Schiff were involved before the complaint was filed.
Bits of this are starting to look like the Kavnaugh mess.
But in the end there are two Key things here.
There is no fundimental discrepancy in the actual ACTS between the transcript and the complaint.
And NEITHER alleges an actual crime – which would be a DOJ responsibility, nor anything that is not a crime but inside the domain of the IC IG.
In fact the allegation is a difference in policy. That is all.
And a 2nd hand one at that.
It should have been dismissed.
The IC IG published a paper explaining why they acted as they did – and their explanation is self contradictory.
They claim the prohibition against hearsay is not in the Whistleblower law.
I beleive that is correct – it is in the foundations of our entire legal system.
Hearsay – with few exceptions is LEGALLY not credible – PERIOD, and the law does require CREDIBLE allegations. In a law that is a term of art and it does not mean does this allegation sound credible as judged by my guts. It is is this allegation credible by the legal standards that we use to find credibility.
Before a jury is given a case to deliberate a judge will give the jury a long list of legal criteria for weighing the credibility of evidence – but Hearsay is so heavily barred – that the jury does not even get to hear Hearsay. They do not get the chance to decide if it is credible or not.
Because by definition hearsay is not legally credible.
This is the mess we make with all this left nonsense of interpretting the law based on the way my guts twitch today.
NO! The law is required to be as clear as possible, and it is interpretted NARROWLY to avoid as much as possible having to refer to your gut.
When we do not like the law as it is – we change it.
If the left does not like that hearsay is inadmissible EVER – change the law.
What you – nor the IG get to do is pretend that the legal standards of credibility do not exist and that credible is just his personal gut reaction.
That is lawlessness and leads to the hell we have now.
Instead of this dying as it should early – we are going to have a holy war over it.
We are going to pretend that the law is whatever we wish it to be at the moment and that if we can proceed lawlessly without creating too much ire – that we are free to have our one of moment.
Someone posted that Trump had threatened the whistleblower with harm.
I can not find any such report.
What has come out is that the press falsely reported that he had asked for and been given government protection. that is just fake news – neither occured.
Where are the moderates Rick asks? The GOP targets them, impeaches them, investigates them to death, and now it seems that trump wanted the Ukrainian government to help him in the “destroy the moderate” game. Hillary was a moderate, the trump GOP held their “throw her in jail” themed convention. They target the moderate democrats for “the treatment” and then in horror they say that the dem party turned left. This may come back to bite them hard.
For at least 6 months now trump has been losing by 5, 7 sometimes 10 points to Bernie Sanders in head to head polls. Does this mean that Sanders would win? No, that is way premature. But people know who Bernie Sanders is by now, where he stands, what he believes, When they choose him (and Warren and Biden and sometimes every single potential democrat) over trump, even if it is way early, that is carrying a real message. trump is consistently losing in a head to head to a guy who recently said that billionaires should not exist. Anyone who thinks this has no meaning whatsoever is fooling themself. The meaning is that the nature of the trump’s administration is toxic and by far not just to far lefties.
I was of course stunned when I woke up on Nov 9 and found trump president. Its not out of the question that on Nov 9 2020 we will wake up and find Sanders or Warren somehow elected and for much the same reason that got trump in, the amazing badness of their opponent. The trump GOP will have only itself to blame.
“The GOP targets them, impeaches them, investigates them to death”
This sounds an awful lot like democrats to me.
I know you are having a great deal of trouble grasping this, but on issue after Issue, Trump is well aligned with the majority of the country.
“and now it seems that trump wanted the Ukrainian government to help him in the “destroy the moderate” game. ”
So we are playing the Adam Schiff game and putting words into other peoples mouths as well as thoughts in their heads ?
The Obama administration had the Ukrainians investigate Manafort – while a campaign was going on. I can explain how that was different from this – such that Trump’s actions are justified and Obama’s are not – using FACTs and THE LAW.
How about you ? Can you explain how Obama’s political manipulation of foreign powers was legal ?
“Hillary was a moderate,”
Hillary was a crook.
“the trump GOP held their “throw her in jail” themed convention. ”
Had the Obama DOJ done its job none of this would have been an issue.
“They target the moderate democrats for “the treatment” and then in horror they say that the dem party turned left. This may come back to bite them hard.”
Democrats had no help from Republicans turning left.
Absolutely this is going to bite hard.
There is no outcome that does not “bite the left hard” in the long run.
“For at least 6 months now trump has been losing by 5, 7 sometimes 10 points to Bernie Sanders in head to head polls.”
Trump was losing to Clinton by more less than a month before election day.
“I was of course stunned when I woke up on Nov 9 and found trump president.”
Did you ever bother to ask yourself Why ? What you might have done wrong ?
Even if Trump had NOT won, the mere fact that 65M people voted for him – after you spent a year calling him a racist, mysoginyst homophobe, and hateful, hating hater and after you called all his supporters equally vile things should have caused you to think
Either the people of this country are more vile than they were 100 years ago when over 1000 blacks were being lynched a year – or something is very very wrong with YOUR world view.
I would suggest that you might want to consider the later.
Any black person killed by a police officer is a bad thing. But the odds of a black man being shot by a police officer are about the same as being stuck by lightning.
About the same odds being killed by a mass shooter.
On issue after issue – your so called “moderate democrats” – are acutally pretty EXTREME.
We do not have to talk about Warren and Sanders to get nonsense.
Under Obama you created a bitter conflict in the country to force disruptive changes in healthcare on the entire country.
There has been no net benefit to that. You still remain PROUD of PPACA – you will tell me it is “moderate” – it has cost us slightly under $2T/decade – and not a single consequential healthcare statistical trend has been altered one iota.
And then you make nonsensical claims like “millions will die” if we just get rid of a failed experiment on the entire country and put $2T back in our pockets.
We spent a decade listening to garbage from you and your ilk – that 2% was the new norm, that is the best the economy can do.
Look arround – That was a LIE.
I do not think Trump is espeically good with respect to the economy. But he is doing 50% better than what you said was the best that could be done.
ALL OF US are worse off because YOU limited improvement in our standard of living.
And you want to tell me that outside the left fringe democrats are “moderate” ?
YOU went along with all the garbage that stiffled the economy.
YOU and lots of people who claim to be “moderate” democrats.
And honestly – I do not want your “moderate”.
If we are going to screw the country – let Bernie or Warren do it – Fast.
Lets get it over with quickly – let them do the stupid things they are selling and when they fail we can clear that nonsense out of our system – atleast for a while.
The poison of supposed “moderate” democrats is less toxic. But we get a new dose every day. It is like PPACA – it does not kill us, nor fail so badly that the impetus to get rid of it is compelling, but it slowly poisons us leaving us a little worse off than we were.
Republicans made a big deal of the cost of Robert Mueller’s witch hunt.
PPACA costs us 50 times what the entire Mueller fiasco costs EVERY DAY.
“Its not out of the question that on Nov 9 2020 we will wake up and find Sanders or Warren somehow elected and for much the same reason that got trump in, the amazing badness of their opponent. ”
I doubt that. But if it happens – so be it.
That is a self punishing act.
If Voters elect Warren or Sanders and if either actually tries to do what they are selling.
The carnage they create will ensure we do not make that mistake a 2nd time.
Though I do not think that will happen – because I do not think either – but particularly Warren will govern anywhere near how she talks.
But that should give you pause.
You keep telling me how evil Trump is
Sekelow’s argument that Trump was obligated to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden is a reach.
however both the constitution, and US treaties on law enforcement ALLOW him to do so.
And OBLIGATED the Ukraine to investigate.
One of the other more outlandish claims that Guiliani has recently made is that this entire mess – including the Whislteblower complaint is “obstruction of justice”.
Guiliani was threatening to privately sue house democrats – as well as the senators who wrote to the Ukraine threatening to withdrawl aide if they cooperated with the DOJ investigations into 2016.
I do not think there is a valid private cause of action for obstruction of justice.
But we have listened to ludicrously overbroad claims of obstruction from YOU for years.
Maybe you should be “hoist by your own petard” so to speak ?
Is it acceptable for US Senators to threaten a foreign country with loss of aide if they cooperate with a US criminal investigation ?
Many people are thinking of Nov 8 2020 as some sort of finish line after which one side can enjoy a devastating victory and then begin to reorder the country to its liking. Nov 9 2020 will simply be the beginning of a new phase of our time of troubles and whoever is elected will face a very hostile situation and huge problems. The 20s are going to be dismal. The challenges the country faces are huge, internationally and nationally, and we are only becoming more dysfunctional in our efforts to make the system work. Gone are the days of the leadership of the greatest generation, politically we are now a jerry springer country of fighting freaks and weirdos, conspiracy theorists are having a field day. The movie Idiocracy did not come close to the darkness of our reality.
Things will continue to be “dismal” so long as the left is prepared to use force to get its way.
So long as the left and people like you do not grasp that – it is not sufficient to have a majority – by whatever measure you think is appropriate today.
That to use force against others – whether you have the support of some majority or not, you MUST justify that use of force. And that is not easy.
You do not grasp that when you use force aka government against the will of others – even a majority, you anger them. Some more than others.
That is a part of why the use of force must be justified.
You can not do whatever you wish – even when you are the majority, or when you have temporarily managed to get power.
This is YOUR PRESIDENT…. on Twitter….
“The Do Nothing Democrats should be focused on building up our Country, not wasting everyone’s time and energy on BULLSHIT, which is what they have been doing ever since I got overwhelmingly elected in 2016, 223-306. Get a better candidate this time, you’ll need it!”
“This is YOUR PRESIDENT…. on Twitter…”
Yeah!!!!
Is there something in there that is wrong ?
Very presidential language.
And of course BULLSHIT to state he was “overwhelmingly elected.”
But you’ve made your bed, and you can suffer the consequences of laying in it henceforth.
Not presidential at all, Didn’t say it was.
I would prefer a president whose public speaking was more muted.
I would also prefer one that did not saddle us with a $2T healthcare plan fiasco.
You can’t always get what you want – but it you try sometimes, you get what you need.
Trump is not what I want – but he is what we need.
306:232 sounds overwhelming to me.
and it was very close to 316:222
Yes, we can all lie in our respective beds.
I have not made any false accusations against others.
That is probably the minimum standard for a moral person.
I am comfortable in my bed.
If you are – something is wrong with you.
The thing is, Jay, civility and decorum in the kind of communications we hear from all of our elected public servants ( and do you think there are any members of Congress that think of themselves as “public servants,” or do they think of themselves as Masters of the Universe?) has been in freefall for many years.
In the 90’s we got to talk about our President getting blow jobs in the Oval Office. That was nice, Then the President himself told us that he “did not have sex” with a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office, a statement that he had to admit was untrue ~ of course, depending on what we defined as “sex.” So, so presidential.
Then, in the 2000’s we found out that our President was a Chimp and a Nazi. That he was illegitimate and a war criminal. And, in true presidential fashion, Bush 43 never fought back, remained dignified until the end, when his approval ratings were in the low 30’s or below.
After 2008, we discovered that, if we criticized Barack Obama for anything, it was because we were racists, and he was perfect. He said and did many “unpresidential” things, but we had to be “shhhh, very, very quiet” about pointing them out. Because he and Old Joe were “scandal free,” or so they told us.
Trump plays by the rules that the Democrats and the media believe that only THEY can play by. There is no to be no tooting his own horn, no pointing out that the media are dishonest, and certainly no joking about distinguished and upstanding congressmen like Adam Schiff. No, no, no ~ none of that. (By the way, did Schiff ever tell us about that proof he had about Trump being a Russian stooge? Or was that just one of his “parodies?”) After all, Trump is a Republican, and needs to shut the hell up, like Bush 43. Or like Romney, who never uttered a peep when Harry Reid stood in the Senate and lied that Romney had not paid his taxes. Trump should be like them, and remain mute and dignified. You know, real presidential-like, while his political enemies destroy him.
Except that he won’t. Very unpresidential, If I do say so.
Bush is exactly what Democrats want in a republican – a punching bag.
I keep saying over and over Trump is the CONSEQUENCE of the behavior of the left and the media – not the cause.
If you want civility – and yes I would greatly prefer civility – then behave civilly yourself.
Not just public servants.
When your idea of argument – whether you are Trump, Schiff or Jay is 4yr old insults, no one is going to give a shit when you complain about the lack of civility of others.
Trump sprays talk of Treason like water. He is not close to alone, nor the originator of it.
We see perfectly right now why our founders defined Treason in the constitution.
We are faux proceeding on impeaching trump for the heinous act of “being president”.
To those of you on the left – if you are not demanding Joe Biden’s head for overtly threatening Ukraine – you have no credibility claiming Trump’s call is even troubling.
The call is cordial, and non threatening. Zelensky raises nearly ever topic.
You can agree with Trump’s remarks or not, but there is no crime or abuse of power.
While there is no threat or quid pro quo here, it would not matter if there was.
Ultimately the relationship between countries is about FORCE.
International law did not exist for most of human existance and compliance with it is entirely voluntary. We get what we want from other countries by threats and promises.
Outside the few countries that very closely share our values that is the only power we have.
Threats and promises – that is it. There is not a single conversation between any two world leaders that does not rest on threats and promises.
If you got all the transcripts of all the calls of all presidents – this is the norm.
Just look at the public speaches of Heads of states.
Look at the fuming contest between Trump and Kim Un
Trump threatens China all the time – even the Obama administration did so.
Obama threatened Russian and Syrian and then backed down.
There is almost always a clear quid pro quo in all communications between foreign leaders
Absolutely Trump’s request for Ukraininan investigations has a “political” component.
Discrediting the 2016 Witch Hunt – expecially with moderates will substantially improve his election prosepects.
Doing his job well will substantially improve his election prospects – EVERYTHING the president does has benefits or harms to the country and benefits or harms to himself politically.
There is nothing that any president can say or do that is not going to have a political impact.
There is nothing any politician can say or do that does nto have a political impact.
Any arguments that Trumps converstation with Zelensky is election interferance is ALSO an argument that every word from Pelosi’s and Schiff’s mouth is “election interferance”.
What distinguishes between acts that troubling or even criminal and those that are not – is not the political benefit. It is whether there is a legitimate foundation.
I have argued over and over regarding the Trump Russia investigation – there is not now, and never was “probable cause” – the standard required for a Warrant – like a FISA warrant.
Nor “reasonable suspicion” the standard required to start an investigation using only non-intrusive technigues.
The Biden Ukraine request – not merely meets the standard of probable cause, but there is a relevant non-criminal basis. Biden absolutely positively should have recused himself from all things involving the Ukrainian justice system the moment he suspected his son was being investigated, And should have created a wall between his sons efforts and his own the moment he knew his son was doing business in these countries.
At the barest minimum – they should not have traveled together.
Biden says he never talked with his son about business – that is both implausible, and as Hunter says they did – one of them is lying. Regardless, once his son started doing business in the countries Biden was visiting they needed a wall between them on those issues.
That might not be a criminal requirement – but it is an ethical requirement.
We heard from IG Horowitz on The Clinton email investigation – he found no crimes, but he found extensive misconduct.
It should be self evident to everyone that Biden engaged in misconduct – even if not proveable criminal conduct. And he did so as a respresentative of the people.
We hear for the anti-trumpers – constantly – that Trumps bad conduct is a basis for all kinds of things – investigation, impeachment, …..
Well the exact same thing is true of Biden.
There is just not a rule that only republicans can be investigated.
The line regarding investigations that have a political components can only fall one of three places:
They are always barred – which is a bad idea and would make the Trump Russia investigation a crime and impeachable offense no matter what.
They are never barred – also a bad idea, but then the impeachment effort against Trump is obstruction of justice.
They are allowed ONLY when there is a proper evidentiary foundation – reasonable suspicion to start an investigation and probable cause to take active measures – warrants, subpeona’s spying.
It is completely irrelevant whether foreign powers are involved. Otherwise – again – the trump Russia investigation would be inherently illegitimate.
Trump did nothing wrong..
From the Transcript:
“The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”
He wanted them to find a missing server, one supposed to contain Hillary’s missing emails.
And he wanted that now for what reason? To continue to attack a Democratic rival (who could still be a rival in 2020).
(Soon after)
“The President: …The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”
A + B = Impeachment.
He’s OPENLY attempting to get a foreign leader to help undermine his main opponent in the upcoming election, to benefit himself: ILLEGAL!
Under federal law, campaigns are barred from accepting or soliciting a “thing of value” from foreign nationals or governments in connection with an election.
Trump: Despicable.
He’s turned the Presidency into a vulgar WWW Wrestling event: insults, curses, and threats now the standard level of discourse. Did you hear his internationally televised insults about Biden and his son today?
Adam Schiff filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Nunes in 2017 because Nunes had direct communications with someone in the executive branch providing evidence of the corrupt conduct of the Obama administration.
It is now reported by NYT that was involved in the creation of the “whistleblower account”.
Aparently the conduct Schiff thinks is unethical is only unethical if someone else does it.
Pompeo just clarified the States position on Schiff’s subpeona’s of State department officials.
According to Pompeo, State staff were contacted directly by Schiff, told not to report the contact to the state department, told they would not have lawyers from the state department and that they were in personal jeophardy.
This is all wrong. The house is required to go through offices of each cabinet department to schedule testimony – this is not new. It is a process that is probably 100 years old.
The house has oversite of the executive – it is not an inquisition.
Schiff does not get to decide for the executive branch where information is restricted on a national security bases, or executive priviledge or any of a number of other basis.
While the executive does nto get carte blanche – there there is disagreement – we have a judicary for the purpose of settling disputes between the executive and congress.
Pompeo said that State will cooperate with Schiff – on requests made in the proper manner.
But it will not allow Schiff to terrorize employees.
Sanders has been hospitalized for a heart blockage and canceled campaign events until further notice.
Even if this is just a blipp it is likely to push sanders voters to Warren.
Warren is having a charmed month and is likely to emerge quickly as the solid front runner.
Aparently there are rumours that Horrowitz is going to find that all 4 Cater Page FISA warrants were improvidently granted.
If that is true – and it should be, that cuts the legs out from under the entire Trump Russia nonsense.
If the warrants were improper – the investigation was.
If the warrants were acheived by misrepresentation – those who swore they were correct should be charged.
The ACLU and Bennan Center have attacked FISA Warrants for years – not right wing loons or Trump defenders.
Cato and liibertarians have been attacking them from Day one.
Even the Republican Congressmen who wrote the legislation creating these warrants beleives he made a mistake.
The article goes on to cite numerous instances were mundane crimes having nothing to do with National Security were prosecuted using FISA warrants.
There have also been lots of stories of shadow links between intelligence agencies and law enforcement Where information gleaned through methods that can not constitutionally be used against americans found its way to law enforced who was then advised to concoct a pretext for an investigation or search so as not to expose the involvement of intelligence.
These are the people that the left has traditionally hated – one area that I share values with the left. Yet the Left has allowed Trump to turn its values on their head.
The Anit-War left is now owned by Neo-Cons – because Trump is a non-interventionist.
The evil Surveailance state is now good – because today they are targetting Trump.
Faux Whistleblowers that nearly everyone here on the left would be condemning are celebrated – because they are going after Trump
The left has no values or principles.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/02/what_is_the_fisa_spy_court_and_why_are_people_bashing_it_120449.html
This is but one of dozens of observation we’ve seen from people who have known Trump in the past. Can you Trump apologists point to many from his past who praise him?your children and grandchildren will disparage your memory, as did the children and grandchildren of German American who continued to praise Hitler in the 1930s.
Yes, anything you do not want to hear is a “crazy conspiracy theory”.
The FACTS are – you failed in this Russia Trump nonsense.
Maybe it is just a rumor – we will know soon, but proportedly Horowitz is reporting that not one of the FISA Warrants was proper.
That is what Trump and all us “crazy conspiracy theorists have been saying for years.
The law requires probable cause for a warrant.
It requires credible sources – and hearsay is not credible – that is the LAW.
Not the Whistleblower Law – just “the Law’ – anywhere in any law that credibility is required, hearsay is not allowed – not in FISA warrant applications, not in Whistleblower complaints, not in murder trials. not in wrongful death lawsuits. It is “the law”
The prohibition against hearsay is over 500 years old.
So we have 4 FISA warrants that a whole host of the top law enforcement people in the US swore were credible – that were entirely based on hearsay from a person the FBI knew had an axe to grind, who was paid for by the oposition political campaign.
And you are lecturing the rest of us about political corruption or abiding by the law or conspiracy theories ?
And lets just dismiss any accusations against Biden – because the mounting pile of evidence that everything that Biden and the media have said about Biden’s extortion of the Ukraine is falling apart by the day. Joe and Hunter can not even get their stories straight.
The bare minimum – that nearly everyone accepts as fact – Hunter Biden had a job he was not qualified for in anyway except his ties to his father, for a Ukrainian company owned by a Russian so corrupt the US would not let him into the country – Joe Biden knew he had this job, Joe Biden was personally involved in the US side of investigations into corruption in the Ukraine – which more and more look like US efforts to FOSTER corruption in the Ukraine.
The left keeps claiming over and over that no Burisma corruption was found.
False – but SO WHAT ?
Burisima was STILL owned by a RUSSIAN with a long and deep reputation for Corruption.
If you were VP Biden and you knew that – and Biden most certainly should have known that,
Wouldn’t you be telling your son – Run as far from Burisima as you can get ?
Why is the Left trying to paint Burisma is somehow white as snow ?
Here you are ranting about Trump/Russia Trump/Russia and VP Biden is protecting a Russian Oligarch that until AFTER Hunter went to work for him, was considered so corrupt by the US Government that he was not allowed into our country.
If Trump winked at this guy – you would have impeached him twice over by now.
Yet Biden is practically in bed with him.
He son starts work for Burisma and nearly immediately – the RUSSIAN Oligarch is allowed to Travel to the US.
The Ukraine investigates his company – and VP Biden demands the Prosecutor is fired.
And after the investigation dies – because of course – the according the the US government incredibly corrupt Russain oligarch – is suddenly not corrupt anymore – after he hires Bidens son.
No Burisma never recevied a clean bill of health – and infact they settled two large cases for very hefty fines. But lets say they had received a Clean bill of health.
The story that you, the left, the media and the Biden’s are selling would still make ZERO sense.
The US government during the Obama administration – just got it entirely wrong about this RUSSIAN Oligarch for years, and to make up for it we had to fire the prosecutor investigating him, and then protect him for several more years.
That is the story you want people to beleive ?
And you think other people are selling deranged conspiracy theories ?
The case against Biden is Damning,. It is not “air-tight” – it is not proven beyond absolutely any possible doubt. It is entirely possible that the corrupt russian oligarch was just misjudged and not really corrupt. It is possible that Shokin really is a crook – even though to this day no one can find any of the trappings that usually come with corruption – I guess he was just bad at it. It is possible that all the documents Solomon and others have come up with – are forgeries. It is possible that the NYT reporter is wrong and he never asked for a comment from VP Biden on the story he was about to run. It is possible that Hunter is wrong and that even though VP Biden was in golf quartets with an all Burisma Team including his son that he had no knowledge of his sons involvement in Burisima
And I can go on and on. But the probability that ALL of the above is true is pretty much zero.
And if ANY of the above is true – Trump has the reasonable suspicion required to ask the Ukraine to investigate – which is the END of your entire farcical nonsense about the Zelensky call.
It there is an absolute bar against investigating political candidates – the entire Trump Russia fiasco was a crime –
But if it is legitimate to investigate ANYONE when there is reasonable suspicion – Trump’s call is legitimate and the FISA warrant is not.
Further Trump asked Zelensky to look into something credible – there is admisable evidence – including Biden’s statement and lots of documents – many sworn testimony.
While nothing provided the the FISA court meets the legal defintion of “credible” – and there is actually such a thing – and Grassley should know better and the IC IG should be fired if he does not. That is a LEGAL FUNDIMENTAL for his job.
“Can you Trump apologists point to many from his past who praise him?your children and grandchildren will disparage your memory, as did the children and grandchildren of German American who continued to praise Hitler in the 1930s.”
Absolutely lets taken anyone who praised Hitler or Mousolini or Fascism and throw them into the dustbin of history and discredit their children and grandchildren for generations.
“Mussolini isadmirable, and I am deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.”
FDR
From a New Deal National Recovery Administration (NRA) publications
“The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”
“Hitler had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
From John F Kennedy’s diary written AFTER the war.
Need I go on ?
Jay – it is the information age, the era of google. Every stupid thing that anyone of consequence has ever done or said is there for all to find.
The above is just a short list.
There is an incredibly long list of leftists, democrats even civil rights and womens rights advocates fawning over fascists through the 30’s
No doubt you can find a few republicans too.
But if you want to condemn Trump because of the Nazi daliances of his father – you are going to have to condemn half of the leading lights of the left too.
You argument is fallacious garbage – it is OBVIOUS why.
That you never get it when you jump head first into a pile of excrement is surprising and disturbing.
Jay your base claim has a serious problem – If Trump had the long term history suggested – he would have failed at every single thing he has done in life.
The world is not a perfect meritocracy – but people rarely succeed once, or for long by luck or without skill.
The house thought it was getting a bombshell today – instead The state department IG provided alot of dirt on Biden.
The left and the press keep pretending there is nothing there regarding Biden – who is now only +1.7 over Warren national.
The Bidens are actually entitled to the legal presumption of innocence – but they are not entitled to a presumption of abject stupidity.
And yes, Trump has to learn not to take stupid questions from the press.
But you are blind if you do not see desparation in the eyes of the press and the democrats.
There is some fear among some republicans that Horowitz will pull his punches on the Trump/Russia investigation. Maybe – but there is no possibility he is kinder than he was regarding the Clinton email investigation. I think he pulled his punches there – and that was still damning. Further he has already recomended prosecution of Comey that is a very bad sign. Rumour has it that he will find the FISA warants granted as a result of fraud.
Following Horowitz is the work of Durham and Hunter.
And it is highly unlikely that the Biden story does not just get worse.
Though frankly – the Shokin testimony is really really damning.
But I guess you beleive that anyone who does not say what you want – is lying under oath.
BTW though several polls Have Trump down significantly – the Hill and Rassmussen have him almost completely recovered.
Regardless democrats do not have very long to come up with actual substance or they are toast.
The whitehouse is ignoring demands for records – the state department is requiring the House to actually play by the rules.
Schiff’s involvement in this gets earlier and earlier.
Trump is likely to force the house to resolve their demands in the courts – that is going to take a long time, and without actually voting to start an impeachment inquiry – it is going to be hard to get the courts to take the house seriously.
Do you have a clue how angry voters – even democratic voters – even far left democratic voters are going to be when this goes down in flames ?
A prominent libertarian ran an impeachment poll on Twitter.
Only 16% of those under 39 supported impeachment.
It was even worse over 39.
Of those who supported impeachment – most thought there was nothing wrong with the phone call. The largest group supporting impeachment wanted to do so over Yemen.
Some election satire
https://twitter.com/i/status/1179216255481311232
More Of The Same Today:
President Trump, on the South Lawn, says Ukraine “should investigate the Bidens.” “I would say President Zelenskiy, if it was me, I would recommend they start an investigation into the Bidens.”
Quid Pro Quo Time Line:
“Trump at 10:37:24 a.m., talking about trade negotiations: “I have a lot of options on China, but if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power.”
Trump at 10:37:54 a.m., asked about Ukraine probe: “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens.”
You have the oddest definition of quid pro quo.
This is what an actual quid pro quo looks like.
By your standards – Trump can not threaten China about anything, because YOU might deem it has something to do with the Biden’s.
Prior to the press bringing it up – Trump has not talked to China about Biden.
The reason for the mention of Biden with the Ukraine – is that there is probable cause of a crime.
While I beleive there is a basis for Trump to “press china” to investigate Biden, I would note that Trump did NOT press Ukraine to investigate Biden.
Trump CLEARLY “PRESSED” Ukraine to seek more aide from the EU.
Just incase you are confused about what “pressuring a leader” actually looks like.
Though again you could just listen to Biden openly blackmailing a foreign leader.
If it was me – I would be investigating the Bidens.
BTW – though it is a small part of a larger investigation – the Biden’s are already being investigated by the DOJ.
“I’m going to tell you a secret,” Putin said, leaning forward.
“Yes, we will definitely intervene, don’t tell anybody” he continued to an applauding crowd.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/putin-mocks-nbc-reporter-well-definitely-interfere-2020-just-dont-tell-anybody
I have repeatedly said here that I favor ACTUAL open borders – but that you can not have open borders and a welfare state.
Sweden is proving that.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/swedes-are-fleeing
DOD today confirmed that:
They have ALWAYS been actively pressing the Ukraine to address corruption – in their case within the Ukraine defense industry. That is standard when dealing with an ally with internal corruption issues.
Throughout the Trump presidency they have been Pressing Ukraine and ALL US allies to do more for themselves or to get more assistance regionally. That is official US Policy and has been for some time.
That the DOD scheduled the Aide to Ukraine for delivery by the end of the fiscal years and that almost all of it was transfered by the end of the fiscal year, with a small amount a few days after.
Essentially that all the assorted claims about holds and delays and what not – had no effect on DOD delivery of aide.
The Press Secretary did not say this – but holds and delays are not at all unusual.
He confirmed that Sec Def was NOT on the Ukraine call and to his knowledge no one else in DOD was.
And that he is not aware of any unusual handling of Ukraine or Ukraine aid within DOD.
He was unwilling to comment on the specifics until congress was notified, but the aide provided was for offensive weapons – which the Obama administration refused to provide Ukraine.
So you all are beating up Trump for providing to Ukraine aide that Obama refused to – over Congresses insistance.
If Trump’s exchange with Zelensky is impeachable, then why given the letter below haven’t Durbin Leahy and Menendez been indicted ?
Using the same standard demcrats wish to use – why isn’t this an effort to interfere in the 2020 election ?
Click to access 5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Prosecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investigation.pdf
To be clear – I have no problem with this letter. I have no problem with Trump’s remarks to Zelensky.
I am not a hypocrit.
Anyone who can justify this letter while seeing to impeach Trump is clearly a hypocrit.
Anyone have my same questions about this impeachment “INQUIRY” and the reporting from congress and media coverage depending on ojtcome.
I think we all know what the reports from congress will be and the media coverage if they find something. And more power to them if they do.
But if there is nothing there, do we end up with third page, section B, 1 column article about not finding anything like we did with the Bengahzi investigation? I saw little, heard little, read little on that. Not even sure what they thought they would find and what they did find.
This is not an inquiry – it is a faux inquiry.
Pelosi does not wish to risk forcing freshmen democrats in swing districts to vote.
They might not vote as she wants, and if they do, they might not come back in 2020.
But absent a vote where the majority of the house authorizes an impeachment inquiry – the house does not have the power to conduct an impeachment inquiry – and it is likely that the courts will act accordingly.
While this limits what the house can subpeona, it also limits the powers of republicans – who would also be able to subpeona evidence, and it limits their obligation to conform to due process requirements.
Expect lots of hissy fits over subpeona’s
Or actually don’t.
It is likely that if Trump forces the house to court to enforce their subpeona’s that sufficient time will pass for this to die.
American President’s of good character don’t do shit like this:
NYT: “WASHINGTON — Two of President Trump’s top envoys to Ukraine drafted a statement for the country’s new president in August that would have committed Ukraine to pursuing investigations sought by Mr. Trump into his political rivals, three people briefed on the effort said.
The drafting of the statement marks new evidence of how Mr. Trump’s fixation with Ukraine began driving senior diplomats to bend American foreign policy to the president’s political agenda in the weeks after the July 25 call between the two leaders.
The statement was drafted by Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt D. Volker, then the State Department’s envoy to Ukraine, according to the three people who have been briefed on it.”
While you have details of the story wrong.
You are wrong in your conclusions regardless.
People of good character do investigate the misdeeds of others.
You seem unable to grasp that investigating the misconduct of the Obama Administration, and DOJ/FBI (or even Clinton) in the 2016 election is NOT election interference
It is law enforcement.
Or are you arguing that the entire Comey Mueller investigation of Trump was a politically motivated hatchet job with the intention of influence the outcome of past or future elections.
Regardless, there are numerous active investigations of the Comey/Mueller investigation, as well as of misconduct involving the obama administration and the Ukraine (and other countries) in the 2016 election.
Are you honestly trying to say that is illegitimate – that you are free to investigate baseless accusations against Trump, but not credible ones against others ?
“In a *Fox News* column, Judge Andrew Napolitano says Trump has committed impeachable offenses and that his rhetoric of violence is “palpably dangerous.” “
And those who continue to support him are dangerously addled and should be restrained in straight jackets in mental institutions.
So Jay what is YOUR thoughts on how this is going to end up?
Impeachment soon
Or a political party ploy like the GOP Bengahzi investigation that resulted in nothing hut smelly air?
Impeachment. But Republican (who will burn in Hell) don’t vote for removal.
Trump is re-elected. He declares himself President in perpetuity. Republicans say that’s Constitutional. Pricilla & Dave rationalize assent. You scratch your head and say you’re not sure if this is good or bad for America. But as long as a Dem wasn’t elected, you’ll make no judgement.
I’ll be dead (I’m not living in another Trump governance.) My ghost will torment you, Ron, for your whishy-washy proclivities. History will place bouquets on my final resting place. Graffiti will mark the graves and memories of Trump Synchophants.
Jay , “My ghost will torment you, Ron, for your whishy-washy proclivities.”
Sorry Jay that I ask you for a coherent response.
Small minds result in insults instead of logical arguements! You can add this one to your many directed at me as well as Dave and Priscilla.
Ron,
I have to apologize to you for my response to Jay on this post.
I took Jay seriously.
Until the ghost nonsense I could not tell the difference between his normal bat shit and what I sure hope was humor or sarcasm.
Dave, I’m lost, but with Word Press and the unmanageable number of comments, that is easy.
I was responding to Jay and his remark about me. If you thought i was responding to you sorry.
You did nothing.
I responded to a Jay post that I am hoping was sarcasm as if it was serious,
and in doing so wasted your time.
It is very difficult to identify sarcasm on the internet.
It is especially difficult with Jay where so much of what he posts is outrageous slurs.
…Dave, I’m lost, but with Word Press and the unmanageable number of comments, that is easy.
I was responding to Jay and his remark about me. If you thought i was responding to you sorry.
And you accuse others of lunatic conspiracy theories ?
The only way you can even come up with this nonsense is to completely not understand – nearly all republicans, nearly all conservatives, nearly all libertarians.
There is no president in perpetuity in the constitution,
The constitution HAS ALWAYS required a presidential election every 4 years.
Since passing the 22nd amendment presidents have been limited to 2 terms.
If I do not like that – I can amend the constitution.
But neither I nor nearly all the republicans, conservatives, or libertarians would “interpret” the constitution different from what it says.
Ron,
Benghazi was not a “political ploy”.
The mess that occured in Benghazi needed to be investigated.
It took 4 investigations to get to the truth because there was so much lying.
If A US consulate is overrun by Terrorists and a US ambassador is murdered by Terrorists,
I expect a THOROUGH congressional investigation – regardless of what part is in power.
If the Sec. State, and several other ranking executive officers repeatedly lie to the public about that even – expect an investigation.
OK, so lets go through a few questions.
1. Who is in prison today due to this attack or lies to congress?
2. who went to prison and is out of jail for the same reasons?
3. Who was fined for lying to congress?
4. who went on trial?
5. Who was charged?
6. Who lost their job?
7. After months of investigation and probably millions in cost, just what benefit did this investigation generate other than killing a few trees with all the paper used in the report(s)?
If nothing happened with 1-6, then 7 was based more on a political hatchet job and nothing else.
Wait, Jay, are you saying that you’ll kill yourself if Trump is re-elected?
Sheesh, not to much of a drama queen, are you?
The scenario that you describe: Trump is reelected, and (out of the blue?) declares himself a dictator, is bizarre, not because that isn’t possible, but because the only Marxist behavior among elected government officials is coming from the Democrat side: phony, trumped up accusations and charges, attempts to force the executive branch to submit itself to a Star Chamber inquiry, dictated by Eva Peron ~ oops, I mean Nancy Pelosi ~ with no rights or due process allowed to the minority party or to the President, no transparency provided to the public, and no rules or constitutional order governing the kangaroo court that they want to set up.
In case you aren’t familiar with the term, a kangaroo court is one that :
“ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate authority which intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations.”
The swamp is fighting for power, that’s what you’re seeing, Jay. Or, at least it would be what you would see, if you weren’t blinded by hate.
By the way, the Dems apparently have an IRS “whistleblower” teed up against Mike Pence, along with Trump. And who would be president if they succeeded in removing both? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/irs-whistleblower-trump-pence-tax-audit-interference.html
Queen Nancy, of course.
First, your credibility sucks – so I can not trust what you say that others have said.
Regardless, Napalitano has already made serious legal errors on this issue.
The house can “legally” impeach for spitting into the wind.
High Crimes and misdemeanors only constitutes a meaningful limit IF
It is defined AND there is a mechanism for enforcing it as a limit.
Neither are true.
It is a huge mistake for the house to impeach without a compelling issue.
You can pretend to beleive this is compelling – lets say it is. Then Republicans should have impeached Biden in 2016. And will be free to impeach the next Democratic president for similar.
I have noted REPEATEDLY here that ALL GOVERNMENT IS FORCE.
Whether it is Trump asking, or Zelensky asking, or even a couple of senators asking,
Whatever they ask for compliance with a resisting party is accomplished ONLY through force or threat of force.
There was no implied quid pro quo in the Transcript.
But all the claims of democrats that Zelensky might have felt threatened – though he denies that, are still true.
Every request from a foreign power has an implied threat to use force.
It does not matter what is being asked for.
When a police officer knocks on your door, no matter how polite they are or how little they might want – there is a threat of the use of force.
Because government is FORCE.
Insulting everyone who disagrees with you is a sure fire method to lose any chance to reach them.
When you insult people – they do not listen to your arguments.
You have lost any oportunity to persuade them.
BTW while Rassmussed has Trump back down to 47% – a loss of one,
He is still 4pts above Obama at this time in his presidency.
So, do I have this right? Trump lovers Dhlii & Pricilla are ok if dem candidates proselytize foreign governments for more dirt on trump.
If Biden promises Russia no interference duringhis first year in office for Trump’s Pee Pee tapes, you’re ok with that. Right?
No you do not have what I have said correct. Do not misrepresent what I have said.
What you have written resembles but it is not the same as what I have said.
Do not try to put your spin into my mouth.
Further – as I have also said repeatedly – there is a gulf between what is illegal, and what is immoral, unethical or improper.
You keep talking about “dirt”.
My remarks have all been about criminal investigations where there is reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Anyone within government at any level that attempts to use the criminal investigative power of the US absent reasonable suspicion of a crime – is themselves criminally abusing power.
Whether that is the lowliest police office or the president of the united states.
As to your example – I have no idea what it even means.
Nor is it comparable.
In your example:
Biden is not president.
He is not asking for a criminal investigation,
And he is not promising anything he has the power to deliver.
As best as I can tell with respect to your framing – Biden’s actions would in my view be immoral but not illegal, not investigate, and not impeachable.
No one has argued that Trump as a public servant is not bound to a higher standard.
If Biden were to do what you say – Today, that would not be a crime.
BTW that is pretty much what HRC did and I have repeatedly said it was repugnant but not illegal.
Is there an army looking to prosecute HRC for paying for the Steele Dossier ?
There is no crime there.
But the absence of a crime – does not require me to vote for Trump, Biden, or Clinton.
What is not illegal – can not be investigated or prosecuted – and a public servant asking for (or initiating) an investigation where there is not reasonable suspicion of a crime is committing a crime.
But I can vote against it.
So the questions are:
Are you weilding the power of govenrment in your request ?
If not – there is no crime.
Given that you ARE weilding the power of government, is the action you are taking within the legitimate powers of government ?
If not – it is a crime.
Is there a personal benefit to you
If not it is not a crime.
If so – the act you are about to take may be legal – but you may not personally legally take it.
Biden’s threat to Ukraine was a legitimate action of a public servant, but NOT a legitimate act for VP Joe Biden.
BTW it is near certain we are going to be looking at the democratic version of the same Act that Trump has done shortly.
One of the areas Trump asked the Ukraine to look at was the the US involvement in the Ukrainian investigation of Manafort.
We already know that DNC members were involved in fascilitating investigations and leaks of Manafort materials.
That is dirty but NOT illegal – though it would be a crime for law enforcement to investigate where there was not reasonable suspicion.
But there is reasonable suspicion that public servants were involved in soliciting a ukrainian investigation into Manafort. Absent reasonable suspicion that manafort committed a crime – doing so was itself a crime.
Further – that standard is unaltered by politics.
Asking for an investigation where there is no reasonable suspicion is a crime – even if there is no politics involved.
If so
dhlii- just a thought.
You give new meaning to the term ‘artificial intelligence.’
Hope you appreciate the observation…
Truer Words Not Spoken!
You correctly berated Trump for bandying about accusations of Treason.
Now you are celebrating Rubin’s abuse of Traitor ?
I keep hearing Democrats saying that the allegations regarding Biden are “conspiracy theories” that have been “debunked”
Debunk means – to expose to ridicule.
What it DOES NOT mean is to investigate or disprove.
To the extent an investigation has been done – it is NOT by the “debunkers”.
Apartently statements under oath by the actual participants in events are bunk,
but the narrative of Biden and democrats – that is fact ?
It is interesting that NYT News clipings are facts – until they do not say what you want them too.
Volker testified to the house behind closed doors.
Democrats trumpeted claims that Volker had strenghtened their investigation – as best I can tell because there are tweets by state department employees engaged in speculation – that must be truth, because the speculation is what democrats want to beleive.
Do we really need more Strzok like tweets ?
We have gone from Hearsay as evidence – to mind reading as evidence.
Republicans at the same hearing called for the quick release of the transcript as the means of ending this.
Meanwhile the Whitehouse has sent notice to Pelosi that absent a vote in the house authorizing an impeachment inquiry they are ignoring any requests as without proper authority.
And Adam Schiff and Pelosi have both been exposed by NYT as having lied about the whistleblower complaint. They were aware of it – and involved in its crafting prior to its submission.
Nunes pointed out that Schiff’s involvment was not improper – but lying about it and hiding his involvement was, and it further undermines the complaint.
Ah, this adds some context to the whole Ukraine story:
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s son, Paul Pelosi Jr.,visited Ukraine in 2017 to meet with government officials in connection to a business initiative. Now, unearthed records reveal that Paul Pelosi Jr. was an executive of a gas industry company that did business in Ukraine – and his mother Nancy Pelosi was featured in one of the company’s promotional videos.”
https://nationalfile.com/breaking-nancy-pelosis-son-was-exec-at-gas-company-that-did-business-in-ukraine/
From the same article:
“Paul Pelosi Jr. co-founded the company Natural Blue Resources, which the SEC charged with securities fraud in 2014.”
Biden’s son, Pelosi’s son….those Democrats really shook down Ukraine to enrich their own, huh? No wonder they don’t want any investigations….
This is a major area where Trump has an incredible advantage over the entire rest of politics.
Jay and others here have continually argued that Trump is using his office to enrich himself and his family.
But they face several problems – the Trump family was incredibly wealthy before taking office.
They are doing nothing differently today. And Trump has lost 1.5B as president.
They are all sufficiently wealthy that all the assorted petty allegations are obvious nonsense.
Why would any of the trumps involve themselves and anything so mundane as a 50K/month directorship – it is just not on their radar.
But pretty much ALL of washington operates this way.
They may be absolutely nothing illegal about anything Hunter Biden did – or Pelosi.
But despite frothing at the mouth – The Trump’s have not done anything like this – ever.
They got their wealth by making things.
It is near certain that somewhere along the way they too had to offer swamp creatures like the bidens and pelosi’s “tokens of appreciation” – that may or may not have been legal.,
But it is ALWAYS those selling power that have betrayed the public trust, that have committed the most heinous crime. Not those renting it.
Trump does need to gain control of his temper.
Nearly always the person who comes off the angriest loses. Regardless of whether their anger is justified or not.
And that is the real risk to Trump in this mess – that the incredible pressure the left and the media have put him under will result in his making a very poor choice.
It is not “fair” – but he only gets one serious mistake,
He has done lots and lots of things that – are acceptable conduct in a self righteously angry innocent person. but that same conduct will damn him, if he crosses sufficiently into a grey area that he loses the popular presumption of innocence.
That is what happened to Nixon when the tape asking other to solicit money to buy the silence of the watergate burglars surface.
The tide can swing very very very fast.
At the same time, all Trump has to do to prevail is not make such a mistake. Not crack under pressure.
He survived the incredible pressure of Mueller.
He has already survived the worst of this “faux impeachment”.
The left should ponder
“Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger”
If they fail at this – Trump will come up not weakened but stronger. And they will come out weaker.
Everyone should admit this conflict between the left and Trump has become highly polarized and the stakes keep getting ratcheted up.
The left has lost every had those far. Trump is a far better poker player than they are.
But gamblers everywhere know that everything can flip on a single hand.
And the left’s efforts to “get Trump” have ensnared the entire country in the potential consequences of this ever higher stakes poker game.
I think we have long past the point where the left can win.
they have damaged themselves beyond repair in the eyes of the majority of people.
And they are so deep in a bubble they do not grasp that.
I’m shocked to hear that!
I say SHOCKED!
Oh, by the way,
Since Trump’s inauguration, the Trump Organization, controlled by his family members has done business with more than 30 countries, and accordingly, as they have stated, to generate billion$ in revenue.
Plus this: “Forbes reported that Eric and Don Jr. have sold more than $100 million of the family’s real estate since the January 2017 inauguration — including a $3.2 million deal in the Dominican Republic last year that is “the clearest violation of their father’s pledge to do no new foreign deals while in office.” Foreign money has also poured into the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House, which the president’s most recent financial disclosure indicated made him $41 million last year alone.”
In addition there’s a $1.7 billion Trump Organization project in Indonesia that received a $500 billion infusion from a state-owned Chinese construction company. And let’s not forget Ivanka Trump, still working in the White House, continues to do business in China; and her hubby ‘White House official’ Jared Kushner, received a massive cash infusion from Qatar.
Aren’t you a wee bit hypocritical not to mention those glaring Presidential sponsored nepotism’s as well? If I was Trump I could label you a SHITHEAD for that behavior; but at this point I’m restrained to do more than point out your sham outrage.. 👎👎👎
Hahaha. A little testy there, aren’t you, Jay?
Ho Ho Ho – you deftly avoided responding to any of my charges.
Keep ducking, Duckie.
Close your ears/eyes to this as well:
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Top U.S. diplomats encouraged Ukraine’s newly elected president to conduct an investigation linked to Joe Biden’s family in return for a high-profile visit with President Donald Trump. It soon escalated into what one diplomat feared was a “crazy” swap that risked vital U.S. military aid.
That’s according to a cache of text messages released late Thursday by House investigators following a 10-hour interview with one of the diplomats, Kurt Volker , who stepped down as special envoy to Ukraine amid the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
The pages lay out the raw contours of a potential quid-pro-quo exchange — Trump gets his political investigation of a top Democratic rival in return for granting a favor to Ukraine.”
PS: it worked: Trump got the Ukraine Govt to reopen the case today:
https://apnews.com/457daad4e64241889e84206a81697246
Republicans have called for the release of ALL the texts – as well as Volker’s testimony.
They claim that Both the text’s and Volker’s testimony completely end this nonsense.
You do not know the truth – and neither do I – because we do not have all the evidence.
I do know that Schiff and Swalwell have made myriads of claims in the past that proved false.
Thus far I am heard pressed to think of times that Jordan or Meadows or Nunes have not ultimately been proven correct in their characterization of closed door testimony.
As I keep telling you over and over – but you do not get – when you lie – particularly when you make false accusations, your credibility is shot.
Are you atleast prepared to join in asking that all the texts and testimony are released ?
I have only seen a few of these texts – but those I have seen tell me what specific diplomats think – or what they think Trump wants.
I have not seen any texts thus far that say what Trump TOLD them.
I am not much interested in the guesses of various diplomats as to what Trump thinks.
One of the other things that has been revealed recently by these texts and other records,
The Ukrainians we completely unaware that aide was being delayed.
It is really hard to blackmail someone with something they do not even know about.
Another thing that was revealed by the Texts – is that Trump was providing Ukraine with the military aide that they wanted – actual weapons that the Obama administration had refused to provide.
You can argue whether that was good policy or bad.
But you can not argue that Trump was kowtowing to Russia, or weakening Ukraine, or blackmailing Ukraine by giving them MORE of what they actually want.
Regardless, you are pretending that policy discussions and policy disputes between diplomats are themsselves represenative of the actual policy of the president.
When one of these guys say Trump told them to do X – that is evidence regarding Trump.
When they tell you what they THINK Trump thinks – that is not evidence.
Sounds like Ukraine is doing their job.
BTW the case against Joe Biden is a US case. Biden acted using the power and authority of the US government. The Ukraine can look into Biden’s son, But not Biden himself. He would have diplomatic immunity and further It is not blackmailing Ukraine that is the crime – though it is bad policy. It is using US power to benefit his son. That is not a Ukraine case.
Hunter was barely mentioned int he transcript.
Trump is more interested in the evidence of US government officials colluding with the Ukrainian government and the DNC to interfere in US elections.
He is not mostly looking for Ukraine to prosecute anything.
He is looking for evidence so that Barr can prosecute.
“The pages lay out the raw contours of a potential quid-pro-quo exchange ”
No they do not. They pretty much put to rest any quid pro quo claim.
The Ukrainians did not know there was any unsual delay in the aide (because there wasn’t – it was all provided on schedule).
And yet, Trump’s net worth – according to Forbes has declined by 1.5B.
Revenue is not profits – no matter how large it is.
Is any of those countries – a country that Trump was not doing business with before that Trump’s foreign policy directly impacts, that Trump has threatened ?
There is nothing that has changed about the Way Trump and his family have done business – except that DJT is NOT involved in the business.
Trump’s family are not following Trump arround the globe picking up jobs that they have no qualifications for as leavings from Trump.
You can argue that nepotism got them their PRIVATE oportunity.
Regardless, they have delivered on the advantages they have been given.
If you do not understand the massive difference between Biden Pelosi and the myriads of politicians families whose sole qualification for the benefits they get is the Publlic Trust given their parents.
So Trump is currying favor with the Chinese by engaging in a trade war with them ?
Can you explain to be exactly how that works ?
Generally the people you are F’ing over politically do not loan you money – unless you are so good an investment that being at war with you does not change their investment choices.
Separately – though what you report Might be true – it is not so often – why should I beleive you ?
You expect us to beleive that Trump is getting loans (that must be paid back) from Chinese state owned companies – without the evidence to support that.
Yet you refuse to believe that Biden has NOT been exhonerated – again without any actual evidence that occured.
What reporters SAY is not news or facts. What actual facts they provide is.
But you do not know what hearsay is or why it is not credible.
Jay,
I am REALLY libertarian.
I do not care if parents heavily favor their children. So long as they do so with what is THEIRS.
If you do not understand that if your wishes for your children trump your steward ship of public resources – do not become a public servant.
There is no requirement that you do so.
Absolutely Trump’s success – as well as that of his family rests on foundations they received from their parents.
It is unlikely Donald would have succeeded as greately as he has – without the leg up given him by his father. Nor would Trump Jr be running a multi-billion collar company but for his father.
But no one else was harmed by the advantages the Trump’s have gotten.
There is no job Trump got that someone else had the right to.
And reqardless of the leg up they received – once in the saddle, their success has been their own.
There is infinite difference between going into the family business of private real-estate – where you must ultimately succeed on your own.
And getting a free ride to the top – where you do not have to deliver anything – except your parents good will, and where that good will is the property of the public.
Priscilla, Jay called me wishy washy or something(?) in a previous message because I cant get my anus constricted like he does when something is reported about Trump. It all goes back to trust. Those that trust government ( people in control of others lives) believe those individuals do everything by the book and follow the laws previous government passed. People who have no trust in government expect those controlling others lives to take advantage of their positions and use their power to enrich their own lives or the lives of their familiy.
So yes, I am wishy washy about Trump, the same as I am about the Bidens and now the Pelosi’s as you shared. I expect this to happen. If Trump makes money selling property, renting rooms, if the Bidens and Pelosi’s made money from deals in Ukraine, big deal. Its happened all our history and it will continue into the future.
What I can get my knickers in a wad over is the drug industry, the protection they buy when giving millions to candidates they know will protect patent laws that result in obnoxious costs that many can not afford. Just today I read an article where Aimmune has petitioned the FDA to declare peanut powder they created by grinding up peanuts as a drug. This would then be patented as a treatment for kids where they recieve minute amounts of this dust, it causes an immunological reaction where kids with peanut allergies could be exposed to a couple peanuts and not have a reaction. The cost $4,200 per year. Get rid of patents and this becomes a drug no more expensive than aspirin. But paid off politicians will never change this law. Even Warren and Sanders dont say much about patented drug laws.
And I would also appreciate Jay just coming out and call Dave, you and I “deplorable” and stop with all the other insulting names, because that is what he thinks we are. I think all three of us would like some other conservatine/Libertarian leaning GOP in the whitehouse, but gecause we cant get bat shit crazy about removing Trump, we are Deplorable!
Dave & Pricilla are DEPLORABLES (a contaminated by Trump designation).
You’re just partially discombobulated in that respect.
On most other topics we are generally on the same frequency of disparagement for the yahoos on the Left and the yo-yos on the Right.
Trump is a CANCER.
He needs to be excised from government.
Biden’s the best choice for extirpating the cancerous blot.
My advice for Biden to assure a surgical Trump removal is to promise he’ll only be a one term President. That would be sufficient time to air the STINK out of the White House, and hopefully return Dems & Gops to normal IDIOCY.
BIDEN FOR ONE
TRUMP FOR NONE
I beleive it is “$1.5B for Biden”
Your post is a long list of insults.
Pretty much guaranteeing that you will never get the respect of the swelling numbers of people you insult.
If you want to persuade people who do not already agree with you – insulting them seems like a bad strategy.
Facts, Logic Reason sounds better.
From Volker’s prepared statement:
“In addition, I have known former Vice President Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. I know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-volkers-full-prepared-testimony-on-trump-ukraine-controversy
OK, Volker. (?) You seem to think we would know.
Why respond to me about this. I have only said Biden and Pelosi used influence to get their kids into positions where they could be in Ukraine. its called cronyism. Same as Trump staying out of the service due to (??) born spurs.And I believe all politicians are crooks. They would not be in D.C. if they were not.
And men of integrity dont plagiarize others works and claim them as their own works.
1987: During the 1988 Presidential election, the then-presidential candidate was accused of mimicking a speech that British Labour Party Neil Kinnock delivered just four months prior.
This was not a young man making a mistake. This was during his first attempt for president.
But Biden is toast. Sanders was my odds on to get nomination. Not now with heart condition. Warren is now the nominee unless she does something stupid.IMO
Warren is the nominee unless she openly does something criminal.
She does stupid things all the time.
BTW one of the things that has been reported – is Warren’s support among democrats – swings widely depending on the latest news.
But Warren support outside the democratic party is stable and very small.
That is one of many reasons Trump likely wants her to be the democratic candidate.
She will be the easiest for him to beat.
Wall Street hates her – even wall street democrats hate her.
A Wall Street Clinton money man has been quoted as saying if Warren is the democratic nominee, his money is either sidelined or going to Trump
I am not usually into “conspiracy theories”, but I began thinking about this one a few days ago. And Sanders medical issues kind of helps out.
I believe Trump is the master manipulator. I believe that nothing will come from this “inquiry”. Especially since Schiff has been caught in a blue faced lie that he never had previous contact with the leaker before it was released. ( WAPO Pinochios) And I believe Trump wants to eliminate Biden before he gets started.
How best than to plant a report that you know the rabbit opposition will jump all over that you know will lead no where, but will implicate Biden and let that do your work for you. And in addition, it just stirs your base even more to make sure they vote. Might turn off a few voters like me, but with Warren the nominee, those not voting for her far outweigh voters like me that Trump might lose.
Yes, i’m nuts. But in this days and age you have to be partially crazy to stay mentally capable of functioning. And just think how wonderful a movie this would make!
Trump is absolutely a master manipulator.
So long as his manipulations are to accomplish his campaign promises – that is a good thing not a bad one.
Credibility and integrity matter.
There is nothing illegal about what Schiff did.
There is nothing wrong with assisting a Whistleblower.
In this instance on this subject it appears to be partisan and political – just as some parts of Trump’s comments to Zelensky appear partisan and political.
But Just like Schiff – Trump’s actions – though partisan and political are also legitimate.
We can judge the partisan and political – in the next election.
Lying about the WB complaint comes at the expense of Schiff’s integrity and credibility.
One of the things that does not seem to get through to Robby or Jay or so many on the left is that credibility and integrity have NOTHING to do with what side of an issue you are on.
They have to do with whether you are truthful, keep your promises and do not make false allegations against others.
Trump has been constantly accused of lying about all kinds of things.
Nearly all those allegations either devolve to assertions that a difference on policy is a lie, or of facts that Trump has ultimately been more accurate about than his detractors.
Conversely Schiff has failed repeatedly to deliver on his promises, and is once again caught in a lie, and he had no need to lie.
That is especially bad.
We would all like to see less partisanship.
But partisanship is NOT inherently evil.
What is wrong with Schiff is not that he is partisan – it is that he is a liar.
We all know that he hates Trump. And he is allowed to. But he is lying about it, and it is crazy lying. Trump is accused of that all the time.
But Trump/Russia did prove to be a witch hunt.
“yes, I am nuts”.
When many of the claims of people like Alex Jones prove to be true – your not nuts.
What is REALLY REALLY disturbing at the moment – is that it is highly probable that a very large percentage of the “conspiracy theories” are going to prove true.
There was nothing wrong with what Schiff did – but he lied about it, and it was partisan, and he tried to do if in secret and hide it. And he was exposed.
When you expose a few REAL CONSPIRACIES – that make all the ones that have not yet been proven more credible.
Apparently we now have several memo’s confirming the allegation that Rosenstein offered to wear a wire on the newly elected president – and the memo’s read as if that was serious.
That sure as hell looks like a “conspiracy”, like a “soft coup” attempt.
When the #2 person at DOJ is holding meetings discussing spying on the president – they damn well better have a really good basis to begin with, AND prove their case in the end.
Because what they are doing is a real life CONSPIRACY, and conspiring against a sitting president requires not merely evidence – but to actually be right in the end.
Regardless, lets dispense with the notion that there was/is a conspiracy against Trump.
That has been established – beyond any doubt.
We do not know how orgainzed that conspiracy is, nor how far it extends. but its existance is proven.
What we do not know is whether that conspiracy had a legitimate foundation and whether its conduct was legal and proper. And in this instance the burden of proof is actually on the conspirators. When you try to take down legitimate authority – you MUST be absolutely correct.
Our founders knew that when they signed the declaration of independence they were committing Treason against England. The purpose of the declaration was to legally justify that Treason. This is also part of why they defined Treason in the constitution.
Every one of our founders was a “traitor” – they betrayed their country and its leader and took up arms against it. That is only permissible when there is extremely strong justification.
Trump/Russia fizzeled – the coup failed.
There is a difference between conduct that is illegal and conduct that is immoral.
There are also things that are highly plausible, but unlikely to ever be proven.
It is extremely unlikely that any investigation will ever find evidence that Pelosi, Biden, ….. used their influence in a clearly criminal way to benefit their families.
That does not mean that did not occur or that it is not a crime, only that it is incredibly hard to prove. Burisima is not likely to EVER say – we gave Hunter Biden a “no show” job, to Get Joe Biden’s favor.
Volker’s remarks are irrelevant.
Where there is a personal conflict – You May not excerise government power.
There is no exception for people who you have known for years and have never seen do anything bad.
Biden’s problems are with the FACTS.
It does not matter whether Hunter got his job through Biden’s influence.
There is a very disturbing pattern, but that is not the main thrust.
Biden’s problem was that he was leading US policy regarding Ukrainian corruption and a time when he son was being investigated by Ukraine for corruption – and VP Biden knew it.
Those are the only facts that matter.
Though it is really disturbing that immediately after Hunter was made a director of Burisima the Russian Oligarch that owned most of it, went from PNG in the US to near immediately able to get a VISA/
When Jay spews insults – he undermines himself and he drives people away from his position.
I would prefer that we actually address real arguments – facts, logic reason.
But if Jay wants to spray insults all the time – fine with me.
Sometimes he is even creative and that is interesting.
I am not “getting my panties in a bunch” because Jay wants to ruin his own credibility and integrity.
But I am going to point it out.
Volker was very diplomatic in his testimony, which is fitting for a diplomat.
It is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by partisanship and TDS, that Biden is corrupt, and that his crackhead son is a very, very troubled man, who, all of his life, has used his father’s high position in government to enrich himself. Painfully obvious. I don’t think that Joe Biden is a very smart man, and I’m sure that he was trying to do right by his kid, but, if I robbed a bank, and gave the money to my children to give them a better life, that would not make it right, or legal.
Biden is not going to be president. Neither is Sanders. I’m still betting on Hillary and/or Bloomberg getting into the race, because Warren will not be a strong candidate, and the Dems know it.
This whole impeachment thing is nothing more than another sham. Without a floor vote, there is no impeachment inquiry.
Is there a public Transcript of Volker’s testimoney ?
All I have is what talking heads have said he said.
Based on that:
He seriously undercut several legs of this impeachment nonsense.
He demonstrated that Diplomats speculate among themselves.
Speculation is not evidence or anything.
I keep trying to get through that your (or anyone else’s) guesses as to what someone else’s thoughts are ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
They are worse than “hearsay” – they are “guessthink”
I am disturbed about the building revelations regarding Biden.
His reputation is coming apart.
But with respect to Trump the only one thing that matters is his public remarks on the Ukraine.
ALONE they are PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime was committed – and therefore more than sufficient to ask for an investigation.
And with that – this impeachment nonsense should end.
If you are on the right you can be gleeful that Trump is going after his enemies.
If you are on the left you can scowl that somehow that is not proper.
But ultimately the impediment to asking for an investigation is NOT your political benefit,
it is whether reasonable suspicion is present.
To be clear the standard for ASKING for an investigation is lower.
The standard for conducting it is higher.
Trump can not personally direct an investigation into a political rival.
But he can ask that one take place.
We would not let the current District Attorney investigate his opponent in a campaign.
But we also would not decide that because the DA can not investigate the opponent, that misconduct by the opponent can not be investigated.
The premise that the left is using on this impeachment nonsense, is that “because Trump” nothing potentially involving or embarrasing a democrat can be investigated.
That is just nonsense.
Take note of the fact that those carrying pitchforks are after Barr and Durham too.
Jay and Robby might want to consider that this might not be as much about “getting Trump” as a desparate effort to stop the entire Trump Russia house of card from turning arround and biting Democrats on the ass.
There are actually LOTS of things that need to be investigated.
The unmasking is a really really big deal.
Giving private contractors access to the NSA surveilance information – and the abuses that resulted – is a big deal.
There are claims I have heard to once would have been just “conspiracy theories” that increasingly need investigated.
There is a claim that one of the private contractors engaged in improper NSA records searches was affiliated with the DNC, and that the hack of the DNC had nothing to do with the election but was an effort to access the NSA information.
This would explain why the server is being kept from the FBI.
While the VIPS analysis of the “hacked” DNC emails is pretty damning,
Even more troubling is VIPS;s observationt that:
If the DNC was hacked from Russia(or anywhere outside the US) – the NSA has absolute proof of that. that NSA has been tracking everything transatlantic for many decades.
There would have been no problem for either Comey or Mueller to get a FISA warrant to search the EXISTING NSA Data for the actual proof of the hacking.
That was not done. The only reason not to ask, is because you already know the answer.
And to be clear the claim regarding the NSA’s monitoring of everything Transatlantic is not “speculation”. Bill Binney is part of VIPS and a signator on the VIPS report and he was one of the key people developing the software and hardware than enabled NSA to do that monitoring.
“I am disturbed about the building revelations regarding Biden.”
What ‘revelations’ are you waxing idiotic about? Did you see something in tea leaves at another right-wing conspiracy-fantasy website?
You really are a pompous ass!
Ah, shucks- you caught me plagiarizing Trump today:
“Mitt Romney never knew how to win. He is a pompous “ass” who has been fighting me from the beginning”
Your President, in all his glory!
And I love your faulty logic on this assessment you made about the Trump-Ukraine scandal:
“But with respect to Trump the only one thing that matters is his public remarks on the Ukraine.
ALONE they are PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime was committed – and therefore more than sufficient to ask for an investigation.
And with that – this impeachment nonsense should end.”
What? If they are sufficient to initiate an IMPEACHMENT investigation, why should the impeachment investigation end? DUH!
And this is even a DUMBER observation:
“Trump can not personally direct an investigation into a political rival.
But he can ask that one take place.”
He can not ask a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to do that, you idiot. That’s a prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense.
Is Politico a right wing conspiracy web site ?
Washington Post ?
Huffington Post ?
New York Times ?
Absolutely you can BOLSTER the allegations made by NYT – with evidence from that conspiracy site “the Hill”, but the initial allegations were not made by “alex jones”,
I had forgotten the allegations of plagerism, that Priscilla just brought up.
Regardless, whether it is plagerism, sexual harrassment, or corruption, there is more than enough to ruin Biden’s blue collar good ole boy honest joe reputation.
And without that he is toast.
“Mitt Romney never knew how to win. He is a pompous “ass” who has been fighting me from the beginning”
What part of that is not true ?
Mostly I think Romey is a decent person. But he would have been a poor president.
Further even the decent person argument has limits.
He would not have kept his campaign promises as Trump has.
Keeping them would have required conflict, and Romney is adverse to conflict.
That is OK, but then do not make promises that you are not going to keep, and you know it.
Trump is quite often not a “nice” person – like Romney is.
But he keeps his promises – even if that requires conflict.
That is actual integrity.
Who has integrity – the nice guy who will not keep his promises ? Or the not so nice guy who does ?
I do not hate Romney. I would rather have dinner with him that Trump.
But if both promised to keep my kids safe – the one I would trust to do so is Trump.
Romney would not be willing to hurt anyone’s feelings to keep his promises.
Reading is not your forte.
Biden’s public remarks are probable cause for an investigation.
Therefore Trump was justified in asking, even pressing, even extorting Ukraine to get one.
Constitutionally there is no mechanism to enforce any meaning to “high crimes and misdemeanors” beyond that of voters in the next election.
Therefore congress CAN do as it pleases.
But they do not have a legitimate basis for doing so and SHOULD stop, before they harm themselves and the country further.
That is not a demand – if Democrats wish to self destruct – go for it.
Do not confuse my lack of opposition to impeachment for support.
Why I am saying that – I do not know. You constantly conflate arguments that Trump’s actions are legitimate or permissible for support.
You can not seem to grasp that there is a huge gulf between – there is no legitimate basis to haul Trump off in chains and rabid Trump supporter.
There are likely millions of people in this country who would be a better president.
But not one of those is running with either the democratic or republican parties.
“”He can not ask a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to do that, you idiot. ”
Bzzt, wrong – according to the constitution, by law, and by treaty he absolutely positively can.
“That’s a prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense.”
Absent an enforcement mechanism for “high crimes and misdemeanors”
They are whatever congress decides, therefore ANYTHING is a “prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense”
The final word on that goes to the voters.
Regardless, no matter how this turns out – you are stuck with the results.
If as you say “asking a foriegn government to do that” – is impeachable.
Then Obama and Biden should have been impeached – because they “did that”.
“Reading is not your forte“
Thinking obviously is not yours.
What Biden remarks are you referring to, dumb dumb?
Those from YEARS ago, before Shit Head was elected?
That you don’t ADMIT what Trump has done/is doing — is a wrongful open attempt to manipulate foreign entities to undermine his political rival, and that you don’t agree that is WRONG, that you in fact defend it — is the final straw:
“Máio Oi éxi theoí tis orgís
Na karfósete ti glóssa sas!”
(May The Six Gods Of Wrath
Nail Down Your Tongue!)
“What Biden remarks are you referring to, dumb dumb?
Those from YEARS ago, before Shit Head was elected?”
The world did not start in november of 2016.
Is there something I do not know about Biden – has he been “saved” ?
“Washed in the blood of the lamb” ?
“That you don’t ADMIT what Trump has done/is doing — is a wrongful open attempt to manipulate foreign entities to undermine his political rival, and that you don’t agree that is WRONG, that you in fact defend it — is the final straw:”
By my definition of “wrong” every president since Washington has engaged in improper manipulation of foreign entities.
If you have read either the whistleblower complaint or the transcript then you know that in Both – Biden is a tangent, not the focus. Trump was far more concerned with exposing the misconduct and interfereance of the Obama administration in the 2016 election.
The damage done to Biden was actually done by the Whistleblower – and you.
Biden was a minor point on a long list Trump wanted Ukraine to look into.
If they did everything Trump asked – Biden would be a foot note.
But you and democrats have drawn attention to Biden – and it is destroying him.
I found the Volker testimony – though we only have his prepared statement, interesting.
I do not find Volker expecially credible – according to him, Trump is wonderful, but mysterious “others” keep feeding him a “dark narative”, Biden is a saint, as is Guiliani, Biden never came up, he was not concerned about the hold on aide – that is normal, and the Ukraines never knew anyway. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries arround – they definitely screwed with the 2016 election, and Burisma is very corrupt – but it is best that we put that in a box and stay far away from it, Zelenskyy is a saint who will clean up the Ukraine.
The former ambassador could do no wrong. US Policy to Ukraine under Trump is perfect.
Put simply while he did trump no harm, and in alot of ways helped him – he is a diplomat and he is not credible – because he will not say anything bad about anyone.
Well he was not all that nice to Lutesenko – who according to him threatened to re-open the Burisma investigation, to curry favor with Trump in the hope that Trump would leverage Zelenskyy into keeping him as PG.
Need I remind you that Lutensenko is the guy who the media is relying on for the claims that Biden was exonerated – also false.
Regardless, you are making a mountain out of something like 8 ambiguous words in a 5 page document, Trump did not even say that Biden did anything wrong – only that it appeared there was something that should be looked at.
Which if you ever were capable of being honest with yourself is absolutely True.
If Indonesia was investigating Donald Trump Jr. for corruption and Trump told the indonesians he was cutting off aide if they did not fire the prosecutor – Trump would have been impeached and removed – with the vote of every republican in congress.
Yet you do not think that Biden’s conduct warrant’s investigating ?
The closest thing I have to a nit to pick about Trump’s remarks about Biden are that Joe Biden’s misconduct would be a US Crime, and should be investigated by DOJ, Ukraine has no jurisdiction over the actions of former VP Biden, and the truth about Hunter Biden – whatever it might be, has no bearing on the misconduct of VP Biden.
Regardless – but for democrats – most of this would have been handled quietly.
I have no doubt that Trump would have crowed it to the heavens had any of the investigations produced fruit. But if as you claim there was nothing there – then we would have heard nothing.
And if you wish to claim that we can not trust the Ukrainians because of Trump’s “threats” – then you have a bigger problem – Biden ACTUALLY Threatened them, by your logic that means all that “it was investigated and nothing was found” – out the window – because the Ukrainians were threatened by the VP of the United states – and who Claimed Obama backed him up 100%.
No matter what you are trapped. There is absolutely no possible standard of conduct that makes Trump’s actions improper – that does not make those of Obama and Biden and probably every past president worse.
Anyway – if you wish to impeach Trump for this – go ahead.
As the hysteria fades I do not think you are even close to a majority in the house, and I think almost half of Senate democrats will vote in favor of Trump.
But I do not think you will ever see a vote – Pelosi is unlikely to bring this to the floor of the house, and almost every senator regardless of party does not want this in the Senate.
In an actual impeachment inquiry in the house – the house republicans get subpeona power.
In a trial in the senate – Trump has broad rights to defend himself – Durbin, Menedez, The Bidens would have to testify, they are not letting that happen, and the only way to do that is to keep it from ever reaching the Senate.
There was talk that McConnell would just not proceed to trial, if the house impeached.
The press pushed him into asserting that was not true.
But I have no doubt that an army of democrats will be publicly defaming him for not doing so while privately begging him not to do so.
“He can not ask a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to do that, you idiot. That’s a prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense.”
Jay, you are wrong.
The President can “ask” any country to look into corruption involving US citizens. In fact we have a specfic agreement with Ukraine, which allows both sides to ask for cooperation (sort of like an extradition treaty, if you know what they are).
Also, the UN has a Convention, to which we are signed on, that says :
” countries that have ratified the Convention – are expected to cooperate in criminal matters and consider assisting each other in investigations of and proceedings in civil and administrative matters relating to corruption. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Corruption
I know that you get most of your info from Twitter, but it’s not a reliable source…
One of the massive problems democrats have with this entire fiasco – is that every claim they make not only runs affoul of the law, and logic, but also of their own actions and arguments.
I would really prefer that the US stayed the F out of the affairs of foreign countries – our track record absolutely sucks.
But that is NOT the state of things.
Biden threatened to withold $1B in aide if the Ukraine did not fire the PG.
By Jays argument that is far more offensive than anything Trump has ever done.
I think there are myriads of reasons Biden was incorrect in doing that.
It increasingly appears that Shokin was NOT corrupt and that the US had him removed because he was interfering with our ability to corrupt the Ukraine in our own way.
That is an opinion – though evidence is building to support it.
The Hunter Biden issue is mostly a tangent.
But it is a tangent with some significance.
Whether the US actions in Ukraine were legitimate or not,
Hunter Biden’s father could not demand the Prosecutor he knew was investigating his son’s firing.
That is incorrect, immoral, and almost certainly illegal.
Conversely the FACT that what Trump asked Zelensky has political benefits is a very good reason we should look very carefully at it.
But if otherwise justified – the fact of political benefit or motive is irrelevant.
Nor can Trump remedy the problem by having someone else make the request – while Biden could.
The argument Jay makes precludes prosecuting a crime when it is committed by a political opponent (or more accurately, because Jay has no problem investigating and Prosecuting Trump – it protects democrats from investigation),
That is insane.
The constitution does nto even make the innocent immune from prosecution.
It just guarantees them due process, including the requirement that any investigation requires reasonable suspicion to start.
Twitter is heaven for those who think snarky insults are arguments.
Twitter is the home for small minds where retweets and insults are used to support ones position instead of facts and information that takes more than 140 characters. INCLUDING OUR PRESIDENT..
I beleive it is 280 characters now.
Regardless, I agree – including the Trump reference.
I do not get on Twitter much anymore.
But I do follow Trump – as well as alot of prominent people on the left.
Trump’s tweets are unpleasant. But many many many people who I used to respect, have tweeted repulsive things.
Twitter is where you go is you want to proverbially hear the Pope tweet scatological insults.
The most intelligent occurrences on twitter are the spaces between the words. All the rest is moronic baffle gab.
So, you’re suggesting any President can do that with any citizen running for office at his/her discretion?
That means Obama could have asked foreign governments to investigate Trump and any of the other Republican candidates as soon as they announced they were running, correct?
There were more than enough multiple charges floating around about Trump’s dealings with shady Russians to allow Obama by your criteria to use the POWER of his office to have numerous foreign allies dig up additional dirt on Trump (or the others), RIGHT!! And by your criteria if Obama had commissioned the Steele Dossier and released it during the campaign you would have been OK with that. RIGHT!!!
If as you idiotically suggest Trump has the right to do that with Biden why did so many government members monitoring the conversation and the assembled transcript of it come to the conclusion it was UNCONSCIONABLE!
“So, you’re suggesting any President can do that with any citizen running for office at his/her discretion?”
Can I buy a noun ?
Regardless – again – problems with reading comprehension ?
Any president can threaten foreign countries in order to implement their policies.
To be clear – that does not make any policy of any president legitimate, or moral,
but it does make it constitutional.
But this impeachment is not about polices – even though nearly all of the whistleblower complaint is.
The impeachment is over whether any president can ask a foreign govenrment to conduct and investigation.
The answer AGAIN is yes – by the constitutional powers of the president, by treaty, and aparently by UN convention – yes,
That is inside of the powers of the president.
One step further can the president ask for an investigation of a US citizen ?
Again the answer is YES, that is within the powers of the president.
You are engaged in a binary fallacy – and it is depriving you of the ability to think.
If investigations of opposing political figures are absolutely barred – then by YOUR logic there is no question at all that Obama’s investigation of Trump was a heinous crime.
There ARE however limits to these powers. The president can not violate the constitutional rights of any american – whether they are an opposing politician or not.
Put differently – the president can not call ANY investigation – where there is not “reasonable suspicion” necescary to justify an investigation.
BTW that limit is not a limit on the president. It is a limit on the entire government – federal state, local. No police officer, no DA, no US attorney, no president can open an investigation where reasonable suspicion does not exist.
Next – “reasonable suspicion” is a legal term of art. While it does mean approximatly what most of us think it means, It does NOT mean what any one of us chooses to think it means.
Put differently – it has a meaning defined by law, and that meaning trumps your personal idea of what it means. It is actually very important that it BOTH means what most of us think it means, AND means something legally precise – broad public acceptance and narrow precise meaning are BOTH requirements for legitimate law.
And before you decide to fight about that – those are requirements because the alternative is anarchy and chaos. The requirements of the law for legitimate govenrment – are much like those of the laws of physics. You must get them right – or things just do not work.
I know many of you eschew philosophy, but an awful lot of it is not esoteric platitudes. It is about constructing foundations for society that will actually work. Law is the same but narrower.
The fight over the legitimacy of the Trump/Russia investigation – whether Comey’s investigation or Mueller’s were a “witch hunt” or legitimate, is simply “did reasonable suspicion exist” – and to be clear, that is both a requirement to start AND a requirement to sustain. If you have reasonable suspicion and you lose it – your done. You can not even put effort into trying to get it back – its not there – your done. Law enforcement without reasonable suspicion is by definition abuse of power.
Further Reasonable suspicion is the standard to have an investigation.
To conduct a search or seizure – warrants or subpeona’s – and spying BTW is by law a search, you must meet a higher standard – probable cause.
Those are the standards, They are not about foreign powers. They are not about whether you are an opposing political candidate. They do not create any get out of jail free conditions and they do not allow the president or anyone else to violate the rights of citizens.
Applying these to Trump and Obama
To ask ANYONE to investigate a private US citizen – Trump must have reasonable suspicion.
To ask ANYONE to Criminally investigate a US Citizen – even a government employee,
Trump must have reasonable suspicion.
To ask for an investigate of the conduct of Government – either that of the US or a foreign govenrment – nothing is required.
With respect to most of trump’s requests of Zelensky – those were into the conduct of the US government, or the Ukrainian government, and there is no restriction on Trump’s power to ask for an investigation – Zelenskyy as a foriegn president is not obligated to honor Trump’s request and is obligated to constrain what he does to Ukrainian law, but Trump is not constrained by Ukrainian law – whatever that may be, and can be as forceful as he wishes.
With specific respect to the Biden’s – to ask for a CRIMINAL investigation of either Biden, anywhere on the planet – reasonable suspicion must exist. That standard is trivially met By Joe Biden. It is a close call whether it is met regarding Hunter Biden.
Regardless, the only aspect that politics plays in this is that where Trump(or Obama) has a political motive – i’s should be dotted and t’s should be crossed and we should be really really sure. BTW – that is NOT restricted to political motives. Any motive that potentially clouds ones judgement demands decisions to be scrutinized.
With respect to the legitimacy of VP Biden’s actions in Ukraine – political and many other motives require scrutiny. Real personal interest – is an absolute bar. But it is not a bar to the action, it is a bar to the person doing it. Trump can not interfere with an investigation of himself or his family. Nor can he ask others to do so, But Trump being precluded by personal interest does not preclude others with the power to do so from doing so – it all the other criteria for them to do so are met.
Personal interest is a MORAL impediment, and an ethical impediment.
SOMETIMES it is also a legal impediment.
I am not sure that Biden violated the law interfering with Ukraine.
I am sure he acted unethically, and I am sure there is reasonable suspicion to investigate.
With respect to the Trump/Russia investigation:
There was never probable cause – so there are a very large number of investigative activities that were clearly abuse of power.
Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard. I do not think it ever existed, I am certain that even if it ever did, it was lost long before the investigation got very far.
Jay,
not a single person “monitoring” the conversation has raised an eyebrow that we know of.
Only the whistleblower – who did not listen to the conversation has asserted otherwise.
Further for the most part even his hearsay claim is about Policy – not Biden.
You continue to ignore the fact that Biden is not a significant part of the transcript or the WB complaint.
Your claim that someone who heard the conversation thought it was unconscienable is Tripple ? Hearsay. The WB did not say that, nor does he say that others said that.
Further while is SORT OF said what others said, he has not identified the others.
If “others” who talked to the WB exist – we do not know that. Nor do we know what they told him.
Everyone who is “raising eyebrows” – are people who read the transcript or the WB complaint, and they are all apply legal standards that do not exist.
Further, Both I and 8 different panels in the DOJ have examined the WB complaint and found that it does not actually allege misconduct.
An allegation alone is NOT the same are “reasonable suspicion”
Biden is not being investigated on an allegation of abuse of power.
He is being investigated on the basis of what is very nearly a confession to abuse of power as well as real evidence – he was aware Hunter was being investiated at the time hem made his threat.
There is absolutely zero question that Biden’s conduct was immoral and unethical, there is no question he was not legally allowed to threaten the Ukraine.
But all immoral conduct is not a crime. Even all violations of the law are not crimes.
Regardless, reasonable suspicion exists.
With respect to Trump/Russia – maybe at one point reasonable suspicion existed.
I think it is pretty clear it died when FBI was unable to verify any evidence of misconduct in the Steele Dossier.
But the fundimental problem for Obama and Comey and …. is that probable cause NEVER existed – and you need that to conduct any search or seizure – and warrants are a search, and spying is a search. And the constitution still requires SWORN evidence of probable cause for those.
“if Obama had commissioned the Steele Dossier and released it during the campaign you would have been OK with that. RIGHT!!!”
First, I am completely OK with Clinton commissioning the Steele Dossier.
While there are moral and ethical questions Clinton was a private citizen and to my knowledge did not break any laws – like stealing, or breaking and entering or kidnapping or extorting to concoct the Steele Dossier.
The problems with the Steele Dossier occur as it enter government.
Again – the FBI etc were permitted to accept it as a collection of allegations.
MAYBE it even constitutes reasonable suspicion, but it absent verification it does not constitute probable cause. Further like the WB Steele is NOT a direct witness to anything.
The FBI represented the Steele Dossier to the FISA court was credible – because they claimed Steele was credible. We can debate that – but the fundimental problem is that it is not Steele’s credibility that is the basis of a warrant, it is the credibility of his sources.
That is a well established point of law. When an officer swears out a warrant, the evidence must be first hand – either the observations of the officer, or the observations of a direct witnesses that the officer can confirm are credible. No one in the FBI had the ability to say anything about the credibility of Steele’s sources. In most instances even Steele’s sources were not first hand
Anyway, your GIGANTIC problem with Trump/Russia is that TO THIS DAY probable cause does not exist. That means all warrants, all subpeona’s all seaches all spying are an abuse of power.
And this would all be true – whether Trump was a political candidate or not.
Politics is the impure motive – that is a moral and ethical problem, not a legal one.
We can debate Trump’s or Obama’s motives. But that is not where the legal problem is.
The legal problem for much of the Trump/Russia investigation is the absence of probable cause – that is why the fixation on the FISA warrant. If the FISA warrant was legitimate – the entire rest of the investigation likely was. If it was not – the entire rest of the investigation was a crime.
“If as you idiotically suggest Trump has the right to do that with Biden why did so many government members monitoring the conversation and the assembled transcript of it come to the conclusion it was UNCONSCIONABLE!”
Is “UNCONSCIONABLE!” your new favorite word, Jay?
1) The only person saying that there were “many government members” screaming “UNCONSCIONABLE!” is the phony “whitleblower.” And, of course, Adam “Shifty” Schiff.
2) You see the world through a Trump derangement lens, so it’s apparent that your determination of what is “UNCONSCIONABLE!” is based on whether or not Trump did or said it. If he did, it’s UNCONSCIONABLE! If a Democrat, like Adam Schiff or Hillary Clinton said it’s perfectly appropriate, even if it’s a flat-out lie.
As more and more information comes out – what is evident is that there is alot of opposiition to Trump within the administration – and they are actively engaged in interfering with Trump.
You could call that oposition “partisan” – as most are democrats.
But mostly it is not red/blue.
Mostly it is about policy
Red or Blue the prefered policies of government agencies are always the ones that give them the most power.
Inside CIA, NSA, DNI, DOD there MIGHT be wide disagreement over who our mortal enemy is – China or Russia or …
But there is always a MORTAL enemy that we MUST thwart at absolutely everything.
The Text’s Volker provided, as well as some of the WB com are quite clearly policy differences – they are often framed as “important, serious, a crisis”
But all that means is the person disagreeing is sure that if their advice is not followed the world will go to hell.
There is also alot of mind reading and misrepresentations in the texts.
I have tried to be clear with Jay and others on this.
Trump was pretty clear about his broad foreign policy objectives when he ran for president.
To a great extent – those are the same objectives candidate Obama ran on.
Get us out of conflicts that are not clearly in our interests.
Both Bush and Obama FAILED at that. They were drug into conflicts.
They were elected with the intention of doing one thing – and over time the were nudged into the prefered policies of the establishment – the CIA, NSA, DNA, DOD, State, …
The permanent government coopted them.
Whatever their promises – they did what the permanent government wanted – with small personal flexibility at the edges.
Even Trump was somewhat cowed early on – he listened to “the generals” for a while.
He tried Boulton – he wanted a forceful advocate – and Boulton is that.
But Boulton is still at heart a really strong NeoCon and Trump is not and did not run as one.
If you read the nonsense that is being used to impeach Trump – the vast majority of this is claims that we are weakening Ukraine.
That may or may not be true – but so what if it is ?
We do get to choose our allies and the strength of our support.
If you do not like Trump’s foreign policy – elect someone else.
If you are in CIA, NSA, State, … and do not like trump’s foreign policy – SUCK IT UP or QUIT,
But you may not secretly undermine it.
And even if you are right and he is wrong – something we will likely never know,
He was elected and his policies are what we voted on – not yours.
Biden 2020
Biden is desparate.
Has Trump turned his back on Hong Kong ?
He tweeted that protestors in the US were carrying the American flag – while those int he US were burning it or kneeling during the national anthem.
He repeatedly warned Xi of consequences should he resort to force.
Trump has cast the light on China and its bad behavior like no other president in decades
What more is it you expect Trump should do – invade ?
I am not being facetious. Honestly – what more is it that you think should be done ?
All of us would like an idea that will bring freedom to Hong Kong.
I have zero doubt that if you have an idea that will work – Trump would impliment it.
I think there are very few people in this country that do not want to do something for protestors in Hong Kong – including Trump.
If there really is something consequential that Trump can do – short of going to actual war with China – I will support it and I will join you in arguing that Trump should do it.
Atleast on this issue – the left is not offering some stupid magical feel good measure – like gun control, that will accomplish nothing.
So take a look at Hong Kong and make note of something really important.
There is nothing government – including ours can do about ANYTHING that is not FORCE.
IF you wish to do something in Hong Kong – ultimately that means using force.
And much of the time – force makes things worse not better.
“Biden is desparate“
Another faux-unsubstantiated assertion.
Let’s see proof of that desperation. Quotes from Breitbart? Limbaugh?
If you took your head out of your self-aggrandizing ass and bothered to read MSM sources you’d know he’s accused of the opposite: being too cool and unconcerned and unbothered by Trump’s accusations.
But if you want to see obvious desperation, it’s right there in front of you…
“Biden is desparate“
“Another faux-unsubstantiated assertion.”
You have a point – that is a judgement of the state of his campaign or his mental state, and I can not directly know that.
So more accurately:
Biden is losing donors, and his polls are declining.
In my oppinion that suggests he is desperate,
His actions to me seem like someone desparate.
“Let’s see proof of that desperation. Quotes from Breitbart? Limbaugh?”
Have I ever offered a Breitbart or Limbaugh quote ?
I suspect if you go back far enough you can probably find one link to Breitbart.
Maybe more when Andrew Brietbart ran it
I think there was a debate years ago here about Limbaugh – I might have quoted him then.
But I have not read anything from Limbaugh in years.
And very rearely from Brietbart.
Regardless, last I checked
Politico,
Wapo
and NYT ARE MSM.
Further – over the past year their credibility has been near Alex Jones levels.
He is so cool an unbothered that he is ranting about it on Twitter nearly as frequently as Trump.
Is he also cool and unbothered as his lead and donors evaporate ?
As the only strategic advantage he had over Trump vaporizes ?
The argument that Trump is desparate would be much more credible – if the constant attacks on him were successful,
I will agree that briefly he seemed to lose his cool. Though it is hard to tell, because calm cool and collected for Trump is not particularly calm cool or collected. But it is successful,
Rasmussen had Trump up to 48% on Friday.
And please can we skip the “Argh! Rassmussen!” nonsense. Regardless of absolute numbers – the trends in all the polls ultimately is the same. Rassmussen is the only daily poll left. Soon enough we will have trends from the others.
It is likely the all say the same thing – 7-10pt very short term hit. 3pt short term hit, and in a month – nothing.
Trump openly asked China to investigate Biden
They didn’t want anything to do with it.
Keep defending this TRUMP IMPEACHABLE BULLSHIT, Trumpanzees…
“Washington(CNN) When President Donald Trump suggested — without prompting — that China should investigate Joe Biden and his son, he thrust another political grudge into what was already the world’s most complicated and consequential relationship.
The move startled Chinese officials, who say they have little interest in becoming embroiled in a US political controversy. And it amounted to the latest extraordinary effort by Trump to openly request political assistance from foreign governments.”
Political assistance from foreign governments.
That’s an explicit reason the founders included Impeachment in the Constitution.
Did they include a clause to indict Congressional enablers of that interference?
Can US citizens complicit in that interfearence be prosecuted?
No?
Too bad.
Yup, openly.
Got it.
Asked a foreign country to comply with Treaties it has with the US.
Are you know going to claim that the China Trade war is really Trump trying to extort China into investigating Biden ?
The founders had extensive discussions about the purpose of impeachment – this was not amoung the reasons that the put it in the constitution.
Next – I will do a bit of my own mind reading here – since I can;t seem to get you to stop pretending to know what others think. I guess I can join you.
I doubt Trump expected China to do anything.
I am surprised the chinese did not respond by anouncing they had already investigated Biden and found nothing wrong.
China is desparately trying to outlast Trump, and there is already evidence they are trying to “interfere” in the 2020 election to get rid of Trump.
Trump was not talking to China. He was talking to americans.
He was using your and the presses proclivity to froth and report anything he says – cast into the most negative light to PUBLICLY say ONCE AGAIN – Biden is corrupt.
You and others who are already voting against Trump hear – election interferance.
Trump’s base hears “draining the swamp”.
I few people in middle who were not paying attention hear – “Biden is corrupt.”
You should watch some of Scott Adam’s video’s on Trump.
Adam’s is a lefty, but he thinks Trump might be one of the most effective modern messengers.
Trump has very successfully managed to use a hostile press and left to send HIS message.
Look at yourself – you are constantly repeating whatever Trump tweet you think is offensive.
But when you make it more offensive than it is – you harm yourself and you help spread Trump’s message.
Why does Trump keep fixating on CrowdStrike and the DNC server ?
https://spectator.org/crowdstrike-and-the-impeachment-frenzy/
The author of the article OVERSTATES VIPS’s confidence in its own findings.
VIPS does not beleive there analysis is wrong. Unlike Crowdstrike they are aware that today in computer forensics – everything is probabilities and it is possible to manipulate the data to point you in any direction.
Only Crowdstrike beleives the impossible – that it can reach conclusions that are better than 50:50 regarding the responsibility for a hack.
Some polls are now placing Andrew Yang in 4th place in the democratic primary.
Though there are many differences, I would offer there is one absolutely critical similarity between Yang and Trump.
Yang is an outsider. He is not a career politician.
I like Yang, and I have contributed to his campaign.
Though I hope he never becomes president – or more precisely than his key policies are never implemented.
I could actually get behind his UBI – but only as a revenue neutral replacement for the entire rest of the social safety net – and that is not how he has structured it.
In any other form it is net negative and increases the disincentive to be productive.
Regardless, Yang is not an avowed socialist, a faux indian, or a corrupt life long politician.
He is not the right person to be president of the united states.
But he is an improvement over most anything else that democrats have on the dias.
Another candidate I like is Tulsi Gabard. She is constantly saying sane things that the rest of democrats keep rejecting. In many ways she is relatively liberal. But as she has said she went to war for this country to protect liberty not to take it away.
She is a strong advocate of free speach, and of proceding with caution on impeachment.
I think she has absolutely zero chance of anything in 2020.
but I do not think she is running for 2020.
I think she is positioning herself to be john the bapitist when the democratic party implodes after Trump is re-elected. To be the voice of reason leading democrats out of the wilderness.
Atleast I hope so.
I beleive I am at odds with Both Gabbard and Yang on many policy issues.
But unlike the vast majority of the democratic party they are not “bat shit crazy”
Michael Bennett is also more sane in his proposals as well as John Delaney. Delaney said in one of the debates Medicare For All could jot pass dud to cost and Sanders and Warren just riidiculed him for “cant” not being a word they would accept.
I agree that those 4 (Gabbard, Yang, Bennet, and Delaney) are the sanest. It’s a pretty low bar, though.
I would pick Delaney as the best of that bunch. None of them have any chance, although I think that Gabbard and Yang will be good future candidates.
Priscilla, I agree that Gabbard will be good for future elections given three criteria are met.
1. The current far left loses to Trump and the Democrats return to the center left, much like when Bill Clinton was in office.
2. She has a desire to continue in the mental jungle
3. The people of HI remain in their current political spectrum and continue choosing her to represent them..
Before I could consider voting for her in the future, I would need to see someone who could work with congress like Bill Clinton did. But given her constant changes on positions, she may move to far left and stay there, even though her roots are much more conservative.
Interesting article well before she declared.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-who-you-think-she-is.html
Are Bennet and Delany still in the race ?
Regardless – absolutely there are alot of sane democrats in the world.
Few of them have been elected to positions higher than dog catcher. and even those who have stand a snowballs chance of being heard.
There is alot wrong with Yang. But he is not completely bonkers, and he is a complete outsider.
I do not know if I could vote for Gabbard – possibly.
With republicans in control of one chamber of Congress she probably would be a good president. She is actually stronger that Trump about getting us out of being the worlds policemen.
What I am less sure of is whether she has the strength of personality to push through her promises. Even Trump – who is probably the most cocksure person ever elected president, and the most committed to keeping his promises, has still spent almost 3 years dancing arround with Neo-cons.
What is increasingly evident is that he should have cleaned house – at NSA, CIA, DNI, DOD, State NSC on election. Everyone in foreign policy, Everyone in the state department, Every one in intelligence has been actively thwarting the policies that got Trump elected an that voters endorsed.
One of the more interesting things from Volkers testimony was that Volker and pretty much everyone between Trump and the Ukraine were actively substituting their own foreign policy for Trump’s – and they thought nothing was wrong with that. Volker’s was not significantly different from Trump’s – BUT IT WAS DIFFERENT, and Volker was NOT doing what Trump asked or what voters voted for, but what he thought was best.
If you want the final say on US foreign policy – get elected president.
Otherwise, you are an advisor, the final decisions are not yours.
Dave, Trump, nor anyone else can “clean house” and drain the swamp. The swamp is owned and run by career civil service employees. They could care less what an agencies director that is there for less than a few years say. They will do what they want regardless. Just look at the horrendous VA health system for proof. Firing people is impossible.
As for all the spook agencies, if the career employees dont support you, you are dust. I think years from now news will leak to show just how involved they have been in trying to remove Trump from power. They are the “deep government” that has always run things and Trump is not in their group. If one does not believe that, one only needs to read about J Edgar Hoover and the control of government he had for years.
Alot of what you say is correct – but there are things that can be done.
During the “shutdown” most of those still working were the political appointments, and they had no problems getting things done without the rest.
In fact they found it EASIER.
Trump is actively working to move agencies out of DC.
That is very difficult and will not be completed in one term.
But it will make a huge difference.
Tillerson in particular – but many other Trump appointies are cutting staff.
Tillerson was workign to reduce the state department by 35% – mostly through attrition.
Trump is doing the same with the NSC – which BTW is also part of what is going on with whistleblowers.
Congress has been threatening to make the NSC chair a position that requires senate confirmation – because the NSC has gotten so large.
Trump is slashing it and sending people back to the agencies they came from.
The WB was one of those and probably upset about getting pushed out of the white house.
yep! Reference my JFK killed by spook agency due to his changes to intelligence agencies.
When even Schumer is saying that the intellegence services are out of control – it is time to do something.
Truman founded the CIA, and eventually decided that was a mistake.
I do not know if we need NSA or CIA or … at all.
I do know that we do not need the massive bureacracy we have.
Sorry, the point of my comment was – I do not think Gabbard or Yang would have the strength of character to stand up and demand that the policies they were elected on be implimented faced with the quiet opposition of the IC and State.
I think that HRC could get her way – but for one thing. I do not think HRC gives a damn what the policy of the US is, only whether she looks good, has power to fork her enemies, and profits from it.
I do not think HRC has any underlying principle except what is good for HRC.
But I have zero doubt that you get in her way and she will frack you over.
“I think that HRC could get her way – but for one thing. I do not think HRC gives a damn what the policy of the US is, only whether she looks good, has power to fork her enemies, and profits from it.”
As my grandfather used to say, “Truer words were never spoken” (or, as in this case, typed.)
The Clintons degraded this country’s moral grounding in a way that it may never recover. In the case of Bill, his ability to charm his way out of a jam, and his willingness to negotiate with his political enemies, allowed him to be a successful president, despite his immoral/ amoral behavior.
Hillary couldn’t charm her way out of a paper bag, and her transparent willingness to destroy anyone and anything that gets in her way is genuinely frightening.
The idea that anyone would think that she hates Donald Trump for any reason other than the fact that he defeated her in an election is ridiculous. She had no problem with Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, or Ed Buck, as long as their cash was flowing in to her campaign account.
Priscilla , “his willingness to negotiate with his political enemies, allowed him to be a successful president, despite his immoral/ amoral behavior.”
Please be careful with comments like this. One thing I have a complete disrespect for are the christian conservatives that praise Trump as our saviour, the best president ever, etc, etc and then turn around and attack Clinton for his personal behaviours when I make comments on how I rate Clinton up there with Reagan in “best president” list.
Clinton did nothing different than Trump when it came to women.
I thought Clinton was a decent President, Ron, and I voted for him twice. I was also opposed to his impeachment. But his personal behavior in office was as bad or worse than Trump. To my knowledge, Trump has not been sexually involved with any interns, or any other women besides his wife. Many considered Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky an abuse of power, and a national security risk. I did not, but I did consider him ( and still do) an dishonorable man, and I have a problem with people who call out the immorality of Republicans, but are fine with the exact same or worse behavior by Democrats.
I criticized Clinton too, and called for him to resign for that creepy act. Like you I didn’t believe a blow job from a willing blow-ee deserved impeachment.
But claiming Clinton’s behavior was as bad or worse than Trump’s because Trump hasn’t been accused of similar sexual behavior in the White House is nonsensical false equivalence.
During the Lewinsky episode Clinton just turned 50, was still horney and able to get ‘Wee Willie’ erect. trump was 70 years, 220 days old at his inauguration. At his present age it would require massive doses of Viagra and pneumatic assistance and a harem full of undulating Stormy Daniels to get a ‘rise’ from him now.
I was jot addressing Trump at 70 for his sexual behavior. I was addressing actions much earlier. And it does not take massive doses of Viagra. One pill works most times for those over 50-70+.
That was in response to Priscilla, not you Ron.
But if your ‘pill’ Info is from first hand knowledge, glad to hear it’s working for you…
Just don’t take any willing women on a White House tour…
All of the accusations of sexual harrassment regarding Trump occured more than a decade before he ran for president.
The allegations regarding Clinton continue to this day – as do the allegations regarding Biden.
Clinton was not impeached over blow jobs.
He was impeached for multiple counts of perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction by abetting the destruction of evidence.
While there were other articles – those were the critical crimes.
And those were beyond any doubt.
No one has come close to that regarding anything involving Trump.
If you have a substantial body of people saying “What is it you are impeaching over” ?
Your in trouble.
There is no equivalence between Trump and Clinton – they are not ever similar.
With Clinton there are multiple real Crimes, Clinton in arguably committed them.
With Trump – you are busy trying to make things up.
You spent the past 2 years telling us that It was OK for Comey, McCabe, etc to investigate Trump. In the end – there was nothing to investigate, in the middle there was nothing to investigate, in the begining there was nothing to investigate.
If you wish to pretend that motives matter – there is zero doubt that those going after Trump did so for political reasons – even the current whistleblowers are going after Trump for political reasons – maybe not red/blue reasons, but still political ones.
If your guesses as to Trump’s motives are meaningful – if motives as you claim make something a crime – why aren’t a very long list of Obama administration people in jail ?
If politics matter – how was Mueller legitimate ? How is the entire Mueller investigation different from What you claim Trump did with Zelensky ?
Almost Mueller’s entire team was not merely partisan – but Clinton affiliated,
If their actions were legitimate why weren’t Trump’s ?
Just of be clear – I am arguing your transparent hypocracy.
There are reasons Trump’s actions are legitimate, while much if not all the Trump russia mess was not.
But the important point is that politics is a basis for scrutiny, it is not an absolute bar that prohibits action. Not be Obama, Biden, Comey, Mueller, … or Trump.
What matters is not the existance of a political motive, but the existance of a legitimate basis to investigate. Trump has that clearly, whether you like it or not.
All the Trump investigators have not had that and therefore were abuse of power.
Jeff Golblum(62), Mick Jagger(73), Ronnie Wood(68), Billy Joel(66). George Lucas(69), Steve Martin(67), Robert DeNiro(68). Rod Stewat(66)
List of famous celebrities and their ages at the birth of their most recent child.
Presumably they were having Sex.
Tony Randall had his last child at 78.
Priscilla, each of us needs to believe what we think is true. I think the following is true.
The difference is each of these women resisted unwanted contact and Trump persisted. And I object to using “intern” as a cover for Clinton doing anything that was worse than Trump. M.L. was 22 years old. She was not a college “intern” working while attending school. she was not some immature school girl being taken advantage of. A 22year old woman does not put a mans penis in their mouth involuntarily without being beat up and threatened with more physical harm. She did this voluntarily, the same as a prostitute and did it voluntarily. There is no comparison to what she did compared to women who objected to Trumps advances.
But this is the same argument I get into when Trump defenders debate with me how bad Clinton was. If one supports the person, then one defends that person. I think both Clinton and Trump are morally corrupt individuals. I would not allow either one in my house and sure as hell would not have let my daughters anywhere close to them when they were younger. Butas president go, both had policies I supported, Clinton more than Trump.
No, I get what you’re saying Ron. My personal belief is that there are many, many Immoral, dishonest politicians in Washington ~ both parties. The Republicans play the “I am so religious” game and the Democrats play ” I am so decent and caring” game…but a lot of them are disgusting horndogs who lie to their families as well as their constituents, or greedy influence peddlers, out to make as much money as they can, and don’t give a rat’s ass about the people that elected them.
So, I judge by behavior and actions in office. Voting patterns, increases in net wealth (Bernie Sanders is a great example…a socialist who condemns rich people, but who has somehow become rich himself, while servinig in public office. I judge that more harshly than I judge either Trump’s or Clinton’s sexual behavior.
Yet, still, no matter how old, an intern who is sexually used by the President of the US is a victim in my mind. And if rude tweets are unpresidential, sex acts performed in the Oval Office by girls not much older than one’s daughter, would certainly qualify.
That said, we all get to make our own judgements, and that is a point that is often lost in these days of Trump Derangement. I get to vote for Trump, even if I think that he has done things that I consider immoral. You get to not vote for him. We both get to change our minds, if we choose. And Jay gets to call people insulting names, because he thinks everyone should think just like him.
Ironically, I had an anti-Trump friend call me the other day, and tell me that, if the Democrats keep wasting time trying to impeach Trump and threatening to pass leftist policies, she’s going to secretly vote for Trump and not tell anyone.
I think most of these stories are likely true. I did not vote for Trump because of this.
I would note that Pat has claimed that behavior should be acceptable – normal, and lots of people agree.
Regardless, it is not rape, and not sexual assault.
It is bad behavior.
BTW Trump did NOT persist. There are many allegations that Trump initiated sexual contact – like ass grabbing, without permission. There are no credible complaints that he did not take no for an answer. That is not True of Clinton.
As best as I can tell the ew factor regarding Lewinsky is high, the fact that she was an intern is a problem ever though things were consensual.
But the act was consensual. The problem is NOT the act, it is lying under oath in a sexual harrasment trial – an then later to a grand jury, and then getting Lewinsky to Lie and destroy evidence.
You do not have anything even close to that with Trump
Dave, “As best as I can tell the ew factor regarding Lewinsky is high, the fact that she was an intern is a problem ever though things were consensual.”
I find this whole “intern” crap unacceptable.
If the reports had been a 22 year old woman was discovered to have had sexual relations with President Clinton in the oval office, the response would have been completely different. But because there was a title “intern” in her position she held at the White House, its all statutory rape for many and Clinton was the scourge of the earth.
That was not a freshman or soph college student working as a “summer intern”. This was a woman looking to get into a job in Washington D.C. and the way you do that is through an intern program.
I can’t buy the “poor little immature taken advantage of little girl” crap that everyone throws around and how bad “big bad Bill” was taking advantage of this woman. She knew full well what she was doing and probably had performed this act on other men for quite a few years during her college career.
But this still goes back to my original comment. Those that use Christianity as their “guiding light” and crucify Clinton for his acts and turn around and place Trump on a pedestal are nothing but hypocrites.
And there are multiple younger women who have claimed Trump grabbed their crotches and rears and he made that comment on the tape before the election. When you say it yourself, that seems to offer proof that it most likely happened. I think one could be asked in a court room if they said that or not and would have to answer unless they invoked the 5th.
For me , don’t try to defend Trumps actions concerning women and turn around and criticize Clinton, that is all I was trying to say when I made my original comment yesterday.
I am not going to debate you on Clinton or Lewensky.
Our differences are small.
What matters at the moment is that nothing Trump has done comes close to what Clinton was impeached for, or even what he did but was not impeached for.
There is not a credible allegation against Trump – beyond being a twitter monster, that is not less consequential than every other president in my lifetime.
He may verbally attack people he deems a threat, but there is no indication he does anything more.
Even the credible allegations of sexual misconduct against him are more than he is a cad, the worst allegations against Trump interms of sexual misconduct are less offensive than the best regarding Clinton.
Clinton lied under oath – twice, suborned perjury – successfully, and obstructed justice by seeking the destruction of evidence.
I would have voted to remove him, I still would. But I also think that would have been the wrong outcome.
Mostly I think that SCOTUS never should have allowed the Jones lawsuit to proceed while he was president. I was not comfortable with that at the time, and I am less so now.
Though there are differences – Trump has not actually done anything illegal, while at the same time the allegations against him ARE really about conduct as president – rather than private misconduct while president.
There are also many things that are the same. This is highly political. The stakes are enormous and both sides are playing chicken.
I would further suggest something to Jay and those “out to get Trump”.
You have put the screws to him for 3 years – I know what that is like. Even good people crack and do stupid things. That is one of the reasons we REQUIRE the actions of government to be justified – why we REQUIRE reasonable suspicion to start and investigation and probable cause to conduct any form of search.
Because if you put enough pressure on more innocent people they will eventually make a mistake.
If that is how this ends – that will be very bad for us. If Trump actually breaks the law – he is gone. But that is NOT a good outcome. It is actually a very bad outcome to allow any group – republicans or democrats to decide they do not like someone and then put the screws to them until they make a mistake sufficient to get rid of them.
Whatever happens here – like Johnson, Nixon and Clinton – will set the stage for the future.
If democrats want to go forward with this – on the current facts – go ahead.
But do it right – VOTE. Put your names to this.
If you want to take out a sitting president (or anyone) have the courage of your convictions. Do not do so from the shadows.
I think Schiff is repugnant – but atleast he has the courage to stand behind this nonsense.
Though I would be slightly more impressed if his district was competitive.
Regardless take ownership of this – and understand, whatever you do – that will become the new norm.
Clinton was a good president – he was better than either Bush or Obama,
He did well domestically on many levels,
He sucked at foreign policy.
Further he was not Reagan.
I rank Carter better than Clinton.
Both of the Bushes were decent people.
They were not good presidents.
I do not yet know if Obama was just a silkier version of LBJ or Nixon.
He had the most corrupt government in my entire life – and given that Nixon had actual burglars that is pretty bad.
Someone was complaining about Trump’s lack of support for Hong Kong.
Apple is giving protestors “the shiv”.
google – despite it s suprisingly intimate relations with China is not.
This is almost certainly a right wing setup – or a very very very deranged leftist.
But it is still absolutely wonderful.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1179908480322289664
Well, of course, as a Moderate I believe we should eat only SOME of the babies, not ALL of the babies. Eating all of the babies would be extreme!
I’m SHOCKED 😱- DOUBLE SHOCKED!!
AP: “BREAKING: As President Trump urged Ukraine’s leaders to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, associates of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani were looking to profit from the country’s state-run natural gas company, AP sources say”
Everyone is looking to profit from the Ukraine.
Why does that surprise you – Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, Romney ALL have sons on the boards of Ukrainian gas companies.
I am surprised you are not arguing Trump is upset because all the good corruption deals went to his enemies.
I would not mind an actual source for your AP story – so much of what is printed in the media proves false a few days later.
Do any of Trump”s political enemies have Hotels in Turkey?
Again – try reading “the Ugly American” – written in the 50’s BEFORE Vietnam,
It is so prescient that you would think it was written AFTER vietnam.
Except that while it is about the US in south-east asia – it could be about the US in the mideast, or most anywhere.
The story put simply is that where private americans go – where are people, and businesses go our positive impact is phenomenal, and we are viewed with respect by the people of those nations.
Where our diplomats go, where our government aide goes, where our military goes, we have a negative impact and are viewed with derision.
US Foreign policy is better served by Trump Towers and Marriotts, than our DOD and State Department.
If Trump’s political enemies wish to build towers in Ankara – more power to them.
NBC: “BREAKING: In an extraordinary Sunday night statement, the White House announces that the US “will no longer be in the immediate area” of Northern Syria, allow Turkey to launch an invasion in the region and give Turkey responsibility for captured ISIS fighters in the area.”
Humm.
How many Kurds will be dead by the end of this month?
Jay, we are not mind readers?
You state “How many Kurds will be dead by the end of this month?”
Do you think we have any idea how many?
Do you want some other answer?
lets us know what your really asking and maybe we can respond.
The answer is 3.141592664 kurds killed next month.
Below is a book review of Samantha Powers book “The education of an Idealist”.
I know it is from NRO and you will never bother to read the review – which is excellent.
Both the book and the Reveiw address your point – though I am not sure either have answers – beyond that in terms of using US policiy to prevent slaughter and Genocide – Obama was an abject failure – despite the fact that was precisely why Powers was in the administration.
The reviewer is hard on Powers and Obama – not because there is an easy answer – no one seems to have pretty much ever figured out how to preclude slaughter and genocide through foreign policy. The Track record of the US and other countries is horrible.
There was a credible argument for Obama’s use of US force in Libya to prevent Ghadafi from engaging in slaughter. but the consequences was an ongoing civil war that is inarguably more bloody.
We do not have answers to this.
The intercept posted a story that Trump should not be impeached for this whislteblower nonsense, but for turning a blind eye to the genocide in Yemen.
The problem is that history teaches us that nothing works.
I am watching Ken Burns Vietnam. While Ho Chi Minh was in paris trying to negotiate with the French, and trying to assure everyone that they should NOT get hung up on “communist” because the Viet Minh were primarily nationalist, they wanted self determiniation for their country and an end to colonialism. Back in Vietnam one of his cohorts executed hundreds of people in north vietnam he did not consider sufficiently ferverent communists.
That action probably ended the last shot at a peaceful resolution of Vietnam – which was possible in the 50’s immediately after Dien Ben Phu.
The vietnamese in the south lost any interest in reconcilliation, they legitimately feared that in any government controlled by the Viet Minh – they were dead.
The west was fixated on the domino theory and halting communism and that purge re-enforced the view that the Viet Minh were ardent communists.
And after the fall of South Vietnam – the viet minh not only murder lots of south vietnamese, they also exterminated the Viet Kong – essentially a rival political faction.
Vietnam was not as bad as cambodia – but it was BAD.
We do not know how to stop this kind of nonsense.
If we did – I would support doing something, but past history says whatever we do results in disaster.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/book-review-the-education-of-an-idealist-samantha-power/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5d998ac0165af6000152eb41&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Ultimately the Kurds and the Turks are going to need to work things out between themselves.
I could be wrong, but I do not think that Turkey is likely to do any more than they already do regarding the kurds.
There is an enormous army of well armed well trained Kurds in Iraq, that would likely intervene if Turkey started genocide in Turkey or nearby.
But you are correct – no matter what people will die.
And they will die if we stay – though maybe more slowly.
But our staying does not solve any problems.
Our leaving does.
I would further note that the Syria was not specifically part of the WB complaint – the policy discussion we are having absolutely was.
The core of the WB complaint is that Trump is not sufficiently committed to foreign military entanglements.
You don’t want the President to “ask” Ukraine to assist in investigating pay to play corruption at the highest levels of US government.
But you do want him to “order” American soldiers to fight against a NATO ally in Northern Syria?
“In the announcement President Trump has made it clear that any action by Turkey into Syria is unilateral; there will be no assistance by the U.S. on any aspect; including if Turkey is counter-attacked by Russia/Syria or organized Kurdish forces.
Essentially, Trump is leaving Erdogan naked to a myriad of his enemies if Erdogan does cross the border. The U.S. part of the NATO shield is removed. The Europeans will likely not evoke the NATO defense treaty without the U.S. Heck, the EU is essentially spineless without the power of the U.S. military.
President Trump is calling out the duplicity of the entire situation by calling all of their bluffs. President Trump is calling-out: NATO, weak EU ‘allies’ and Turkey.”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/07/president-trump-announces-turkish-unilateral-invasion-of-northern-syria/#more-173018
I’ll let a woman with brains put it in context for you, Priscilla (though your Trump-Worship Toe Kissing Inclination will certainly negate understanding).
Nikki Haley: “We must always have the backs of our allies, if we expect them to have our back. The Kurds were instrumental in our successful fight against ISIS in Syria. Leaving them to die is a big mistake. #TurkeyIsNotOurFriend”
Bush fracked the Kurds, Clinton forked the Kurds, Bush forked the Kurds, Obama fracked the Kurds.
If the kurds think we have their backs they are complete idiots – and I highly doubt they do think we have their backs.
Regardless, Trump did exactly what he needed – he told Turkey – you take on the Kurds – you are on your own. This is not a not matter and you will not get help.
You seem to think the Kurds are impotent,
What most everyone fears is that the Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey will decide they do not want to be part of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey and that they will form their own nation.
They have the wealth and resources to do so.
Probably the only thing the Kurds need from us is to stay out of their way.
I am not worried about the Kurds.
And I am actually tired of this argument – the the Kurds fought ISIS – it was because it was in THEIR interests. The turks and iraqi’s also fought ISIS – because it was in THEIR interests.
Our “allies” do not do as we ask – because we said “pretty please.” They do so because it is in their interests.
I am not worried about the kurds, and to the extent we own them that would be because we have actually betrayed them in the past.
It is way past time to get out of the mideast.
If Halley thinks we should stay – with respect – I disagree.
We have tried that – it ends badly.
I linked to an NRO books review of Samantha Powers book “the education of an idealist”.
We (and myriads of other nations) have tried the approach Halley is advocating.
We know the end of that story – and it is bad.
When you have an answer that demonstrably works – call me.
In the meantime I am not interested in shedding the blood of my children OR having my children shed the blood of someone else’s children, because … “feelings”.
Come up with an answer. Not an idea that you think is an answer that history tells us has never actually worked.
Amen
https://nypost.com/2019/10/03/why-we-keep-falling-for-hate-crime-hoaxes/
Biden’s son
Pelosi’s son
Romney’s son
Kerry’s son
All are on the board of directors for energy companies doing business in Ukraine…
You can find myriads of places where the media, Comey, Mueller, …. have all asserted that Mifsud was a Russian spy.
Maybe that is true. BUT if it is, he seriously penetrated the intelligence aparatus of the entire west. You would think there would be firings and house cleanings at MI5 MI6, CIA, FBI, …
Andrew McCarthy – excellent as usual
I 100% agree.
One area that he notes that I had not thought of is that foreign policy is not merely constitutionally delegated to the president – it is done so in a fashion that provides congress with very little oversite. Treaties must be approved by the Senate and war must be authorized by congress – beyond that the foreign policy of the united states is the exclusive domain of the president. That is very important reguarding Congressional inquiry.
Beyond normal assertions of executive privilidge there is a constitutional priviledge of essentially – “none of your business”
If congress is unprepared to do this properly – the courts are highly unlikely to provide any support and this just becomes a partisan spitball contest.
If Congress follows the rules they are faced with a long slog uphill against stiff headwinds.
It is probable the courts will ultimately back some of there requests, but congress is going to lose – alot, and there is little chance they can get far before the election.
If Pelosi does not procede – this is a significant political disaster for democrats.
A failure to procede will be viewed by voters as democrats trying to push another partisan witchhunt.
If Pelosi fails to get sufficient votes – the outcome is the same or worse.
If Democrats proceed but fail to make a much better case than they have thus far before the election – this will be viewed as a partisan witchhunt.
I keep reminding everyone that false allegations have consequences.
It is likely that if we all did not have trump investigation weariness syndrome, if we did not see this as just another cry of wolf, that this would be taken more seriously by the public.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/
What has effectively happened is that the House has abdicated most of it’s constitutional duties, and has devoted itself, almost exclusively, to destroying this presidency, along with destroying the separation of powers. The House of Representatives has been solely focused on phony impeachment, and Nancy Pelosi has started acting as a usurper of executive authority.
I know that, for now, most of this is “play-acting” and the President is apparently calling her bluff by saying that the Executive Branch will comply with an inquiry only when it is authorized by a majority vote in the House, but, if the press and the public accept the play-acting, it will become real. And many Democrats are so thrilled and giddy about this, that they are cheering tyrannical behavior by the Speaker of the House.
And the “moderates,” the ones who got elected by claiming that they would work with the President to get things done? Oh, those “moderates” are prett quiet, aren’t they?
Think about it…an anonymous spy from the CIA is accusing the President of high crimes, and we are being told that he must remain anonymous and protected. Even after we know that his accusations were false, and that he colluded with congressional Democrats before filing his complaint.
Worse, Democrats are attempting to deny the President even the basic due process rights that we would afford to a burgler, a rapist, or even a mass murderer.
How is this illegal and malevolent attempt to overthrow a president, not the biggest scandal in American history? ( If a tree falls in the forest….)
The McCarthy article was interesting.
McCarthy outlined elsewhere the case for impeaching Pres. Obama.
Obama significantly exceeded both the consitutional and traditional powers of the president.
McCarthy’s argument for impeaching Obama was based on that and other similar conduct.
McCarthy ultimately concluded that Obama should not be impeached.
Regardless, McCarthy noted that impeachment is ultimately a POLITICAL process.
While it is supposed to be difficult and require broad public support – high crimes and misdemeanors is both nebulous and has no enforcement mechanism so it means whatever the house says it means.
I do not agree with the assertions that Trump did something improper here.
I am not even sure he danced close to the edge.
But the house is free to disagree – but not without super majoritarian public support.
One of the problems we have today – and even Romney is buying into it, is that the the tactics we have devolved to for persuasion are illegitimate, fallacious and immoral.
Whether it is CNN or Jay, or Robby, there is no effort to make a valid argument for anything.
One, and sometimes both sides of the debate are insults, slurs, attempts at shaming, faux moralizing, and often lying and misrepresentation.
Whether you agree with me that this is primarily the approach of the left, it should not be difficult to understand this approach leads to conflict, chaos and anarchy.
And more and more – that is what we have.
The house can impeach and the senate remove Trump.
But it is important that the make their case to do so.
Not by slurring everyone who does not share their views.
Whatever conduct they feel is worthy of impeaching – they must both persuade most of the rest of us, but also understand that that standard becomes the new norm.
I have defined when I beleive the president (or anyone else in law enforcement) can investigate another.
I would note that ANYONE can ASK for an investigation of anyone else for any reason.
There should be no question that we are free to ask for whatever we want.
It is the power to compel that must be constrained.
I think it is arguable that when the president asks for something there is some element of compulsion. But there is still a difference between asking for an investigation and starting one.
That difference is why all of Clinton’s conduct regarding the efforts to get Trump investigated are not crimes and almost no one is talking about going after Clinton.
She had the right to ask DOJ to investigate Trump for “peanut butter”
The responsibility for an investigation rests with those who have the power to order, direct, conduct an investigation.
That is my “opinion” it is also centuries of law, and it is piss poorly enforced.
We NEVER hold those who illegitimately investigate others responsible.
But I would be happy to do so in the future.
The Barr Durham Hunter investigations are hopefully leading to that end.
Unfortunately I do not have much confidence they will result in anything that will modify long term conduct.
The impeachment effort potentially could change further standards.
Everyone frothing about impeachment should remove Trump from the equation and consider the future.
Is asking for someone else to be investigated wrong ?
Always ?
Sometimes ?
When ?
Only if you are president ?
Only if there is some threat behind the request ?
Only if you have some kind of axe to grind regarding that person ?
Must the axe be personal ? Political ?
As best as I can tell the “standard” that is being pushed here is:
The president may not ask for an investigation of a political opponent – under any circumstances.
Lets assume that is going to be the standard.
Does that mean No One can ask for the same investigation ?
Is Trump barred, but not Pompeo or Barr or Guliani ?
Or is the entire executive constrained ?
Does evidence of misconduct matter ? Or is the prohibition absolute ?
No administration can investigate anyone for anything so long as their is some political gain from their doing so ?
I hope it should be self evident that an absolute prohibition is unworkable.
If there is no absolute prohibition – such as “thou shalt not murder” then what are the constraints – when is it legitimate to ask and when isn’t it ?
if you do not know the answer to that – you may not proceed.
Anyone who think that the WB will get to remain anonymous is nuts.
The WB law protects the WB from retaliation. Anonymity is one method used to do so.
There is no anonymity in legal proceedings. If Dems proceed with impeachment – it is not going to be behind closed doors. It is not going to be a star chamber process.
The constitutions requirement for confronting ones accuser must be met.
This is also part of why Grassley is LEGALLY wrong about the WB law.
The protections it affords a complaintant REQUIRE that the complaint be credible – the meaning of credible is NOT at the whim of each IG – it MUST be a LEGAL STANDARD.
Otherwise complaints become political weapons.
There is a bit of a row over the concept of “lawfare” – which is essentially what we are dealing with – the use of the legal system to accomplish political goals.
There is nothing wrong with that – and we should expect that will occur – constantly – and it should. but it is the responsibility of the institutions themselves to assure that whatever the political motive, that there is merrit to the claims.
To re-iterate – because it is important in the context of this impeachment mess.
The Existance of a political motive for an action DOES NOT make the action wrong.
No act is right or wrong because there exists a motive that is bad – or that some say is bad.
An act is right or wrong – based on the act itself.
Whether it is CREW or JW – outside groups that use the law as a weapon to accomplish their political goals are NOT evil or illegitimate because they have political goals.
Their actions might be evil, but not solely because they are politically motivated.
It is not wrong for democrats and the WB to try to use the WB process to accomplish a political goal.
It is however wrong for the institution to allow itself to be use where there is no LEGAL merit.
Hence the requirement for a credible complaint.
Responsibility rests with those who have power or who exercise force.
Not with those who ASK for something we do not like.
Remember when Lying Lump Of Crap promised to release his taxes?
The courts are helping him remember:
NYT: “A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, a ruling that allowed the Manhattan district attorney’s office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns…
In a 75-page ruling, Judge Marrero called the president’s argument “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Presidents, their families and businesses are not above the law, the judge wrote.”
Lindsey Graham to Fox & Friends: Trump’s decision to abandon the Kurds “impulsive.”
“I hope I’m making myself clear how shortsighted & irresponsible this decision is in my view,” he says. “This to me is just unnerving to its core.”
Humm, Lindsay – did you FINALLY make the assessment on Trump’s decision making priorities?
President Me-Me thinking: “Do I go for keeping America Ideals, Reputation, Interests foremost? Or Protecting Income Flow from Trump Towers Istanbul?”
Jay had a response typed out and could never get this damn system to post it. So here is the readers digest version.
We dont agree.
Not a Trump thing.
We need to stay out of the worlds problems.
Let the middle east solve their own problems
43 screwed up the middle east by removing Hussein already, dont need more doing it.
If there need to be intervention, then use the United nations.
One American life is not worth 1000 middle eastern lives!!!!
Lindsey Graham is one of the few remaining Republican Neo-Con’s and probably the only one that mostly defends Trump.
Not even slightly interested in the foreign policy views of a neo-con.
Why are you ?
Trump is actually doing what Obama, and Bush promised, Getting us out of stupid foreign conflicts.
BTW that significantly increases our national security.
Our involvment in the mideast wears down our military – reducing readiness, and committs resources to spit ball contests so that if we need them they are not available to us.
The US ability to project military force anywhere in the world is diminished by every long term committment we engage in. Soldiers ships and planes can not be two places at once.
Every committment reduces our options in the even of the unforseen.
Read Washington’s (or Eisenhower’s) farewell for america’s foreign policy ideals.
Trump is one of the closest US presidents to following those.
It is those that have committed us to myraids of foreign interventions that have ruined out reputation.
How well did Iraq work out ? Libya ? Syria ? Even Afghanistan ?
Trump is cleaning up messes – most of which we never should have involved ourselves in.
Read the Power’s book review – or Read “the ugly american” – NOTHING has changed in 70 years – well except Trump is NOT following the same fracked foreign policy that gave us Vietnam,
This situation is, to a large extent, the result of the refusal of the House to work with Trump on anything, foreign or domestic.
The Kurds (who are not a monolithic group, and not all of them are our friends) have been our allies in Syria, and the Turks are our NATO allies. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t, and Nancy and her gang couldn’t care less. They will not be agreeable to any military action, nor will they support a negotiation with a NATO ally, who is obviously taking advantage of Trump’s political woes. Trump cannot create a situation in which the Kurds would be able to operate without Turkey in their way, nor should he be the one to do so.
In the absence of a Congress that will support any military force, why should Trump put our troops at risk of death and dismemberment, or himself holding the bag on our involvement in Syria, when it was Obama who got us involved in the first place? He would be walking into the same trap as Johnson, Nixon and Ford did in South VietNam.
Who knows…Trump may have made a different decision, if he were not under constant political assault from his own government. That’s not to say that his decision is the right one, but he is the Commander in Chief, and the buck stops with him.
You really are a Trump floozie.
Even Mike Huckabee gets it:
“I generally support @POTUS on foreign policy & don’t want our troops fighting other nations’ wars, but a HUGE mistake to abandon Kurds. They’ve never asked us to do THEIR fighting-just give them tools to defend themselves. They have been faithful allies. We CANNOT abandon them.”
For almost my entire life the left and most democrats have told me that Republicans are warm mongers always getting us into foreign messes.
Bush won on a promise of the foreign policy Trump is delivering.
Obama won on a promise of the foreign policy Trump is delivering.
Bother reneged on that promise. Trump has not.
I have told you I am with the left on many things – though not always their means.
I am quite happy we are winding down our mideast commitments – and hope we can wind them down farther and faster.
Once upon a time democrats beleived the same thing.
That was before Trump believed as they did. They then had to become Republicans when it came to war.
If we were able to blot out the constant political conflict, and focus on accomplishments.
Trump is a better president than the Bush’s and Obama.
He is much better on foreign policy that Clinton, Better on regulation, and taxes, but not quite as good on the economy – and that is in 3 years.
If Jay and Robby would quit ranting constantly about those things that Trump is actually right about, we could have serious discussions about what he is wrong about.
And I would point out AGAIN – that as we debate withdrawling From Syria – do not ignore the fact that as Jay aptly points out – 2/3 of the GOVERNMENT is opposed to pretty much everything that he does – things that 2/3 of the PEOPLE have wanted from Bush & Obama.
And these are the whistleblowers, and leakers, and sabateurs.
These are the people that democrats are crawling into bed with.
It is a very odd world. We spent decades being told that the entire military industrial intelligence complex was conservative and the evil doers that owned republicans.
And here we have the only president in my lifetime to actually go toe to toe with them and get the american people what they want – and the LEFT is crawling into bed with them to defend them ?
Is there anyone here who remembers the “church commission” ?
Why do you trust these people ?
Dave you asked me “Why do you trust these people ?”
Did you REALLY ask me that or did this comment get linked to me by mistake, because I TRUST NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT in an administrative or political position!!!!!!!!!!!
I would not mind answers from anyone.
I know that you do not trust government, or CIA, ….
Mostly I want to know what Jay and Robby do
But the question was rhetorical – in the sense that I do not expect an answer.
My positions on issues are not driven by whatever person or party is in control.
That is what I respect about Glenn Greenwald – even though I often disagree.
There are plenty of republicans whose positions vary based on whoever holds power within the GOP, but the entire left has no foundational values on anything – not politicians, not the media, not ordinary democrats,
Priscilla, dont debate an issue with Jay from a Trump/anti Trump perspective. Debate the issue from should we or not.
Is it in our best interests to get involved around the world as the worlds police man, knowing hundreds, if not more Americans will eventually die?
I say no!1. We lost enough in Viet Nam m Iraq and Afghanistan already. Let the Germans, English, French and Middle Eastern countries lose some lives protecting hot spots. Its time they stop being cowards and step up!
Good advice, of course, Ron.
Here’s the thing ~ as I’ve said many times before, I am recently conservative, and the tipping point for me was 9/11.
So, my introduction to conservativism was, at least partially, through the neo-con arguments that got us into Iraq. I genuinely supported first the war in Afghanistan, and then the invasion of Iraq, believing that Saddam was planning to attack us or our allies with WMD.
It’s only been since the Obama administration’s overthrow of Ghadaffy ~ an unauthorized war conceived of and proudly advocated by Hillary Clinton~ which completed the destabilization of the region that had been started by our overthrow of Saddam, that I started to see that the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower had warned us about, was a real danger.
So, I probably did come at the subject from too Trumpy a perspective, because I’m still a little neo-con-ish. I worry that Trump has been pushed into this decision, although I’m pretty sure that he’s been considering this for a very long time, and it probably has a great deal to do with his firing (or the resignation of) John Bolton.
What really pisses me off about the people who think we should stay in Syria is that none of those folks ever call out NATO for allowing Turkey to stay in the alliance, despite the fact that everyone knows that Erdogan is an Islamist thug. We’ve been hamstrung by NATO for decades, and now the same people who have failed to force the Europeans to pull their weight, while we have seen American kids return home in body bags, or damaged, both physically and mentally, beyond repair, are whining that the Kurds are our “real” allies? It’s not our fight, and we should not have troops fighting. We’ve already provided the Kurds with millions, if not billions, in arms and supplies.
So, I’m in agreement with you on this, Trump or no Trump.
Priscilla, I understand. But since I was in the Nam era and saw the millions that supported that war and supported Johnson sending men to die in a useless war from the beginning, I have had little faith in any information coming out of D.C. Not until those that questioned government decision did the tide turn, but way to late for the 60,000+ killed, 150,000 wounded and over 1,600 MIA. I was not a supporter of 41’s Iraq war, but came to accept that due to the coalition he put together and the fact he stopped at the Kuwaiti border. Then 43 decided to “finish daddy’s war” and invade Iraq, using very questionable information to support his actions. But that ended up destabilizing the whole middle east resulting in ISIS, the unstable Iraq today and Syria. The issue with the kurds can also be traced to the downfall of Iraq. I supported special forces looking for OBL, but not the mess we have in Afghanistan. More lies were fed the American public so they would buy the cool-aide 43 was selling. We supported the taliban against Russia and helped create them. And 15 of the 19 9-11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, none from Afghanistan
I would support technical and tactical assistance behind the lines in any war, but unless there is clear and unquestionable information that not sending troops to fight will result in enemy
troops coming to American, then any war we send troops to fight should have the front line fighters from the country under attack.
But again, this is my more Libertarian/Conservative policy beliefs. I too was a democrat, but liars cured me early. Had I been of voting age in the 60’s, i would have voted for JFK and Johnson. I voted the first time just before entering the Navy for RFK. While in the Navy I began questioning authority and that included Johnsons Viet Nam B.S.
We are all fighting over the withdrawl from Syria right now.
But it would be wise to understand – this is not disconnected from the whistleblower and faux impeachment.
There is an army within govenrment – DOD, NSA, DNI, State, CIA, that opposes Trump’s foreign policy. Just as it has opposed every single president that has sought to scale back our foreign adventures.
These people – not just the CIA – have a many decades long track record of unmitigated disaster.
I would have absolutely ZERO problem closing the intelligence apparatus of the US.
While we are not safe from all kinds of threats – They do not make us any safer.
In fact they likely make us less safe.
I think our military is absolutely incredible.
And I would slash the military in half – and they would STILL be by far the most powerful military in the world.
I would slash the state department. Do you honestly think the world would go completely to hell if the US did not feel compelled to be in the middle of every single negotiation in the world throwing our weigh arround ?
The problems of the world are not solved because the US – half the world away from pretty much all the worlds problems throws out weight arround in them.
I keep harping on “the ugly american” – the message is that what the US does best for the world is serve as an example. We are an example of the benefits of peace, of freedom of getting along.
The left rants at us about assorted victim classes.
Everywhere in the world where the left has had power has resulted in strife and bloodshed and conflict. Whatever the US record with respect to disfavored groups – it is BETTER than anywhere else in the world.
The very people trying to convert the US into europe do not seem to understand that Europe is pretty fracked up and is struggling to figure out how to become the US.
Regardless the best thing we can do for the world is serve as an example.
And that is what “American Exceptionalism” means.
Priscilla
We all have a story that explains how we arrived where we are.
We have held positions in the past that we do not today.
We are supposed to learn from both history generally, and especially the history we experience personally.
Ron is chiding us not to make this about Trump.
How is it about Trump ?
The only people here whose positions on anything are Trump driven are Jay and Robby – whatever Trump advocates for – they are absolutely certain is not merely wrong, but evil.
It is stupid and tiring.
I would be happy for a real national debate on trade policy
I would like to have a real national debate on immigration.
I would like to have a real national debate on regulation, on global warming, on forign policy on military intervention.
I am trying to have that debate – you are trying, Ron is trying.
Robby and Jay – and much of the country just want to rant about Trump.
I do not much like Trump, and I did not vote for him.
But I am not going to abandon the positions that I have spent a lifetime learning, because Trump shares many of them, and is actually acting on them.
Further, I did not vote for Obama, but the day after the election, I prayed that he would be successfull. I still argued against him when I thought he was wrong. When he got his way against my wished – I hoped I was wrong and what he did would work.
I did not agree with him, but I did not actually hope he failed.
I do not make decisions – particularly decisions about government aka force based on emotion. I do not require my emotions and my cognition to be synced.
I am capable of hoping that Bush succeeded in Iraq, while grasping that as not likely, I am capable of hoping that Obama would succeed – even while opposing every policy and knowing they would fail.
From election day I hoped that Trump would succeed, and for once in several areas I was able to expect that he would succeed – and he has.
Dave, I am not chiding anyone about supporting Trump or not. For some reason you have a complete mental block on what I comment, where others do not. Priscilla understood completely where I was coming from.
But to clarify for you, there are those that would defend Trump even if he were found to be the reincarnation of James Hoffa. There are those that would oppose Trump even if he were found to be the the combination of all the best attributes of JFK, Carter and RR without any of their negatives. Then the is a group that will question Trump for policy decisions just.like they would Clinton, 43 or Obama. Priscilla and I are in that third group. You most likely are, but comment just on defending Trump, so it is not hard understanding why some put you in the first group. Jay is in the second.
My point.When Jay uses few facts other than others negative Trump tweets, one can not debate that comment. He is only telling us that he agrees with X’s comment about Trump. So I just told Priscilla it was a lost cause trying to debate or discuss anti-Trump comments. I was not chiding anyone.
Just like he posted Lindsay Grahams comment about Syria, he made no comment why he also defended leaving troops there. I pressed the issue and asked if he wanted his kids there. As of this response, he has not responded.
Ron,
I think I have a pretty good understanding of your comments.
But every word in a reply to a comment of yours is not intended as a rebutal to your comments.
Often I respond – yes, but this is more important to me,
or yes, and this is also important.
Accusations to the contrary – neither you nor Priscilla not I are trump sycophants.
Trump is better than the last two presidents is NOT a ringing endorsement.
Even Trump is better than the last 4 – though not yet establishes – sill lives lots of room for disagreement and improvement.
Equally important is that half of those HERE will not permit rational discussion.
If you do not accept “Trump is evil, everything he does is wrong” then you are evil and the debate is over.
It is not possible to have a discussion of what our immigration should be like, or what our trade policies should be like or what our foreign policy should be like.
I posted a Tulsi Gabbard interview – the first of which is pretty much in sync with Trump.
Except that Gabbard would not impose government ecconomic sanctions – and I am closer to Her on that than Trump.
Yet here we are – Jay has finally gotten an issue that many republicans and all neocons are in sync with and god forbid anyone should discuss the merits of the issue. We must jump immediately to Trump is evil, and if you do not repeat that chant instantly – you too are evil.
There are not alot of politicians of either party that support Trump getting us out of mid-eastern entanglements. But there are alot of voters who do.
I do not know if that is a majority, but whatever the scale, it is not a stupid position to be rejected off hand.
Frankly Both Bush and Obama ran their first campaigns on more isolationist positions than Trump. Obama was going to close down Gitmo, get us out of Iraq, and get us out of Afghanistan in 90 days.
I doubt Trump would have gone into Syria at all – but for the fact that Obama left him stuck with a mess in Syria. Trump would have been happy to let Assad and Russia fight ISIS and Iran. AND SO WOULD I, and an awful lot of others.
I am completely with Gabbard – our soldiers are not cannon fodder.
When we ask them to risk their lives for our country, we damn well better have good reason.
And helping the Syrian Kurds is NOT a good enough reason.
They fought ISIS – because that is in their interests.
If we were not there beside them, the difference is they would be dead.
They still would have fought ISIS.
Turkey is a NATO member – and we owe them by Treaty support in their defense.
They are not being attacked, they are preparing to attack.
Using weapons we supplied.
The Kurds are likely to strike a deal with someone else – Russia or Assad.
I am OK with that.
Frankly I am OK with Syrian Kurds, Iraqi, Kurds, Iranian Kurds and turkish Kurds all forming their own Kurdish state.
We should stay out of this
“Don’t debate from a Trumpian perspective”.
That is not what is happening.
When arguments get divorced from the facts, when slur and insult become a substitute for argument. When the fixation is on people and feelings and not facts,
Then those using that approach paint everything is about good and evil – rather than true and false, and about bad people vs. good people rather than bad ideas vs. good ones.
I defend trump alot – BECAUSE HE IS RIGHT, not because I like him, not because I voted for him.
I have argued the mostly SAME POSITIONS for decades.
While some of my views have shifted slowly over time – as we ALL have hopefully learned something from history, I have never been a neo-con. I beleived Bush when he said he would end the “nation building” – and he lied. I did not beleive Obama when he said he would get us out of the mideast – and he too lied. I did not beleive Trump when he said he would get us out either – and he lied too. But Trump’s lies on foriegn policy have been white lies, while Bush and Obama told whoppers.
Further I beleive – despite his huge ego and his bragging that he “knows more than the generals” Trump has made the mistake of giving those in the swamp the opportunity to fix their own messes and prove him wrong. He spent two MORE years giving the powers that be the chance to fix afghaistan – they FAILED.
I do not think Trump is listening much to CIA, NSA, DOD, State anymore.
And I think that is a VERY GOOD THING. These people have been fracking up for decades.
Long before Trump. My problem with much of what Trump is doing is – “Why not sooner ?”
That is not a “pro Trump” position. It has been my view for decades.
To the extent I have changed at all – I belived Nixon’s claim that he could bring about “peace with honor” in the 70’s. Today I know better.
When we must use our military – send them in, do the job – WIN, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!
Leave the mess to the people who live their.
As Douglas MacArthur said “there is no substitute for victory”
Do not use our children as cannon fodder. If the issue is not important enough to win – to kill the opposition brutally and quickly – then do not send soldiers.
Having accomplished our military goals GET OUT.
Our military is a powerful threat – when the rest of the world sees how easily they can obliterate any opposing force.
That threat is substantially diminished when we hang arround and get sucked into an occupation of attrition which we will ALWAYS lose.
Priscilla – I do not think your assertion is correct (that democrats are stopping support of the kurds)
But if that is the case – that is something I can stand behind democrats over.
While it is not the only issue in deciding who is president, and I am not a pacifist,
I am most definitely strongly non-interventionist.
Lets get the Fork out of the mideast and the messes of other nations.
I’m not sure when I asserted that, but I could well have been unclear. Here are the points I have tried to make:
Kurdistan, which doesn’t technically exist as a nation-state, is not a US ally.
Turkey (which does exist) is part of NATO, to which the US is bound by treaty.
Just last year, Democrats were apoplectic that Trump was undermining NATO.
Now, they want us to fight against a NATO ally.
I am not disagreeing with you.
I am focused on three different points:
One no form of intervention that we have ever engaged in has not resulted in disaster.
If Jay is able to assure me – as a matter of FACT using logic and reason, that whatever he thinks should be done will:
Not result in US deaths, nor extended US presence,
not just delay the inevitable.
have a better outcome than whatever Trump is doing
I will be happy to consider it.
But I am not slightly interested in appeals to emotions.
Assure does NOT mean delude or convince me of good intentions.
It means PROVE.
I keep trotting out the powers book and the NRO review and “The Ugly america” and past history, and I am sure I can find much much more, Because the story is always the same.
Our actions accomplish nothing.
Next, We have no interest here.
The entire point of Power’s book – though she can not bring herself to that conclusion as it rejects her lifes work is that the humanitarian use of power always backfires.
We have not national interest in this. And any humanitarian use of force eitehr delays the inevitable or switches who massacres who.
Finally,
We have no allies here. NATO is a mutual defense agreement. There is no committment to support any NATO country in aggression.
And the Kurds are a group we shared a common interest with – we BOTH sought to defeat ISIS.
Nor can I sort out this mess.
I do not trust our CIA, NSA, State, nor the Kurds nor the Turks.
The avowed goal of the Kurds is to carve out a country from parts of Iraq, Turkey and Syria.
Whether that is a good idea or not – it is NOT our fight.
The expressed goal of the Turks is to create a safe zone for Syrian refugees that is NOT inside Turkey.
The Syrians are actively seeking to Welcome the Kurds back into the Syrian government,
I have no idea who the “good guys” and who the “bad guys” are – and likely there is no such thing, just competing interests.
It is NOT our job to sort that out.
When you elect a Faux Reality TV personality President:
Trump in December 2015, on dealing with Turkey:
“I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul…Two towers, instead of one. Not the usual one, it’s two. And I’ve gotten to know Turkey very well.”
Jay you got any kids your willing to send over there to die? If not shut the fuck up because its not your fight! Your TDS has stepped over the line when you are willing to send OTHER PARENTS KIDS to die in a worthless country!!!
I am not. Let the rest of the free countries shed some blood for awhile!!!!!
My my my… look at the growing list of Americans from left, right, and center who don’t agree with you, INCLUDING soldiers stationed there past and present.
And it was a small number of American troops, serving as a trip-wire to prevent the Turks from slaughtering the Kurdish forces there, LONG STANDING AMERICAN ALLIES, who the Turks consider terrorists.
Get off your high horse. You’re sounding simple-minded.
Just answer my question.u
Would you?
If I had an adult child in the military he or she would have made an adult decision to enlist, fully understanding that included a commitment to put their life in jeopardy if ordered to do so. And no matter where they were stationed, no matter how dangerous the location, i’d worry for their safety and hope for the best.
That’s how I’d feel about a child who became a cop, in a big city high crime area. Or a firefighter sent to combat devastating blazes. I don’t decide to send them there. The situation determines assignment. And the situation regarding the Kurds required a guarantee from Turkey not to exterminate them – before pulling out the last of our forces stationed there.
Of course if I had a child working in the current president’s security detail, I’d beseech them to resign immediately, and upon the official resign date offer the dipshit a parting ‘full moon’ salute.
Trump is a cancer on the presidency.
Impeachment radiation required ASAP.
OK Jay, ver “political baffle gab” answer. Guess I did not specify ” want” clear enough.
So let me put it this way.
You have a kid graduating from H.S.
They have a scholarship to Stanford or UCLA.
They come to you and say I am thinking about joining the Army and volunteering for infrantry so I can go to the middle east?
What do you do?
Short of locking mine up in a mental institute, I would use every means in my book to show them the errors in that judgement using the same facts and positions I have used here.
No one asked what your adult child would decide.
The question is are you prepared to sacrifice your hypothetical adult children – or the real adult children of others for Syrian Kurds ?
Frankly, I do not care what you decide regarding your own,
You do not understand that what you are doing DAMN WELL better be justified if you are going to sacrifice the lives of other peoples children,.
So explain to me – why this is worth OUR blood and treasure ?
Contra claims by you and others – the Kurds are NOT our allies.
They are the enemies of our enemies.
Also how is it you think that protecting the Kurds from the Turks using our soldiers as human sheilds is ok, but threatening the Turks with economic ruination if they kill kurds is unacceptable ?
There are no “good guys” in this., there are just lots of players – so less bad than others.
We owe the Turks a defense – if they are attacked without provocation.
That is all we owe anyone.
I doubt Trump did this to avoid impeachment – but it makes impeachment less likely.
While it has riled some republicans – they were never voting for impeachment.
But for those both left and right on the fence – this action is consistent with weaker support for Ukraine. Trump has argued that all the games with aide were entirely about reducing the US involvement in foriegn conflicts – just as he is doing right now in Syria.
You can disagree with what he has done, but it is harder now to say – that what he did in Ukraine is different than what he is doing in Syria.
In both cases he is weakening support for a faux ally.
We do not – or atleast should not be promising foreign countries – rain or shine – we are there for you. Not the Kurds, not the Ukrainians.
We are there – when it is in our best interests.
The police and firemen know what they are doing their jobs for.
They are not there to advance US policy.
They are there to save lives.
If they do not like what they are being asked – they can quit.
Our soldiers must go – whether they want too or not.
Our responsibility it to make sure when we order them to risk their lives,
we know what we are doing, and that it is for the benefit of americans.
Secret service agents get to resign too – if they do not like the job.
Soldiers don’t.
The only one selling anything simple minded is you,
Trump is doing what the american people want. What every president since Bush has promised.
What Trump is NOT doing is continuing the policies that pretty much everyone has agreed have FAILED for 2 decades.
To the extent I disagree with Trump – it is that he gave the military almost 3 years to make the same failed crap work.
I do not expect the results of what Trump is doing to be good.
But the results of continuing were not good either.
None of this is simple – there is no magic wand to make everything perfect.
I do not honestly beleive this will result in the slaughter of the Kurds by the Turks – the Kurds are a military force to be recognized, and Kurds make up about 1/3 of turkey.
I do expect Turkey to behave badly, but not so badly as to start a civil war or an open war with the Kurds.
But I could be wrong.
Regardless, our interests are not at stake and our efforts to use our military as a humanitarian force have failed Miserably.
Did you not learn anything from Somalia ? Or Libya ? Or ….
I am not the one with the simplistic idea that the US can police the world.
Lets Clear something else up.
The Kurds are NOT our allies.
The Ukrainians are NOT our allies.
These are NOT countries our peoples that “have our back”
They are countries and peoples that on SOME things our interests and their are aligned.
The Kurds have helped us help themselves, as have the Ukrainians.
The Enemy of our Enemy might be useful, but they are NOT our friends.
I have no problem with working with these countries and peoples – but we do not OWE them anything, and I do not expect them to “have our back”
Sheesh, Jay. Do you not know that Turkey is in NATO?
And would you send a child of yours to be a “tripwire” for the Turks? Sounds so innocent ~ ‘oh, we’re just a “tripwire” to keep this vicious, tyrannical ally of ours from slaughtering an ethnic minority that wants its independence.”
No of course you wouldn’t. Better for someone else’s kid to be a sacrificial “tripwire.”
Sheesh Pricilla, I do know Turkey is a NATO member.
How do you like your loverboy President threatening to obliterate the economy of another NATO nation?
Turkey obviously didn’t appreciate it. They pretty much told Trump to go to hell on that assertion.
“Turkey will not bow to threats over its Syria plans, the Turkish vice president said Tuesday…
In Ankara, Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay said Turkey was intent on combating Syrian Kurdish fighters across its border in Syria and on creating a zone that would allow Turkey to resettle Syrian refugees there.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/turkey-says-wont-bow-to-trump-threats-over-syria-plans-army-ready-for-assault/
“Sheesh Pricilla, I do know Turkey is a NATO member.
How do you like your loverboy President threatening to obliterate the economy of another NATO nation?”
If Briton Nukes Scotland – is the US obligated to support it ?
“NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.”
“Turkey obviously didn’t appreciate it. They pretty much told Trump to go to hell on that assertion.”
So ?
You want Trump to threaten the crap out of Xi over Hong Kong and to pussy foot arround Turkey while committing US troops to defend the Kurds from the Turks.
So it is apparently OK in your world to thwart the Turks with guns – but not with economic sanctions ?
Lets make this simple – using US Soldiers are a tripwire vs. using economic sanctions is a difference in TACTICS, not strategy.
I strongly suspect both american and turkish soldiers would prefer if any conflict was fought with economic sanctions rather than bullets.
To be clear – I oppose GOVERNMENT economic sanctions – against China, against Turkey, against Iran. That does not mean I oppose private parties from choosing not to do business with Turkey or China or Iraq – though given the NBA kowtowing to Xi they seem to be impotent.
Regardless if you do not wish to buy products from china or Chic-a-filet – don’t.
But If I have to live with imperfection – with a world in which none of our elected leaders are going to behave properly – I would prefer economic sanctions to bullets.
It is not our job to settle this.
Still I would ask – the Turks want these syrian refugees out of Turkey.
So let them leave. Why does Turkey need to create a refugee zone inside Syria on land currently controlled by Syrian Kurds ?
So, Jay, I will try and type slowly, so that you can understand.
The Turks are part of NATO.
Now NATO has designated the PKK, Kurdish Communists, as a terrorist organization. Not all Kurds, mind you. The Turks pretty much believe that the only good Kurd is a dead Kurd, and they will use any provocation as an excuse to retaliate against any bunch of Kurds, even the Syrian ones, whom we have been arming, with military weapons, that can be used against Turkey.
So let’s say that a few of our American soldiers, who you seem to think are useful “tripwires,” should get killed in a battle between Turkey and the Kurds.
What does the US do? Leave Syria only then, carrying the dead bodies of our kids, without any retaliation? Do we destroy the NATO alliance, because we were dumb enough to put our troops in harm’s way, when the rest of our NATO allies would not do so? Do we attack the Kurds, based on Turkey’s word?
We have been in Syria to destroy the ISIS Caliphate. It is totally destroyed. If it reconstitutes, we can go back and destroy it again.
Is it your position that we should stay there to be referees between Turkey and the Kurds? Even if that might create a scenario that would get us drawn into a deeper conflict? Or destroy NATO?
Excellent analysis.
I had not considered the fact that even standing between the Turks and Kurds poses a problem, Turkey is an ally. What democrats are asking for is to risk pushing another nato member into committing an act of war against the US.
That would End NATO pretty fast.
We are obligated to defend Turkey against an attack – say by the Kurds.
Being between the Kurds and the Turks is not even close to your typical “tripwire”.
It is a dangerous predicament that could destroy NATO is anything went wrong.
You get dumber and dumber as the days go bye.
A high majority of NATO members would be happy to see Turkey out of NATO. Like Greece for instance. And haven’t you noticed Turkey’s cozying up to Russia (huge weapons purchase) and Iran (economically helping Iran avoid sanctions). Can you point out another NATO country member who is purchasing a Russian Air Defense System?
Erdoğan’s chronic anti-Western ideological attitudes have encouraged him to exercise dictatorial powers over Turkey’s elections – and behave like the asshole he is (very Trumpian) – his authoritarian rule has turned Turkey into an UNRELIABLE ally … this according to our own military leaders who have been criticizing him publicly and privately.
You continually make my point.
Bottom line is that you just do not like Trump’s foreign policy.
OK – lots of others do.
I would be supporting Obama or Clinton if they were doing this.
Frankly I am closer to Gabbard on this and would not even have government economic sanctions.
Regardless – we are debating what SHOULD be our foreign policy – Not Trump.
Or that is what we would be doing – but for your “Argh! Trump” nonsense.
Are you capable of a rational discussion of the actual issues here – or are you just going to knee jerk respond “Argh!Trump” ?
Absolutely you can find myriads of Neo-cons most of whom are republicans who will disagree.
So rather than rant and engage in frothing twitter battles,
what is the chance of having a rational discussion ?
I would further note that the legitimacy of any specific approach is ultimately a matter of PHILOSOPHY.
You can pretend that some “oppinion” comes from nowhere and that all oppinions are equal, but that is not true.
If you beleive that the US should have a major leadership role in the world, that will produce one outcome.
If you beleive in global international coopoeration and multilateralism – that will lead to an outcome.
If you beleive in the Washingtonian non-interventionism – that will lead to a different outcome.
And each of these approaches come with costs. Both in blood and treasure.
Regardless there are many possible answers.
And the merits of each specific answer depend on your own principles and values.
Is Trump a loud mouthed blowhard – possibly Like Erodigan ? Yes,
Is he an authoritarian who grabs for power and fails to abide by the rules, the constitution and corrupts elections ? Absolutely not – that inarguably would be the left today.
Trump presides over a much more powerful executive than our founders imagined.
But a LESS powerful one than Obama did.
Both Trump and Obama were highly uncooperative with congress.
Obama lost more SCOTUS decisions 9:0 than all other US presidents combined.
He inarguably excercised executive power well beyond what the law, the constitution or congress allowed.
Trump conversely has lost very few decisions with SCOTUS, has had several go 9:0 in his favor that the left was sure they would win and when he rarely loses the decisions are close.
Innarguably Trump is operating closer to acceptable norms of the USE or ABUSE of presidential power.
In this lastest spat that has you frothing – the faux impeachment, we niw have innumerable examples of prior presidents, presidential candidates, and political leaders seeking actual assistance in upcoming elections, as well as “dirt” on opponents.
It Trump had ACTUALLY done what has been alleged – it would be well within the norms of presidential political conduct over the past 60 years. But he did not.
What he ACTUALLY did was sought cooperation in existing investigations into the political witchhunt that the Left mounted for the past 3 years.
Regardless, todate the ACTUAL election interferance is all by the left.
As should be increasingly evident by the foaming and frothing, and the WB complaint,
Despite using Biden as a “hook” the real objective of the left is to thwart the investigation into THEIR efforts at election rigging.
We are going to figure out who Mifsud really works for – and if as seems highly likely that is western intelligence – there is going to be HELL TO PAY.
We are hopefully going to figure out what actually happened with the DNC email server.
It should be clear at this point that this claim that “russia did it” – rests on a SINGLE foundation – the Crowdstrike report, and that foundation – though unquestioned by the left is very flimsy. What the FBI, DOJ, CIA has told us is irrelevant – because we KNOW that the only source of knowledge they have is the crowdstrike report.
We Know that CrowdStrike has been wrong about claims implicating Russia before, and that Only Crowdstrike beleives they are able to identified origins.
And we know that Crowdstrike is politically tied to the DNC and to Fusion GPS and to the Ukriane, and to corrupt oligarchs.
Put simply there are lost of reasons to be distrustful of Crowdstrike.
It is probable we will not ever know what really happened – but if it is actually possible to determine who hacked the DNC emails – and if it turns out not to be the Russians, and it there is evidence that the DNC etc knew that, then the left and the US IC is going to have lots of egg on its face.
You make a big deal of this “WhistleBlower” complaint – so do I. But we see entirely different things.
You see a last possible hope that maybe just maybe you have a hook to “get Trump”
I see massive obstruction of US foreign policy by the very people who are supposed to be implimenting it, I see clear and proveable cooperation between the “deep state” and both obstruction of justice and obstruction of US foreign policy.
I see a left that is increasingly desparate.
I see a left that is playing high stakes poker against Trump with a losing hand and is obviously bluffing big time.
Jay,
What does “anti-western” mean to you ?
To me “western ideology” is in arguably the rise of free will and individual liberty as the cornerstone of philosophy and government.
If you are going to tell me that Erodigan is pushing an anti-western ideology – what is it that YOU think is “western ideology” ?
I think this is incredibly important.
One of the reasons that it is important is that the goal of the modern political left IS the destruction of that western ideology rooted in individual liberty and free will.
The conflicts over censorship – speech as violence, the scale of government, majority rule. supermajoritarian minority protections, Political correctness, cancel culture, wokeness, and on and on are all efforts to destroy “western ideology”
History is the story fo the rise and demise of various ideologies.
That path is evolutionary not random.
We can celebrate the philosophy of China, or india or greece or Rome – as stepping stones to “western philopsphy” – that confirms western philosphy as the current pinacle.
It is also possible even likely that western thought is a way point to a further desitination.
“The arc of history bends towards justice”.
But we still need to consider where we are going – all paths are not good. All change is not good.
The left today does NOT offer anything of consequence to replace or advance western ideology. The objective of the left is NOT evolutionary improvement, but the destruction and denigration of western thought.
Well, Jay, if such a ” high majority of NATO members” would be happy to see Turkey out of NATO, why the hell don’t they do something like, I don’t know, something like VOTE TURKEY OUT OF NATO?
We’re supposed to go to war with a NATO ally, in order to get them out of the friggin’ alliance?!? And over the Kurds, who have been fighting Turkey for well over 100 years, and will continue for another hundred, unless Turkey is able to do to them what they did to the Armenians!
Why is this OUR fight? Because of Trump? Actually it was Obama who got us into Syria, without asking for war powers authorization (which he would not have gotten) and now Trump is trying to get us out.
Look, I feel for the Kurds, but I do not want to sacrifice American blood in a conflict that has ZERO to do with us.
Not to mention that, even if we had never been in Syria, the Kurds would have fought ISIS, because ISIS was doing the them what they do to everyone…that is chopping off their heads.
So, if that reasoning makes me dumber than you, well, I’d rather not see the world your way. Endless wars are not my thing.
this is the idiot ‘people’ still defend on this site:
Trump tweeting a few minutes ago:
“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). …
Trump Anticipated:
Fox News: “Pentagon ‘completely blindsided’ by White House order to pull U.S. forces back from northern Syria green-lighting Turkish invasion: U.S. officials”
These are the kinds of mistakes a Impulsive Fool President makes.
What kind of fools defend him? Mirror mirror on the wall…
Calling something a mistake does not make it one.
Absolutely Trump is paying less and less attention to the advice of DOD, State, CIA, NSA, …
He is doing what overwhelming majorities of the american people have wanted for decades.
He is doing what voters have voted for, for decades.
As you keep ranting that “bad things might happen” – of course they will.
Bad things will happen no matter what. Likely different bad things.
Again I would suggest you read the NRO review of Susan Power’s book.
I have not read her book – but I strongly suspect you could just read her book,
Or “the ugly america”, or remember vietnam.
Our military is very good at defeating enemies.
And there ends our abilities with respect to things outside our country.
Most everything else we do – we are bad at and it works badly.
Probably because the various peoples of the world are ultimately responsible for themselves.
We can not make the Iranian’s or Turks, or Kurds, or …. into “good people”,
We can not give them good government.
Power’s “big idea” what moved her from academia to the obama administration was her ideas on the use of power as the means to thwart genocide. Her ideas on the use of power to advance human rights rather than national interests.
The story of her book “the education of an idealist” – one the review suggests that even she did not quite get, is that does not work. Our efforts to thwart Ghadafi murdering all his enemies, resulted in chaos, anarchy, civil war, and an assortment of factions murdering all their enemies.
Unless your idea of us foreign power is to occupy half the world and sacrifice our children to keep a lid on open violence in the rest of the world – we do not have any approach that works.
It does not matter whether you are of the Samantha Powers type, or a Dick Cheney Neo-con.
The US needs to get past the idea that we are the policemen of the world.
Our use of military force outside of our own direct defense needs to be severely limited.
We need to use force ONLY to advance american interests, and we need to define those interests NARROWLY. When we do use force – we need to do so with complete commitment, rapidly accomplish the military goals and GET OUT.
The harsh reality is nothing else works well.
We were fully justified in imposing Regime change in Afghanistan after the Taliban participated in an act of war against the US and provided protection to its perpetrators,
The war in afghanistan was over in 29 days. The badly done mopping up that could have but failed to destroy the taliban took maybe another 90 days.
Everything we have done in afghanistan since has been a failure.
When we leave – and it does not matter whether that is in a year or a decade – the Taliban is near certain to take over – much as before.
The lesson of Afghanistan – rather then being “mess with the US and you are dead”, will be
“if you wait long enough we will go away.”
With respect to the mess in Syria, and turkey and the kurds.
Those peoples need to resolve their conflicts on their own.
And that is not going to happen with the US playing favorites.
It is possible that they might use force against each other to resolve their differences.
Unless we plan on being the global police force – that is going to happen somewhere in the world no matter what.
One of the messages that Trump is sending to the world – to those in the mideast, to the EU, to Ukraine, is that the US is NOT the global police force.
That is a message that Bush II, and Obama campaigned on.
Trump is actually doing it.
Ultimately some of us are hypocrits.
I did not want Trump as president. But I did STRONGLY want the foreign policy he promised – just as I hoped that Bush would get us out of “nation building” and that Obama would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you want me to condemn Trump – Our presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere is STILL too large.
Sell the Saudi’s or Kurds, or Ukrianian’s weapons if you must. But get our soldiers out of places and conflicts that are not ours.
You talk about these countries as our “allies”.
Do these people share our values ?
When you say they were “there when we needed them” – doesn’t that mean they were fighting THEIR enemies alongside us ?
The Kurds, the Turks, …. are NOT our Allies. These are not the countries that share our values and will have our backs. They are peoples acting in their own perceived self interest.
BTW- When will Trump release those taxes?
The 4-year October 4th anniversary has passed when he promised to do so…
Guess he was just joking….
You seem to think this is some sore spot, or that you are scoring points.
I do not care about ANY politicians taxes.
In fact – and long before Trump, I have OBSERVED that assorted public disclosure laws have driven good people out of politics.
Local government and school boards used to be chock full of local business leaders often engaging in public service towards the end of their carreers,
These were people with a record of success who had actual managed entities on the scale of local govenrment. They did so fiscally responsibly.
Today our local governments are chock full of professional politicians. Whose idea of managing government is doling out favors to connected contributors or to voting groups.
I do not want Trump’s or anyone’s tax return.
I want more people who know what the hell they are doing and less professional politicians.
And that is not going to happen if you demand people share their private information to be public servants.
2nd circuit just stayed – within hours the NY decision that you fixated on.
Fixated?
Thou dost bullshit faster then the 2nd Circuit ordered ‘a temporary administrative stay pending EXPEDITED review by a court panel.’
That’s a good sign the order will quickly be appealed to SCOTUS, so we can find out if the justices will place President Prickhead above the law or within its jurisdiction.
No Jay – not a good sign. Stays are not automatic, they are not a right, and they do not typically occur that fast.
Generally to get a stay the court has to beleive there is a reasonable probability the party applying for the stay will prevail AND that there will be significant damange if the stay is not granted.
As to “expedited” of course – most anything of this type associated with the president is going to be expedited.
Will this get to scotus fast ? Who knows.
The review panel could reverse and remand. That would likely shut the whole thing down.
This case is slightly different from the CA case – which was a slam dunk – CA can not add requirements to the constitution.
The issues are more complex, but one of the core issues is going to be whether the court beleives this is a pretext.
And guess what Jay – EVERYONE knows its a pretext,
Everytime you salivate over the prospect of getting at Trump’s tax returns – you prove it is a pretext. Politics is not a justification for bending the law.
One of the clear indicators this is a pretext – is that a mechanism already exists for the prosecutor to get anyone’s tax return – but it must go before the IRS and be approved by the Treasury Secretary.
The most likely outcome of this is for the courts to determine that if the prosecutor wants a Tax Return, he can not side step the legal protections already in place for tax returns by subpeonaing the accountant.
But like everything Trump – you are looking for short cuts.
Just follow the law. If you can not get what you want – live with it, or change the law.
Dave, maybe your wife can answer this given her position.
The Manhattan D.A. wants Trump tax returns to see if anything illegal occurred with hush money such as claiming that as a business expense. Other than that the hush money has been hushed over for months and nothing found.
So my question. Can the Manhattan D.A. look for evidence of any illegal tax evasion or fraud, or are they limited in scope in the investigation for just evidence to illegal acts as it pertains to hush money and coverup of illegal acts associated with hush money?
Do they also have unlimited powers like Mueller to investigate anything they so desire?
This is outside of my wife’s realm.
It is possible there is existing case law on this.
There are alot of issues.
At the top of the list is that Law Enforcement anywhere in the country can request a Tax Return from the IRS. There is ancient federal law on this.
But the IRS does not give up tax returns easily and law enforcement must beet actual 4th amendment probabile cause – not what passes for the 4th amendement in other matters.
From what I can tell of the facts – based on the DA’s claim – not court SHOULD have issued a warrant. Probable cause is not “I hope there is a crime here”.
BUT the one thing the DA has going for him – which I alluded to, is that the 4th amendment has been very near completely obliterated – both the right and the left participated in that.
If we were not dealing with a tax return, and the IRS and an existing law specificying a mechanism for getting it, and an accounting firm being subpeona’d The court would have said yes to the warrant/subpeona, As an example – though it should not be, this would be enough to get Trump’s bank records (or anyone else’s) and but for the law when the IRS was created regarding the privacy of tax returns it would be as easy for a DA to get a tax return as a bank record.
The other issue is whether this is a pretext. Normally courts fall all over themselves to not beleive that a request from law enforcement is a pretext, But sometimes that is very hard to hide – and this stinks like a pretext. If the courts decide this is a pretext the DA’s request is dead.
My guess is that either the 2nd cir. court of appeals or SCOTUS will punt and say – the DA must follow the law and go through the IRS.
I would further note that even if the manhattan DA gets Trump’s tax return – it still not going public. And if it leaks under the circumstances, people are likely to get disbarred.
Because this is really rally high profile, nobody will get a free “oops”.
The Manhattan DA is overreaching. DA’s are used to getting whatever they want even from the courts. And the courts suck at protecting the civil rights of normal people.
But given ancient federal law, and a highly pretextual smell, and an allegation that is really just a presumption that a crime occured and a super high profile defendant.
My guess is the DA loses.
Like I said, either 2 ct app kicks it back and says “go through the IRS” or SCOTUS does.
Sorry, I answered a question that you did not ask – though it is related.
First, Again DA’s typically get whatever they want,
If the DA says I am searching for X, and they find Y – without having to go far out of their way, they will be allowed to prosecute Y.
So long as the search for X is reasonable AND it is reasonable to find Y while searching for X.
As an example if the DA gets a search warrant to search a property for a stolen Bull Dozer, and they find a baggie of heroin in a lock box in the office – the heroin is not getting into evidence. It is not reasonable to search for a bulldozer in a lock box AND if there was a weapon in the lock box – if the box was locked it is not a threat to the police.
As a general rule the police are permitted to search most anything that could reasonably present a danger to them no matter what else they are searching for.
So they can look for guns in unlocked drawers – if they have a valid search warant for something else – even if that something else could not be found in drawers.
So if the DA actually manages to get Trump’s tax return, he can probably use anything he finds.
All of this begs a completely different question.
Tax Returns are NOT especially useful at finding evidence of a crime.
It is highly unlikely that it will be possible to tell from Trump’s tax return ANYTHING about the hush money.
Tax returns do not contain checks or bank records. Which it is very likely the Manhattan DA could get – whether they should be able to or not.
This bolsters the claim this is a pretext.
The DA is demanding the wrong documents to prove the allegation he is making.
Again in a normal case – that would get glossed over. But this is incredibly high profile and the lawyers are likely really good.
Mueller did not have unlimited investigative powers – despite the fact that is how he proceded.
We are again dealing with – what is the actual law and constitution, and what is the standards today after 250 years of shredding the constitution.
I would further note that “what can be investigated” – is the core question to Trump/Russia, Comey, Mueller, AND now Biden Russia.
There is no differences in the constitutional investigative limits of a cop on the beat, a DA, the FBI director, SC Mueller, or the president.
The standard is reasonable suspicion. That is the bar to starting an investigation.
There is clearly reasonable suspicion regarding Biden, and that is why the entire WB nonsense should die. With Reasonable Suspicion – it does nto matter if Trump’s action was politically motivated, or if there was a quid pro quo (so long as it was not personal – like a private bribe).
I do not beleive the Trump/Russia investigation ever met the reasonable suspicion bar.
I am not sure if this hush money allegation of the DA does. – probably it does Reasonable suspicion is a low bar.
But Reasonable suspicion only gets you an investigation.
It DOES NOT get you a search, a warrant, a subpeona, a spy,
Even if this hush money claim reaches reasonable suspicion – it does not reach probable cause.
The same is true of the Trump/Russia investigation – no matter who was doing it
This is why the huge fight over the FISA warrant. If the FISA warrant should not have been granted Then Halper and Turk are a clear abuse of power, and every subpoena and warrant that Mueller issued is invalid.
And that loops back to the WB.
The FBI swore that a known informant(steele) who past experience lead them beleive was reliable, provided them information about possible crimes.
That is approximately what FBI told the FISA court.
That is NOT sufficient – even with the destruction we have done to the 4th amendment to get a warrant.
For a warrant the information from an informant MUST be “credible” and credible used in a legal context – as in case law about warrants or in the whistleblower statute as very specific meaning. Credible requires first hand knowledge. Neither Steele not the whistleblower had first hand knowledge – that is only the first part of the test for credibilty but fail that and you are done. Steele – by virtue of the FBI’s long term relationship with him MIGHT be credible – if he observed the tings in the steele dossier first hand, but he did not, nor did the people who provided him with the information in the Steele Dossier, nor in most instanced did their source. Whisper down the lane is not credible – even if the person at the tail end is an otherwise reliable person; Further in this specific instance Steele himself was not credible – because he had an axe to grind and because he was paid by the Clinton campaign.
Next all of this matters – far beyond Trump.
We have whittled away at the standards such that we are very near having a police state where anyone can be investigated anytime for anything.
The requirement that the source of information for a warrant (or a whistleblower complaint) must be credible – is one of very few areas we have NOTwhittled away.
And it is highly unlikely the courts will.
If you accept hearsay as credible, you have a police state.
And that is the HUGE question of this whole mess – Trump/Russia the Whistleblower, ….
What is the bar to law enforcement investigating anyone for anything.
The least rights you allow the person in the world you despise the most. That is the most rights any of us can be certain to have.
So in shortening your message. If the DA is allowed to continue this investigation, we are in for another 2 year ‘Mueller investigation’ unless Warren defeats him in Nov 2020.
whether the DA is after Trump or some random person
The must have “reasonable suspicion” to investigate, and “probable cause” to conduct a search – warrants of subpeona’s.
So long as they are held to that – investigate away.
There Might be reasonable suspicion regarding the Stormy Daniels payments.
There is not probable cause.
This is only a test. I am having problems posting comments to this. Trying different ways to see if I can get it to work.
“If you want to stop Donald Trump from making unilateral decisions regarding war and peace, then stop letting all presidents make unilateral decisions about war and peace. It’s really quite simple. Trump can abruptly pull back U.S. troops from northern Syria because Congress, having abdicated its foreign policy responsibilities long ago, has no leverage to stop him.”
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/hey-congress-take-back-your-war-powers-or-shut-up-about-syria/
Jay, to address your issue concerning Trump and inaction in Hong Cong, read this.
https://www.journalnow.com/z-no-digital/nba-s-handling-of-daryl-morey-china-maelstrom-shows-that/article_fd71c189-c02b-5760-adbc-fcba38171b93.html
When you have backlash like this just in sports, what impact do you think it would have if the administrations position became public?
Universities in this country have millions invested in Chinese studies, students and corporate interests. Why have you not heard just one University Chancellor comment supporting Hong Cong, when they would be one of the first to speak up if a policeman shoots a black man without knowing the facts of the shooting.
Where is Hollywood? Why are they so quite? Might it be the billions they make from films in China?
So, does Trump come out in public, make a big deal about Hong Cong and have China break off all trade talks, ban more imports from America, stop buying American debt and strategically sell off large blocks of equities in retaliation, or does he ( finally) keep his fingers still and keep anything he is doing with China within his small group of trusted advisers?
I have no idea, but given the blow back financially to this country if he speaks up publically, I suspect there is a good possibility that things are happening behind the scenes. Is that right? No. Money has too much control, but that is the way it goes. Support Hong Cong and risk a possible 25%-50% decline in the stock market or work behind the scenes. Does grandma want to lose 50% of her retirement income sources?
I am not particularly concerned about “backlash from China”.
Xi MIGHT have the means to target the NBA,
With respect to the US – he has likely already used all the arrows in his quill that do not harm China more than the US.
I have repeatedly talked about the “dollars” side of trade, and we keep ignoring it.
If China refuses to use the green slips of paper it gets from the US, how does that harm us ?
If the US sends China green slips of paper for goods, and china sits on the green slips of paper – how are we harmed ?
If China invests them in the US we are not harmed,
If China trades them for goods from India or Europe – we are not harmed and ultimately those green slips of paper get invested in the US regardless.
Maybe Xi can cause temporary disruption and chaos in the US – at the cost of doing the same in China.
“Where is Hollywood? Why are they so quite? Might it be the billions they make from films in China?”
I agree with you.
So does South Park:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/08/south-park-creators-blast-china-nba-over-censorship/
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂!
Dang you had to stretch that one.
Jeez, guess I need to be specific.
Hollywood as in Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Clooney, Speilberg etc.
Good for George.
Good for Ellen.
(Trumpanzees don’t like either one of them)
Having never met a “trumpanzee” I have no idea what they like.
I like Ellen, I like George.
but I disagree with both on alot.
I do not like Trump
But I agree with him on some things.
And that is precisely what ellen is talking about that you missed completely.
Trumplestilsken claims there was noting wrong with his Ukraine call, it was all above criticism. So why did he do this?
“WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump intensified his fight with Congress Tuesday over the Democrats’ impeachment investigation, as the administration blocked a U.S. diplomat from testifying behind closed doors about the president’s dealings with Ukraine. House committee chairmen said they would subpoena the envoy to force him to appear.“
#DumpSchlumpTrump!
September Border Crossing numbers are in – and they are down 100K from the peak in May.
Well the WhistleBlower is tanking.
We do not know what “a professional relationship with a 2020 democratic candidate” is
But it is bad no matter what, and if that 2020 democrat had any involvement with the WB complaint – then the WB is essentially alleging that the misconduct Trump MIGHT be engaged in was the same as what the WB was ADMITTEDLY engaging in.
We do not know which 2020 candidate, and what the tie was and whether they communicated.
But lets say the WB came to Biden and said Trump is talking about you to Zelensky, and Biden said file a complaint against Trump.
You have almost exactly what you are accusing Trump of EXCEPT that Trump has the legitimate authority to ask for an investigation and has an actual probable cause basis.
Biden and the WB have hearsay of a non-crime.
Regardless, they are attempting to use the IG to interfere in an election.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate
It doesn’t matter if the whistleblower was having an extra marital affair with one of the Dems or belongs to a HateTrump fund raising org: everything he stated to have happened in the report has proved correct; even DumbellDonnie admits to its accuracy. The ONLY dispute is whether the poisonous intent of interjecting Biden into the conversation is an impeachable offense.
You have a surprising amount correct – except that you have a time travel problem.
We do use things – like Strzoks highly partisan texts to assess credibility – when we have to assess the choices people make,
AND when we do not have other information to evaluate credibility.
I am addressing the Hearsay credibility issues – because it permeates everything – the Steele Dossier, RosenStein, McCabe, Trump, …
You do not understand that you and the media and the left have spent several years screaming – Liar, Liar, Liar!!!! – and that has definitely effected peoples views.
But no matter you often you follow Goebels and repeat a big lie, that is unsustainable.
Once the truth comes out – your credibility is shot.
That is where we are now.
You continue to shout Trump is a liar.
We have certainly heard that from you from the left from the media ad nauseum.
And yet over time on issue after issue – the FACTS have ultimately supported Trump, or at the very least resolved more in favor of Trump’s turthfulness than his detractors.
Trump’s credibility has risen slowly – and will continue to.
While yours and the left and the media has declined and will continue to.
And this is why the perception of desparation at the moment directs more towards, You, the left, and the media than Trump.
ALL of us understand that Trump is actively obstructing House democrats.
There is no disagreement on that.
The questions are:
Is he doing so legitimately ?
Is he doing so to hide something ?
Or is he doing so to make life difficult for people who have been illegitimately been obstructive for 3 years ?
Increasingly people are leaning towards the later.
As Gowdy said recently – Schiff did not need to lie about the WB.
But he did. Nor is it the first time.
You have spent 3 years trying to catch Trump in a consequential lie.
You tell me over an over that the evidence that Trump lies when he breaths is overwhelming.
Yet you can not cite any consequential lies.
And to be clear – I am not talking about differences of oppinion, or situations where the facts are not yet known fully and you beleive Trump is wrong.
I am talking about instance where Trump said X – and he knew at the time X was not true.
The most fundimental problem with the WB complaint is that it DOES NOT make an actual claim.
Even if we skip the issue of credibility, Even if we skip the issue that the WH is not in the domain of the IC IG.
Biden is an after thought in both the transcript and the WB complaint.
You wish to fixate on Trump’s intent regarding Biden – the WB can not know Trump’s intent – even if he had first hand knowledge he can not, but he doesn’t. And the WB has almost nothing about Biden in the complaint.
The whole Democrat Biden argument is a huge loser.
It was not consequential in the WB complaint,
It was not in the Transcript,
It is not in the Texts,
Until this hit Adam Schiff is was an after thought for everyone.
Further, Trump and the media have at various times asked for further inquiry into Biden.
You are trying to argue that somehow Tweeting that Biden is a crook as president is less significant than Telling the Ukrianian president that something looks fishy and asking him to look into it.
Your argument is that Trump saying this particular thing at this particular moment is impeachable, you are saying that Trump paraphrasing an NYT news story to a foreign leader is impeachable.
Ultimately your argument becomes that the president is constitutionally barred from defending himself.
That he must allow the left, and the press and democrats to lie about him without responding.
That is not a wining argument.
Back the WB complaint – it is not about Biden, it is fundimentally rooted in a disagreement over US foreign policy.
The core of the complaint is that Trump is making us Less safe in Ukraine.
Whether True or false – that is not a valid WB complaint.
The house is actually free to investigate that to their hearts content.
But painting foriegn policy differences – where the president is near omnipotent as impeachable is even stupider than the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
So we have Bill Clinton as president asking Tony Blair as Prime Minister for political assistance in his 1996 election.
Then in 2004 we have John Kerry – who is currently ranting about Trump, openly braging about asking for assistance from several foreign leaders to defeat Bush.
In 2012 we have Obama offering to trade away Missle Defense if Putin will back off until the election is over.
Apparently they have managed to tie the current Whistleblower to Hillary Clinton – as well as some 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.
Sorry Clinton did this in 2000 to Aide Gore.
He did so in writing in a letter to Blair.
and the letter explicitly asked the favor in order to aide Gore in the election.
More news today. Mueller testified to congress that Trump was NOT interviewing him for the FBI director at the time he met with Trump.
Apparently there is copious whitehouse evidence to the contrary.
Trump’s meeting was specifically about appointing Mueller as FBI Director.
But it gets worse. Rosenstein had more than a week earlier written Mueller and was seeking to discuss appointing him as special counsel. Mueller was not only aware he was being considered as special counsel – prior to meeting Trump – something only he and Rosenstein new, but he then met with Rosenstein immediately after the meeting with trump on the same day.
One of the reasons Mueller was asked if he was being considered for the FBI director is because it would make him a fact witness and it would be a conflict of interest.
But Mueller has multiple conflicts of interest. As he new he was been considered for Special Counsel he could not interview with Trump for FBI Director – not even if he did not intend to take the FBI director position. There are myriads of ethical problems with that.
It is also possible that he did not disclose to Rosenstein he was interviewing with Trump for FBI director.
Apparently Mueller is a target of the Durham investigation which is now rumored to have greatly expanded its scope well into 2017 – which means into Mueller
For the year(s) that Warren has been running for President, she has been using a story about being fired from a teaching job. She has stated ” when I began to show, the principle did what principles do, he fired me”. She uses this story during equality comments.
Well Pocahontas just stated in a UC Berkeley a different story. She stated she “worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer, I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ’emergency certificate,’ I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’”
So to a few that actually follow policy, it will be one liar against another with socialist policies against capitalist policies.
Byron York.
Ha ha ha ha.
The 1st Whistleblower’s assertions were CONFIRMED TO BE CREDIBLE. But we shouldn’t accept his conclusion because he’s a TRUMP APPOINTEE! Right?
“In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part, “such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.”
???????????????????????
My Brain can not take this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jay said is response to my Warren comment about getting fired for being pregnant
“Byron York.
Ha ha ha ha.
The 1st Whistleblower’s assertions were CONFIRMED TO BE CREDIBLE. But we shouldn’t accept his conclusion because he’s a TRUMP APPOINTEE! Right?”
OK Did Byron York get Elizabeth Warren pregnant and a whistle-blower released that information to the principle. But now we cant accept that info because the whistle-blower was a trump appointee to the school board where Warren was employed?
Help me, I am going nuts with all the Trump hatred! Is nothing sacred,. Trump now getting blamed for Warrens pregnancy problems?
(All in jest guys, just having some fun)
No!!!!!!!
Get it right.
Schiff got Warren pregnant, and the whistleblower “heard it through the grape vine” that Trump thought the kid was his, and Threatened to withold Burisma payments to Hunter Biden .
👍👍👍👍
That wasn’t a response to your Warren comments, Ron…
It was meant for dhiii as the topic should have made plain
It does not matter who you were responding to.
You did not make a credible argument.
You know – one supported by actual known facts, rather than hopes wished, feelings and hearsay.
Something is not credible – either a WB complaint, or your argument.
Because person X says it is credible – even if that person is an IG.
It is credible because it meets the standards required for credibility.
Facts, logic reason.
No Jay, the WB’s complaint is not credible as a matter of law.
There is an actual legal standard. The IG went our of his way to bend that standard and failed.
This is not a subjective question. Grassley is wrong – as a matter of law, The IG is wrong as a matter of law.
Credibilty in the context of law and government has a narrow and defined meaning.
And it is nto the same as “beleivable” – specifically because that is a SUBJECTIVE standard.
You say the WB was “determined” to be credible – that is an illogical statement – if credibility is subjective it can NEVER be determined.
There are substantial and growing issues of bias on the part of the WB.
We have again a mess like the steele Dossier were claims were brought forth by people with clear political motivations.
But the FUNDIMENTAL problem is NOT the political bias – though clearly present.
It is the lack of LEGAL credibility.
Both the WB complaint and the Steele Dossier are Hearsay – and mostly double or tripple hearsay.
They are just not legally credible.
This is particularly important given the indicia of political bias AND the fact that the fundimental allegations are about POLICY not waste, fraud or misconduct.
It is not waste, fraud or misconduct to work to impliment policies that you do not like.
Further we have had this “other information” nonsense from 2015.
We have been promised “other information” regarding Trump/Russia, regarding the FISA Warrant and now the Steele Dossier.
The ICIG testified publicly before congress. He presented no “other information”
Quite simply – YOU, The LEFT, Schiff, Democrats ARE NOT CREDIBLE not legally, not subjectively.
Trey Gowdy laid into Schiff over his role in this.
He said Congressmen routinuely provide assistance to whistleblowers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Schiff providing this WB assistance.
What is wrong is that he hid that, and he lied about it.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Schiff has lied mutliple times.
Further by lying Schiff has made himself into a fact witness.
It is no longer ethical for him to preside over anything involving the whistle blower complaint.
If you want the rest of us to “trust you”, to “trust government” because “other information” makes a claim credible – then you have to have a long track record of being trustworthy.
You don’t – The left has been lying about pretty much everything from the start.
“Trust us” does not fly – not with Schiff, not with house democrats, not with the Intelligence community.
To the small extent you were ever entitled to trust – you have lost it.
So if you wish me to buy the WB complaint – make your case within the 4 corners of the complaint. Not please to “Trust us”
Ron – you seem to be suffering from Senior Comparison Dementia.
I’m definitely not a Warren fan; she’s ugly & annoying & generally full of crap.
But to compare her few pissant lies with Trump’s never ending Mt Everest of LIES is silly..
Jay, I will not vote for either one. How many times must I say that!. I support Trumps policies, but I can not accept the man in that office. Warren seems to be a much better person, albeit one like Biden, that makes up stories , but her policies are bad. Only if we have a Democrat arm of congress will she not be a problem.
but go back to my comments about christian conservatives falling all over themselves for Trump, but one that did much the same in Clinton, they wanted him removed from office and would have been all over the internet demanding his removal like you are about Trump. The same goes for one liar about another liar. And like my mother said, if you lie about this, what else are you lieing about? Just apply the same standards to one as are applied to others.
“Trump’s never ending Mt Everest of LIES ”
So what are those ?
Look, I have no doubt you can come up with throw away lines like “and mexico will pay for it”
Though there is an actual argument that is true.
But Trump has made inumerable campaign promisses, he has either kept them, or is in the process of trying to keep them.
Absolutely the process has been slower and more difficult than he promissed.
But most of us do not call that a “lie”.
Trump has done nothing that matches “Benghazi was a spontaneous protest to an internet video” or “If you like your doctor” or any of myriads of others.
He has not promised us more than circumstantial evidence of Trump/Russia collusion and failed to deliver,
He has attacked Comey and Strzok and Mueller, and his band of angry democrats, and Schiff and …
And ultimately most or all of his attacks have proven true.
He has claimed he was spied on – and we know that is MULTIPLY true.
I would bet if we check all the purported Trump lies the WaPo fact checker has identified – TODAY most of Trump’s lies would be presciently true.
So what is this mountain of lies ?
Trump is a loud mouth, a bragart, and he exagerates.
These are not appealing traits.
But I can think of nothing of the consequence of the numerous “big lies” I can cite from lots of powerful democrats – and some republicans.
At this point Trump is more credible than Mueller – who lied under oath to congress.
I am not looking to prosecute Mueller – his testimony is compelling evidence it is past time he should have retired.
But it is inarguable that Mueller lied to congress under oath, and Mueller is supposed to be the gold standard. Yet, if we compare Mueller with Trump – and focus on what matters, Trump is the one who is LEGALLY (and otherwise ) Credible.
Warren has a serious credibility problem regarding her statements about her own past.
That said – though she is spinning this particular story in a way that suggests something that is not true.
From what I have learned and remember of the time it is fundimentally correct.
I do not think that anyone fired her. Or asked her to quit.
But the near absolute norm was that teachers who become pregnant stopped teaching after about 5months of pregnancy and returned when they were no longer pregnant and their children did not need them at home.
Warren is trying to spin this into an unsually situtation where she was personally discriminated against.
But what she is railing against is the unspoken norms 50 years ago that ARE NO LONGER norms.
Essentially she is refuting her own base argument.
She is proving that we were institutionally mysoginsyt 50 years ago and are not now.
And therefore we do not need the laws and government she wishes to impose.
There is big hype at the moment because SCOTUS is about to consider whether the CRA should be extended to cover anything beyond genetic race and biological sex.
With the left frothing that SCOTUS could restrict the CRA to race and biological sex.
This is unlikely to happen – but SCOTUS should declare he CRA unconstitutional.
As well as any laws against private discrimination.
We do not need these laws, They did NOT improve anything – the societal changes that have occured have done so independent of those laws.
Declaring the portions of the CRA that apply privately unconstitutional would NOT bring back Jim Crow – that is idiotic – Jim Crow was laws to FORCE private discrimination when it did not occur naturally.
Regardless, the specific cases before the court actually make clear the problem with the CRA and that it is not necescary.
TODAY there is surprisingly little discrimination against people because they are gay or Trans or whatever.
Yes, there is some – and there will always be some.
But TODAY groups that at this moment have no legal protection against private discrimination are subject to private discrimination very rarely.
In the Trans case specifically – the defendant has argued – this is not about the Plantif being Trans. It is about the fact that the Plantiff was the public face of the funeral home, and that while the plantif can change who he is as he wishes, he can not take personal changes in his life and force the business that he is part of to accomodate those.
If the plantif was the spokes person for the beef marketing board, and one day walked in and said – I am going to become vocally and publicly vegan, you can expect they will lose their job.
Regardless, my POINT is that SCOTUS is debating a very unusual situtation with a miniscule minority that is self evidently NOT subject to broad discrimination. and being asked to make broad policy changes.
At the very least we should grasp that if we are fighting about whether a funeral director can without notice start showing up at work as a woman when they were hired as a man, and keep their job, then we are will past whether pregnant teachers can keep their jobs.
AND that government and law has had very little to do with the change.
I deeply believe that most all laws that contain the verbage “sex” needs to be revised to contain “male, female or transgender”, much like many laws have been revised to contain “sexual orientation” when gay and lesbian issues became prominent.
In addition, I also believe sporting event need to be expanded to include male, female and transgender. Female sports are going to be severely impacted with the number of individuals with male chromosomes now showing up for girls sporting events. You can take drugs to enlarge your boobs, but little can be done to reduce male muscle mass and size to that of an average female athlete.
I strongly beleive that we should get rid of absolutely every law regarding discrimination by anyone other than government.
To the extent such discrimination exists, it is not institutional, and not a proper subject for law.
These laws violate our right to free association.
That does not mean I beleive we should discriminate against people because they are women or gay or …
Most (but not all the time) we should not.
But government is not there to compel every form of moral conduct.
Government’s role is limited. and private bigotry is not the legitimate domain of government.
Further we should never make laws we can not enforce. All that is required to illegally discriminate is to do so quietly.
I want bigots to tell me why they are acting badly, so I can boycott them
According to Gallup Surveys over many years.
Less than 0.5 percent of us are transgendered.
Even psychologists think that 75% of gender disphoria is just a symptom of other psychological problems.
About 3.8% of us are gay.
I am not interested in special legal protections for people with moles.
While I beleive we should get rid of all our laws regarding Private discrimination – we do not need them. We probably never needed them.
Regardless we should not expand laws that were a mistake to begin with.
How assorted private groups deal with Transgener is their own business.
Govenrment should not get into whether a MTF Trans person should be able to play on a womens basketball team or get a bikini wax from a business that only serves women.
Trump is unfit to be president.
Those who ignore that and defend him are unfit of civility.
“Kurdish SDF spokesperson: “Turkish warplanes have started to carry out airstrikes on civilian areas. There is a huge panic among people of the region.”
“US Sen. Graham: “Pray for our Kurdish allies who have been shamelessly abandoned by the Trump admin. This move ensures the reemergence of ISIS … I urge President Trump to change course while there is still time by going back to the safe zone concept that was working.”
Too late. If this is confirmed will president crap-for-brain keep his word, and destroy Turkey’s economy?
Jay, I want to thank you for sharing all the information you have that Senator Graham has put out concerning the Kurds. At one time, until just the last couple days, I was a huge supporter of Graham. I found his positions of compromise and working with the opposition, while fighting the leadership of his own party refreshing. But the information you have shared with us has completely changed my perspective of this man. Should he run for higher office in the future, he will not receive my support. He is a war monger and needs to be removed from office by the South Carolina voters. If he finds it so damn important to defend the Kurds, he need to return to active duty in the Air national Guard, volunteer for service in the middle east, and fly fighter planes over the Kurdish area so he is the one in danger and not some young man who asked, “what the hell are we doing here?”
It is very easy for idiots to support a war when they can do it from a couch or a desk. It is also very easy when they never had to fight. Lindsay Graham served as a frackin lawyer and the closest he got to a fight was probably in a bar in Germany.
These people are HUMANS, They are not perfect.
Graham is a neocon. I do not share his position on US involvement in the messes of other countries. But he is right about some other things.
There are issues I share common ground with Leahy, and probably Durbin, and Schumer and god forbid even Schiff.
And there are issues I vigorously disagree.
I like Grassely ALOT – but he is completely wrong on the law about a law that HE WROTE.
Credibility is an explicit requirement of the law – it would be required implicitly and constitutionally regardless. And hearsay is not legally credible.
None of these people are perfect.
We pretty much all agree Trump is far from perfect.
We still must work out what we are going to do, and must consider what is right and legitimate.
Graham is possibly the biggest hawk in the senate.
I do not give much weight to his views on Syria.
At the same time his tirade during the Kavanaugh hearings was absolutely earned by Democrats.
And time has proven that the Kavanaugh hearings were even more of a manufactured circus than we knew at the time.
So, how long do you say we stay in Syria, Jay?
Seriously, how long would you leave American troops (you know, the men and women who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to preserve American freedom and liberty) over there in the desert?
Long enough to get a bunch of them killed? And, will Americans be safer after that? ( I’m not even sure that the Kurds would be safer after that….)
By the way, I read that there are about 50-100 special ops American soldiers in northeast Syria, helping the Kurds guard captured ISIS jihadis, who came from places like France and Germany. Do you think that the French or the Germans could take over for a while?
Haha, only kidding. The French and the Germans would never do that.
Special Ops? Trump just said there are no American forces remaining in that arena in northeast Syria. Is he lying?
The US WASN’T deep IN Syria. We were a border buffer. We had a moral obligation to keep that small border force in place to protect those we PROMISED to protect for as long as it takes to PROTECT them. The only people who don’t agree with that are TRUMPANZEES.
Dumbo Donald also just said he wasn’t worried about the Isis prisoners escaping in mass now that the Kurds have stopped watching them because they’ll just return to Europe, where of course they’ll have reformed from jihadist terrorism and will live exemplary lives.
And this just in
AP (Beirut):
“The European’s Union foreign policy chief is calling on Turkey to cease its military action in northeast Syria.
Federica Mogherini said in a written statement Wednesday that “renewed armed hostilities in the north-east will further undermine the stability of the whole region, exacerbate civilian suffering and provoke further displacements.”
The EU says Turkey’s “unilateral action” threatens the progress of the U.S.-led coalition to defeat the Islamic State extremist group.”
Yes, absolutely – an error on a couple of dozen troops in Syria is the equivalent to
Benghazi was a spontaneous protest.
Damn that Trump is just a huge liar – and Obama and Clinton were so Truthful!!!!
Impeach!! Impeach!!! Impeach!!!.
And isn’t is Treason to miscount the number of remaining Troops in Syria ?
I beleive Trump has ordered the withdrawl of US troops, he has NOT micromanaged the process, the numbers or the timings.
I do not beleive all troops are out. I do not beleive he has said all troops are out.
He has been removing troops for some time.
All that has changed is that he has committed to complete withdrawl.
I am pretty sure Graham has begged him to DELAY,
Which presumably means some troops remain.
Graham did NOT ask Trump to send troops back.
” Trump just said there are no American forces remaining in that arena in northeast Syria. Is he lying?”
No, Jay (typing slowly here…) I meant that was how many he moved out of the area.
So, I see I did use the present tense, which was confusing. My bad.
Please provide a link for your assertion that we have PROMISED to stay there and protect the Kurds “for as long as it takes.”
That would be a crazy promise, given the fact that it could take forever, or until Congress passed a declaration of unending war, whichever came first (I’m betting on forever)
I am having a great deal of trouble understanding your argument.
According to you – we are obligated to militarily thwart Turkey – but not economically ?
That is like saying we can nuke them, but not shoot them with squirt guns
jay, based on your previous anti-Trump Syria statements, anyone that supports his positions has to be a Trumpansee. Look how many deplorables exist.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/us_military/most_agree_with_trump_s_withdrawal_from_endless_wars?fbclid=IwAR1pxLarfGnkQLnQtAcxkE4IuVtDD6WrPHmjdO00osJnOgdXnr2paIVPnCE
MORE BOZO BULLSHIT
“Asked about the Kurds, President Trump said that the Kurds did not help the US during WWII or in the Normandy invasion/ D-Day”
Will someone remind the idiot that the Kurds didn’t have a nation then.
They still don’t, Jay.
The point is how did the moron come up with that irrelevant statement.
Oh, I forgot. He’s a babbling nincompoop. But you cherish him just the same way you would a Encephalitic Idiot with love and hugs.
The statement is true.
You think it is irrelevant. Everyone does not agree.
There is a legitimate question as to whether the syrian kurds are an ally of just a group we have helped to acheive a shared goal.
“The kurds” do not have a nation today.
Another Article Of Impeachment Revealed:
“President Donald Trump pressed then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to help persuade the Justice Department to drop a criminal case against an Iranian-Turkish gold trader who was a client of Rudy Giuliani, according to three people familiar with the 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.
Tillerson refused, arguing it would constitute interference in an ongoing investigation of the trader, Reza Zarrab, according to the people. They said other participants in the Oval Office were shocked by the request.
Tillerson immediately repeated his objections to then-Chief of Staff John Kelly in a hallway conversation just outside the Oval Office, emphasizing that the request would be illegal. Neither episode has been previously reported, and all of the people spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the conversations.“
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/trump-urged-top-aide-to-help-giuliani-client-facing-doj-charges
I will agree with you that this is impeachable – anything is impeachable.
But it is fully withing the powers of the president or any prosecutor.
AS I have noted before the problem with Biden demanding that Ukraine drop an investigation is that VP Biden can not ask to drop an investigation that targets his son.
Pres. Obama could have.
Biden had a personal conflict.
Trump did not.
You do realize you are STILL coming up with examples that beg the question
Why wasn’t Biden and Obama impeached ?
And we have another story today of VP Biden forcing Ukraine to halt a DIFFERENT investigation and claiming to have traced funds from the person being investigated through a shell corporation to VP Biden.
Maybe this is not true – but there was a basis for investigation at the outset, and the basis just keeps building.
Your continued defense of Trump in an obvious ploy to have his main presidential rival discredited speaks volumes of your own diminished capacity to judge objectively.
Put this in your malfunctioning mind so I can see what monster of self deception you come up with.
“Two Foreign-Born Men Who Helped Giuliani on Ukraine Arrested on Campaign-Finance Charges. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman are expected to appear in federal court in Virginia later on Thursday.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-foreign-born-men-who-helped-giuliani-on-ukraine-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges-11570714188
Two ukrainians are arrested for running a SCAM – one that had nothing to do with Gulliani.
One that involved the GOP – only in that the used the name of a GOP PAC in their scam.
There is nothing I read that actually involved Guliani, Trump or the GOP.
But if it turns out otherwise – then arrest whoever is actually implicated.
And these guys were investigated by the DOJ before being arrested.
If the rules are as you say they are – their purported connection to politics would make them immune from investigation.
Regardless, I expect – DOJ, FBI, even the Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of corruption.
I expect them to investigate when the allegations are against Biden.
When they are against a GOP PAC,
When they are against purported associates of Gulliani.
There are GROWING numbers of credible allegations against Biden.
The latest alleges Biden interfered with a Ukrainian prosecution that did NOT involve his son, and the money ended in in JOE not Hunter Biden’s pockets.
That is just an allegation at the moment – though purportedly the money has been traced from an oligarch under investigation to Biden.
Biden is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
He is not entitle to immunity from investigation.
I do expect that any investigation of Biden rests of CREDIBLE allegations.
I understand there is a documented money trail.
Just as I expect any investigation of Trump/Russia would have been based on CREDIBLE allegations – which it was not.
So dhlii – what were those poll numbers on Impeachment you recently quoted stating American in large numbers were against it?
Fox News:
So after a week of pounding your fist on the table screaming impeach! impeach! impeach!
you have gotten only a 9% bump
In another week you will have lost most of it.
During the same period Biden has lost something like 17 pts. national.
BTW the news has noted that Ukriane re-opened the Burisima probe.
There was an implication that was the result of Trump’s call to Zelensky,
BUT
“The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” he claimed. “This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky,” he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine’s president at that time.”
So at the time Trump asked Zelensky to investigate, the US govenrment was aware that Ukraine was ALREADY investigating and had started to 6 months earlier.
Definitely impeachable.
Oops.
Aparently the methodolgy of the polls was corrupted.
“A poll weighted for party affiliation would have concluded that 44.9% favored impeachment and 44.4% opposed it, a Post analysis has concluded.”
This is according to Gallup.
From the intercept – not a “right wing” rag.
Click to access PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf
Marco Rubio:
“At request of this administration the Kurds served as the primary ground fighters against ISIS in Syria so U.S. troops wouldn’t have to.
Then cut deal with Erdogan allowing him to wipe them out.
Damage to our reputation & national interest will be extraordinary & long lasting.”
He couldn’t bring himself to mention Trump by name…
You, Rubio etc. continue to try to spin this as but for the US the syrian kurds would not have fought ISIS.
So why not correct this:
The US intervened in a multiparty conflict and provided the Syrian Kurds – the least evil of all the groups fighting ISIS, with military aide in Their fight against ISIS – a goal that we shared with them.
I wish the Kurds well. They are well armed, they have a well earned reputation as excellent fighters. If the Turks wish open conflict with them – they take a huge risk.
Syrian Kurds share common interests with those in Turkey, Iran and Iraq,
And the Turks could face significant western economic and political retaliation.
Further the Turks are “invading” Syria – a foreign country.
While they are not doing so for teritorical gain – they claim to be seeking to create a safe haven for the massive numbers of syrian refugees that are in Turkey.
Absolutely the Turks have a right now that the conflict is winding down to return Syrian refugees that the have generously – AND at our request allowed refuge in their country.
But there are ways to accomplish that, that do not include military force.
I could be wrong, but I am not aware of the kurds barring the return to Syria of Refugees.
Bottom line you don’t give a shit about those Kurds we promised to protect.
You’re proved yourself to be an outstanding American once again.
Reminder: GFY
Jay, why should any of us consider or respond to any more of your comments when they are based on two things.
1. Your blind hatred for everything Trump.
2. Your tunnel vision in only wanting to denigrate anything Dave comments.
I have made multiple comments comparing this involvement with Viet Nam and the lies used to get us into that one. I made comments about the lie 43 used to get us into Iraq 2 .
Why no response to those comments? Might it be you cant use Trump to impeach those positions?
So how about this one. Turkeys president just threatened European countries that if they say anything about occupying Syria, he would send 3.3M Syrian refugees to Europe. So why wouldn’t the Europeans, right there close to the Kurds, step up and replace Americans in Northern Syria if this is so dire. Can’t they take a few more into their countries??
I don’t have blind hatred for trump, Ron.
I have clear-eyed contempt and loathing for him as president, as does millions of other Americans who view his divisive, dishonest, dubious, disgusting behavior with far more venom than I express here.
And I don’t denigrate everything thing Dave posts; I only read about one in five of them & respond to but a few of those – generally to the most egregiously dumb Trump-related crap he regurgitates.
As to whether or not any of you (Dave, Priscilla, you) respond to me or not: as I’m only spending time trying to balance the UNBALANCED scale of anti-left posts here, on what no longer is a moderate site, the less response the better, as I don’t have to waste additional time responding to the responses. Like this one.
Jay maybe if you stated your position on a subject that is in the news such as Turkey/ Kurds, then state why you support or not with x, Y, Z maybe there could.be some ” moderate conversation”. One can jot discuss issues when only copying third party comments, calling Trump names and anyone that supports a position without attacking the person.
That is why I left and retried, without success, the Moderate Voice. I could not state a position without someone commenting about how stupid or how unacceptable my position was without making comments as to why.
Dave comments and gives WAY TOO MUCH support, to the point i only read 3-4 paragraphs and move on. Priscilla and I try to support comments.
If you just want to “hit and run”, then I will ignore your comments.
I stated my position on the Kurds/Turkey many times in those exchanges.
Maybe if you read what I write more closely, you’d know that.
To repeat: You don’t abandon allies to be killed you promised to protect.
And why haven’t you spoken out about Trump’s puerile defense for abandoning them – that the Kurds didn’t help us in WWII? An ABSURD response that’s receiving world-wide condemnation in England, France, Germany, Australia, Israel for its stupidness. More recently Trump didn’t help the US in Viet Nam. Shouldn’t the US Military and the Secret Service therefore abandon him, promptly!
Trump’s cowardly perfidious acquiescence to Turkey’s gangster leader allowed this to happen: if he left those 200 US troops in place there was little worry about their safety; now, however over a 1,000 Remaining US troops who were assisting Kurds guarding ISIS prisoners are in jeopardy – or do you think those Kurds will risk their lives now to protect them ?
https://apnews.com/8500277b239b4acab805e5e2bdb43938
O.K. Jay I understand your point. Since we sent troops to Syria to eradicate ISIS, and the Kurds were fighting ISIS in the same area, you now believe we owe it to them to stay and protect them.
One question I have. Were we fighting for the Kurds in Northern Syria to protect the Kurds, or was our effort to eliminate ISIS an operation the provided the Kurds with protections they would not have if Trump had not committed troops to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL war?
Article 1, section 8 specifically states congress has the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
Article 2, section 2 grants the president the powers of commander in chief. This was done for basically three reasons. 1. To have a civilian superior to the mi!itary to avoid a coup by the military. 2. to insure the civilian presidentt was of equal status to those in congress and 3. the military fulfills to will of congress through the directions of the commander in chief.
My point. The president should NEVER send troops into war without a declaration by congress. The military should not be in Syria AT ALL. There is no declaration!
I find the oath the everyone takes, ” to defend the constitution” is of little use since it has been trampled.on by everyone taking it and then not following the articles as written
So if congress wanted Americans fighting the Turks protecting the Kurds, then let them declare war on Turkey..There are very few times the Americans should be fighting in a foreign country, let alone for ethnic groups without a country. Chasing OBL with special forces is one.This has nothing to do with Trump. I said the same with decision 43 made as well as others.
“You don’t abandon allies to be killed you promised to protect.”
Is that your actual argument ? The whole thing ?
The Kurds are not an ally, they are a group that had one shared interest with the US and that we provided aide to acheive that interest.
Who promised to protect them ?
I am not aware of any such promise.
Is there some written agreement, treaty, even a public policy statement by the president ?
Any president ?
We have however abandoned actual allies that we promised to protect – have you heard of the bay of pigs ? Or the Montagnard ?
Nor is that even close to the only example.
BTW I have zero problem trashing the reputation of the US govenrment – it deserves to be trashed.
I do not want other peoples and governments to beleive that the US acts in anything but its own interest – and it should not.
Just as the syrian kurds have acted in their own interests.
I want the foreign policy of George Washington – which did not involve any of your promises and trust. We acted in our own interests, friendly to all but allied with none.
Finally – beyond all of the above – you are defending an approach that DOES NOT WORK.
The argument you are making got us into vietnam, Eisenhower should have left,
Kennedy should have left ….
Reagan learned that leaving small numbers of US troops was dangerous and stupid – and he LEFT lebanon. The Great US Cold Warrier left Beruit after 300 americans were killed in a terrorist attack.
Trump is leaving after a victory – BEFORE things turn to shit.
And make no mistake – things WILL turn to shit. They always do.
But atleast we will be gone.
One of the reasons we should not have “allies” – particularly with these people and coutries, is that AT BEST, those we “ally” with will be the least bad in a litany of evil
Trump has doing a pretty good job of supporting Syrian Kurds fight against ISIS,
While NOT becoming their “ally”
I do not know much about the Kurds.
But I do know that we do not want to be wed to them,
You spent months berating Trump over the Saudi murder of a saudi journalist in Turkey,
The Saudi’s ARE our Ally. They are the LEAST BAD, but pretending they are good guys is stupid.
When the kurds do something stupid – and they will, The US is not tarred by association with them
I do not want the US to have any allies – especially in the mideast.
I do not want us defending the bad deeds of the least bad groups in the region.
“if he left those 200 US troops in place there was little worry about their safety”
False.
There are 3.6m syrian refugees in Turkey – and something is going to happen to them.
The Turks do not want them.
The took them in because of OUR PROMISES, that they would not be stuck with them.
Returning them to Syria was ALWAYS supposed to happen.
If US Troops had stayed we would just as likely be obligted to drive the Kyrds from land that they currntly control to proved a haven for the refugees.
There is not some easy way out of this.
You seem to think there was a stable static status quo.
There was not.
What you do is not “denegrate” my posts.
You destroy your own credibility and integrity.
That is the price of making false moral assertions – whether of me, or Trump or anyone.
You claim Trump is contemptable, that you loath him, you project that onto millions, you assert he is divisive, dishonest, dubious, disgusting.
But you have never made an actual argument that any of those things are true.
99% of your posts are
“Someone says Trump is evil”
That is a hearsay insult.
You have TOUCHED on something substantive with this Turkey/Kurd thing.
But beyond unsupported assertions that leaving Syria is evil and will result in the slaughter or Kurds, you have no made an argument.
The actual situation is complex. Had the US stayed – it is likely WE would have had to remove the kurds for the territory the Turks were about to use for Syrian refugees.
Even if not that – there was no chance the status quo was being preserved.
Turkey was not going to indefinitely take care of 3.6M refugees.
Which they did based on promises from the rest of the world.
So if you wish to assert something here is proof that Trump is evil.
You have to have a good solution that will work
as well as proof that what you claim will happen when we leave will actually happen.
i.e Genocide – not merely some skirmishes between Turks and YPG
Truth is not “balanced” it just is.
I you think someone is wrong – make the argument.
If you are trying to “balance” – something that is correct – then you are lying.
If there actually was a “balance” issue – numerous sources have found the news is 95% anti-trump.
That would be fine – if the news was accurate.
They aren’t and you aren’t
So you fail the truth test, and you fail your own balance test.
Public expression is tilted in your favor 20:1.
And yet somehow the polls are almost “balanced”.
That alone should give you pause.
Any argument that requires a 20:1 advantage in reputation to maintain parity
is highly suspect.
Can you find where the President of the United states formally promised to protect these Kurds ?
I doubt you can. Regardless, as I have said before your crediblity is shot.
I am done beleiving something is true because you say it or it is reported in the media.
I have no doubt that someone somewhere at sometime made some promises to the YPG.
The US soliders or unofficial representatves also made promises to Ho Chi Minh and myriads of others
The “deal ” with the YPG is that we would arm them to fight ISIS.
They were already fighting ISIS anyway, and they were the least problematic group fighting ISIS.
They are now well armed. Should the Turks decide to get into a fight with them – they will be taking on a tiger. They will also be provoking retaliation for other kurdish groups in the region. And there is a very large kurdish region in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
A serious military conflict would likely bring those groups together – which Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria do not want
I expect some minor conflict between the YPG and the Turks.
Primarily because the YPG does not want Turkish forces entering Syria.
I do not expect full scale war.
The turks want to move 3.6M syrian refugees back to Syria.
That is the big goal.
They do not want war with the YPG
They do not want to occupy any part of Syria long term – and they would have serious opposition if they did.
The most likely outcome of this is YPG will realign with Assad or Iran or Russia.
So What ?
I am not prepared to risk american lives for YOUR idiotic concept of american presitge.
Particularly as if President Obama was doing this – you would be cheering.
The reputation of the US government in foreign affairs has ALWAYS sucked
During WWII the US promised a vietnamese nationalist Nguyễn Sinh Cung elections and a democratic vietnamese government if his forces would aide the US against the japanese and the Vichy French colonial government.
After the war the US renegged and turned over control to Chinese nationalists and the British.
Today we know Cung as “Ho Chi Minh”
We can go all over the world and find much the same story.
No one – not the american people, not foreign people should trust the promises of our government (or for that matter any other)
American exceptionalism has not got a damn thing to do with the US government.
Jay this is the same damn crap that went on for over 6+ years at the end of the 60’s. People sitting on their fat asses behind their mahogany desk spewing propaganda about how the Vietnamese were our allies, how they needed to our protection and sending a few troops over there would solve the problem. After 50,000 dead and 150,000 wounded, we finally stopped believing the propaganda and Americans ran for their lives, those remaining.
You can buy that Syrian/Kurds political bull shit all you want. I doubt you would even care if HRC or Sanders made that same decision. Since it is Trump, i suspect you would support sending troops even if the risk analysis said 10,000 Americans will die and there is only a 50% chance of success. But when its only young people with little experience in any other field to offer America, seems like their lives dont mean much to those supporting intervention. Much like the 60’s.
The oath that each.individual takes when entering the service is as follows:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
When this was written, it was clear the orders that personnel would receive would address enemies, foriegn and domestic that was trying to overthrow our government. Even Johnson fed us cool-aide that we would find communist on our borders. What or who is going to threaten our constitution in Northern Syria?
Jay takes the opposite position of Trump on everything.
If Trump wanted to stay and defend the Kurds, is there any doubt Jay would be telling us why that is a stupid idea.
Atleast Rubio and Graham actually beleive what they are saying.
All Jay cares about is that they disagree with Trump.
Jay, you have commented many times about Trumps tariffs and its economic imppact.
You have commented many times about Trump being quite about Hong Cong.
Please read:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nba-china-crisis-nba-ties-with-china-worth-billions-now-under-strain/
Now if one executives tweet about Hong Cong support can lead to this backlash, what backlash do you think would happen if Trump went public with whatever his pro Hong Cong position might be.
For instance, if he were to come out publically, might the Chinese decide to block exports of electronis like I phones. Maybe silence is golden under these conditions.
Ron,
I am going to disagree here.
china has leverage with many private businesses.
They do not with Trump.
There is some talk and some small possibility of a “mini-deal” with china right now to stabailize the markets. China has purportedly agreed to substantial increases in US agriculture purchases in return for holding off new tarriffs.
Thus far Trump has stood behind – no deal unless there is a resolution of ALL points.
And there are several points that are not getting much attention – China relinquishing state control of many businesses, China decreasing its human rights violations – including the Uigurs and in Hong Kong.
I do not know what will happen, but from everything I am reading – Trump has substantially more leverage than Xi does.
The US economy is stronger. Nearly every hypothetical where China tries to leverage its debt purchases or anything like that has minimal and even sometimes positive impact.
If China sold all its US debt tomorow – the price of that debt would drop – that would be good for the US
If China refused to buy US debt, the price of our debt might go up – a little, but even though I wish we would stop borrowing US debt is a fantastic investment relative to other nations in the world right now.
We have a relatively strong economy at a time in which the economy of Europe and China are weakening.
It is probable that this “Trade War” has hurt americans – but not nearly as much as the stronger economy has helped.
I may not support Trump’s tarriffs and his muscular trade policies, but I am not blind to the fact that he has a much better hand than Xi right now.
I would also suggest that everyone – the press, the left, the democrats, Jay, and you look at the Trump presidency thus far.
Trump has been pummeled from day one.
He had the FBI secretly investigating him – and then spent 2 years dealing with a witchhunt that tossed landmines in his way.
He has had ferocious opposition – sometimes from Republicans, sometimes democrats, from the press, from foreign powers, from “the deep state” sometimes from his own appointments.
He has had substantial turnover.
And through this all the economy grows – unemployment continues to drop into territoy we have never been in before. He manages deals accross the world, the Wall is being built, he has substantially reshaped the judiciary, He is slowly attriting the swamp.
And on and on.
We all spend our time fixated on whatever is in the news at the moment – and Trump obliges by ranting and raving about whatever reporters want to rant and rave about.
And still he continues. He did not allow Mueller or the press or the republicans or the democrats or the generals to stop him.
I do not know all of what we are likely to see in the next year – many many things are possible. Some of those will happen. Probably not all.
Most of what is possible is favorable to Trump.
If there is a deal – which China, with North Korea, With Iran – that is a big win for Trump.
Horowitz is about to come out. The only question there is how big will the Trump win be.
Biden has effectively been knocked out – as noted the Ukrainians have been investigating Biden since BEFORE Zelenskyy was elected.
Apparently todays news from Ukraine is the store of how Joe Biden profited from the Ukraine.
And there is a claim that the Burisma investigation is NOT the only investigation he interfered with, and that others have ties to Joe Biden rather than Hunter.
True ? Who knows we will see. There are purportedly other former USSR countries with stories in the process of emerging.
I beleive a letter from someone in the DNC was just made public asking the Ukraines for assistance in the 2016 election.
The Durham investigation has expanded to include the genesis of the Mueller investigation.
We now have Mueller lying under oath.
And we have almost no clue what is going on in the Hunter investigation.
Today it is revealed that James Comey had a highly placed spy in Lorretta Lynch’s office.
There is just no way in the world that story ends well. It really does not matter which one gets burned.
Warren is ahead of Biden nationally now. But Warren’s credibility is weakening.
Absolutley there are polls that support impeachment – there is even a major poll that has a plurality for impeaching Trump AND a clear majority for re-electing him.
I can not make sense out of that.
Dave, I don’t think that all Americans understand what impeachment is, or why any president should be impeached. They are either truly ignorant, or willfully ignorant of, not only the seriousness of impeachment, but the separation of powers.
So, we currently have those who would support impeaching Trump if he ate his dinner with the wrong fork, and those who realize that impeachment was put into the Constitution to allow Congress to remove a president who had committed treason, bribery or other high crimes.
Thank goodness Trump is fighting the secret Star Chamber proceedings that the Democrats have set up. If any president can be impeached by anonymous accusations that are in direct conflict with the established facts, and refuse to afford the President and his party due process rights, then we will have lost our constitutional republic and seen it replaced by Soviet-style, one party rule.
Anyone who thinks that, if the Democrats were ever to succeed in removing a president based on secret proceedings, they would then return to constitutional order is dreaming.
I don’t think it will happen, but I no longer have full confidence that it won’t.
And if it does, I do believe that we will finally face a true Constitutional crisis.
A real one, not the talking point, fake constitutional crises that the Democrats have been whining about since November 2016.
I beleive the constitution and law support the arguments I have made.
That certainly was the view in the past.
But even if I am wrong – democrats should be careful what they do.
We have had myriads of changes to how congress works over the past decade.
In the end each was instigated by democrats, but most effectively used by republicans.
There is a long list of presidents and politicians – including Clinton asking foreign leaders for favors to benefit them in an election.
There is a long list of senators, congressmen, and presidents who have asked foreign leaders to investigate members of the opposing political party.
There is a long list of …. who have threatened foreign leaders for political gain.
A president doing their job – is using the power of government for political benefit.
There are two possible outcomes of this.
This becomes the new norm,
Voter backlash devastates the democratic party in November.
Actually there are alot more possible outcomes.
One major problem democrats have is “the declaration of independence”
“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ”
The more arbitrary and caprecious the left becomes, the more force to bring down government is justified.
No matter what the outcome – this will harm the left.
The most fundimental issue is precluding an over broad fishing expedition.
One thing that should be obvious from this faux claim regarding Ukraine – is that ANYTHING will be used by democrats as a justification to impeach.
Regardless there is a huge game of chicken going on – and I am not so sure the objective is impeachment.
ALL of this – including the house subpeona’s is targeted at discrediting the investigation of the investigation.
If Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate 2016 is an impeachable offense.
Then why wasn’t the entire Trump/Russia mess ?
My perception – which could be wrong is that Trump and his people are confident
and democrats are panicked
So keep it up Jay. Apparently until the Democrats started faux impeachment, the GOP was having difficulty getting house candidates to challenge incumbents even in winnable races.
Now they are flocking in, and so is money, and enthusiasm is rising.
So lets hurry up – and have the house vote on impeachment – lets get all those Democrats in red districts to vote.
Or not. You can have them just sit on the sidelines sheltered by cha
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/09/republicans-house-impeachment-campaigns-041729
And more on the whistleblower complaint.
The information that Biden was being investigated by the Ukraine starting in Feb 2019 was KNOWN within the US Intelligence community and State department.
If the whistleblower is as highly placed as is claimed – then he knew that and omitted it from his complaint.
Whether you like it or not the Whistleblower is coming apart slowly.
So how and why did we get in bed with YPG in the first place ?
Oops !
https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/how-obamas-team-set-up-trumps-syrian-dilemma/
For those who think Trump just gave Erodegan a gift.
This article seems to say – Erodegan should not look a gift horse in the mouth.
Trump appears to have handed Erodegan a hand grenade with the pin removed.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/10/turkey-syria-united-states-tough-task-despite-green-light.html
Why actual Trump Supporters continue to support Trump
Why is all this about Ukraine ?
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/07/not_all_about_the_bidens_why_trump_has_ukraine_on_the_brain_120635.html
Angela Merkel’s immigration policy weaponized by the EU’s NATO “ally” Erdogan:
“We will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way,” Erdogan said in speech to lawmakers from his AK Party.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-europe/turkeys-erdogan-threatens-to-send-syrian-refugees-to-europe-idUSKBN1WP1ED
The threat to Merkel addresses another issue.
As is typical of knee jerk Argh! Trump responses.
There are many more factors besides the Kurds.
While these is reason to beleive the Kurds and turks would be hostile to each other.
There are kurds – even ones the turks do not like in turkey and they are not MOSTLY at war or engaged in genocide.
The Kurds are NOT Turkey’s or Trump’s priority.
The 3.6M syrian refugees in Turkey are.
Much is made of the Kurds help fighting ISIS, Well the Turks took in 3.6M refugees.
They did not have to.
And now that ISIS is “defeated” they would like to send them home.
But if the anti-trumpsters want to play games – Turkey can just send them on their way to Europe.
Put simply there is not some trivial situation here where the only issue is turkey killing the YPG.
Nor is there some static arrangement that will be stable for years – if our troops stick arround.
There are 3.6 Refugees Turkey is going to remove from Turkey.
The least damaging solution is to return them to Syria.
And that means to areas currently controlled by YPG
WSJ Addendum:
“Since late 2018, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas have introduced Mr. Giuliani to several current and former senior Ukrainian prosecutors to discuss the Biden case.”
So what is it that you think the story is here ?
If these people – who may themselves be corrupt, interoduced Gulliani to other people to get evidence about Biden – who may be corrupt, what is it that you think the problem is ?
I do not care if Al Capone provides Guiliani with introductions.
George Will, a respected Conservative commentator, has this to say today:
“.@GeorgeWill: “If Trump gets away with his blanket noncompliance, the Constitution’s impeachment provision, as it concerns presidents, will be effectively repealed, and future presidential corruption will be largely immunized against punishment.”
“In 13 months, all congressional Republicans who have not defended Congress by exercising “the constitutional rights of the place” should be defeated.”
Have you read the WH letter ?
Trump has refused to cooperate with a process that does not conform to the constitution.
You are Will are in this instance BOTH on the wrong side of the constitution.
The letter, and Trump’s statement today both say the same thing.
The WH will cooperate with AN ACTUAL congressional impeachment inquiry constitutionally run.
Step one VOTE to authorize an inquiry.
If you can not do that – GO AWAY and quit talking about “faux impeachment”.
Would it have been OK with you if Speaker Ryan and IC chair Nunes announced they were conducting an impeachment of Obama – with no House vote ?
Will it be OK with you if the next republican speaker of the house announces impeacement of the next democratic president on day one without any vote ?
The power to conduct an impeachment inquiry belongs to the house – not the speaker.
Impeachment is a political process.
It is not intended to be risk free. It is supposed to be rare – because congressmen are supposed to have to stick their neck out to do it.
If this Faux impeachment proceeds – it will become the norm.
If you beleive Trump should be impeached – DO IT RIGHT.
Another hypocrite politician whose word isn’t worth the toilet paper it’s smeared on:
Rand Paul in 2015: We should promise the Kurds their own country if they “fight like hell” against ISIS.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/rand-paul-on-the-kurds-then-and-now/
You keep talking about a promise – as if one has actually been made.
President Rand Paul DID NOT make a promise tot he Kurds.
He was not elected, and we did not follow his proposal.
You can not hold him to ONE detail of a commitment that was proposed rather than enacted.
And you can not hold Trump to what Paul suggested.
Finally – lets say that promise was made – what has that got to do with the US withdrawling.
I share Pauls beleif that the Kurdish regions in several countries should be combined into a single kurdish country.
But it will still be the job of the Kurds to defend and run that country – not the US.
Well Priscilla, are you going to insist Trump keep his word and destroy Turkey’s economy?
“ISTANBUL/ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey pounded Kurdish militia in northeast Syria for a second day on Thursday, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee and killing dozens, in a cross-border assault on U.S. allies that has turned the Washington establishment against President Donald Trump.”
(BBC) – “Tens of thousands of people have fled their homes in northern Syria, as Turkish forces step up their cross-border offensive on Kurdish-held areas.
Turkish troops have encircled the border towns of Ras al-Ain and Tal Abyad and aid agencies fear the exodus could reach hundreds of thousands.
International clamour has increased for Turkey to halt the attack.”
‘International clamour’ stifled by Russia and the U.S. at the U.N. today as they both helped close down a vote calling for a cease fire.
Keep up the shameful silence, good Trump supporters acquiesce to their leader’s wishes.
Lets see what actually happens.
The Turks are seeking to move 3.6M syrian refugees into a 300 sq mile region in Syria.
THAT is the area that they are trying to drive kurdish forces out of.
Arguably – more arguably than your defend the kurds claim, we agreed to that.
Right, dhlii , the whistleblower’s account is unraveling…
Washington Post:
“ At least four national security officials were so alarmed by the Trump administration’s attempts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes that they raised concerns with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after President Trump’s July 25 call with that country’s president, according to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the matter.
The nature and timing of the previously undisclosed discussions with National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg indicate that officials were delivering warnings through official White House channels earlier than previously understood — including before the call that precipitated a whistleblower complaint and the impeachment inquiry of the president.
At the time, the officials were unnerved by the removal in May of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; subsequent efforts by Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to promote Ukraine-related conspiracies; as well as signals in meetings at the White House that Trump wanted the new government in Kiev to deliver material that might be politically damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.”
You have a WaPo story with unnamed sources.
How many times have these stories proved false in the past 2 years.
You still do not seem to grasp that when you lie repeatedly, people quit beleiving you.
So who are these officials and what exactly were their concerns ?
We have the WB complaint – it is nearly all policy differences.
Is the same thing True of these 4 unnamed sources ?
Why do I care if hypothetical unnamed sources disagree over policy ?
Finally because you are sure to go there.
There is no way of knowing what “political purposes” means.
We have the transcript. Are you saying it is false ?
Then lets directly confront that.
If not – are you saying that something occured BESIDES the call ?
We now know the Ukrainians opened an investigation in early 2019.
That is before Zelenskyy was elected.
We also know the US intelligence KNEW THAT.
So why are we to beleive that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to do something that they were already doing ?
You say your sources are highly placed ? Then they already knew they Ukrains were investigating.
In the end I do not beleive this is even about policy differences.
I beleive that this is just a deliberate false narrative.
Take facts and try to change the time line to make them fit into a different political story.
This is little different than the Steele Dossier nonsense.
And it will ultimately die the same way.
If I repeat often enough
“Jay froths and foams about Trump every day, I think he might assassinate Trump”
Does that make it into a fact ?
If the facts alleged in your WaPo story were true – they are still not evidence of anything.
Anonymous purportedly highly placed sources “concerned” about non specific “political” matters and “warning” about them. Does not constitute evidence of anything (except possibly a conspiracy).
To get anywhere you have to have:
Evidence of an actual crime
And you are not even close to that.
Evidence of an impeachable offense.
While that can be “anything” – to survive public scrutiny, it must be something the public buys.
There have been numerous examples of ACTUAL quid pro quo threats and actual political favors by several prior presidents and senators, and …..
Just to be clear your wapo article is completely consistent with:
Numerous highly placed members of the intelligence community were terrified by the fact that Durham, Trump, Barr, and Gulliani were moving rapidly to expose the criminal corruption of Biden as US VP and to expose the criminal interferance in the 2016 election by the Obama administration in which much of the us intelligence community was complicit.
Or more simply you are saying that it is a crime to investigate a crime purpatrated by democrats.
Please read the transcript – and the WB complaint.
There is no mention of delivering political dirt to Trump.
What is discussed CONSTANTLY is investigating alleged Crimes.
Trump makes it clear he does not know what actually occured – these are allegations to be investigated. He does not dictate outcomes – he askes Ukraine to enforce its own laws.
This is in contrast to Biden who said “Fire the prosecutor”.
He did not say investigate, and the effect of his demand was to thwart an investigation.
Trump did not say – announce publicly you are investigating.
He did not say – make up dirt,
He did not say – anything except – find the truth if possible.
Are you saying that is impeachable ?
BTW there is a reason that Trump and republicans want all this conducted PUBLICLY and a reason Democrats do not.
The reason is obvious – Nadler’s public hearings have been a disaster for democrats.
I doubt Trump would have any problems with PUBLIC hearings on this.
The Volker hearing was not public. Volker’s public statement helped Trump.
Democrats selective leaks purportedly damage Trump.
But republicans are demanding the full transcripts be made public.
Claiming that Volker’s testimony should have ended this entire inquiry.
We do not know who is telling the truth.
But we can know it the transcripts are made public.
Hold these hearings in Public.
very very little of this is classified – most of that can be waived.
But you can not hold a fishing expedition in public,
and you can not hide what actually occurred in a hearing if you much do it in public,
Lets end the star chamber nonsense now.
Jay, I know you are having trouble with this.
But there is substantial documentary evidence supporting Guliani’s “conspiracy theories”
Start with the 500 document dump from John Solomon that is available to anyone on line.
You can call any allegation a “conspiracy theory”
How about if we actually seek the truth ?
The reason Despicable Donald capitulated to Turkey demand to remove the US buffer force at the border:
“@realDonaldTrump admitted in 2015 that when it came to #Turkey, ‘I have a little conflict of interest ‘cause I have a major, major building in #Istanbul. … It’s called #Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one.'”
#TraitorTrump
More trump bullshit destroying AMERICA’S reputation. Many of our allies are openly disappointed.
“The US just joined Russia to veto a UN Security Council resolution sponsored by our European allies — France, Germany, Belgium, the UK and Poland — condemning Turkey’s
invasion of Syria.”
Israel condemned it too. Netanyahu himself spoke out against it, offering humanitarian assistance to the Kurds. Trump’s alignment with Putin benefits Iran… I’d explain it further, but it’s useless to spit into the wind …
It appears that the “rival political candidate” the the WB is affiliated with is Joe Biden.
OOPS!
Talk about indicia of bias.
Do you understand that the WB complaint itself now looks like Biden trying to manufacture political dirt on a rival political candidate ?
I guess we should arrest Biden and the WB.
And that would make Schiff quilty of conspiring to manudacture political dirt.
It also make Schiff and Biden wuitly of “obstruction of justice” – and that is actually clearer.
Because what you seek to do is impede an actual ongoing investigation that has more than reasonable suspicion.
OOPS.
You have the reasoning ability of cement.
Within hours – repeat HOURS – of the conversation Trump’s lawyers – repeat HIS LAWYERS – locked away the transcripts & notes in a secure server, because they knew there was a problem with what the IDIOT said. And numerous other observers with high security clearance we’re finding Trump’s remarks about the Bidens problematic. Were they all Biden buddies too?
Name one charge the whistleblower made that hasn’t now been confirmed, by Trump himself and by the assembled transcript you claim to have read yourself.
Someone like you who constantly has his head up his ass will continue to see the world from that HAZY perspective. That you don’t realize what Trump did was wrong speaks volumes of your fuckatude.
Reminder: GSY
No Jay – within Seconds the Transcripts were locked away – Because that is NORMAL.
While it is true that access to Trump communications is more narrow than under Obama – because there are far more leaks than under Obama – AND because Obama sent “Whistleblowers” to Jail, they have ALWAYS been classified.
In fact Everything the president says that is not public, Everything Sec State says that is not public. Even their calendars are CLASSIFIED.
Have you EVER BEFORE read the transcript of a private comunication between the US president and a foreign leader ?
Of course not – even if they shoot the breeze – IT IS Classified.
Next – there are 3.5M federal govenrment employees. There are about 3500 permanent white house staff.
The people who work in the Federal Government in The WhiteHouse in the Executive are NOT “trumpsters”. It is NOT the people Trump brought into the whitehouse who are behind this. It is the James Comey’s, it is the CIA agents with personal relationships with Biden.
You do not seem to grasp there is a WAR going on in the Executive branch.
The DOJ. State, FBI, and intelligence services participated in an attempted Soft Coup.
AND THEY FAILED. And Barr and Hunter, and Durham and to some extent Horrowitz and …
are working to root them out and expose them and discipline them and potentially fire many of them.
And that is absolutely appropriate.
And the Ukraine is a big deal – becuase Ukraine is Ground Zero for the Trump/Russia collusion Hoax.
These people who are leaking are SCARED. They participated some in small, some in large ways in a failed coup.
Recently the DOJ sent out over 1000 letters to everyone currently in govenrment who received an email from the Clinton bathroom mail or who sent email to that address, notifying them that the entire issue was being looked at an there would be administrative consequences.
And that is perfectly appropriate – there are differing degrees of error/consequence.
There is a significant difference between receiving an unclassified email from Sec. Clinton on an internet email address, and sending a classified document to Sec. Clinton on an internet email address. Most of these people will just have security notations in their files. some will require additional security training. A small number will be denied future promotions, a very
small number may be fired.
Do you have a problem with that ?
At the bare minimum using an internet email address for official communications is a violations of federal records keeping laws and myriads of regulations and procedures.
If we do not expect it to occur again – we must enforce those laws and regulations.
Only a small portion of these people committed crimes – but ALL of them at the minimum failed to report violations of the law.
You are ranting about a faux WhistleBlower – where was the Clinton Email WhistleBlower ?
We know people were fired for Telling Clinton she could not do this – but where was the IG complaint ?
You fixate over Trump conduct that violates no laws or regulations, and back pedal over massive misconduct that actually violated the law and regulations and politicies.
The notices regarding the Clinton emails were just the warning shot.
The Horowitz reports are going to have consequences – not Just for Comey and McCabe but throughout the DOJ and FBI.
We do not know much of what Hunter and Barr and Durham are doing – but we know that they are interviewing LOTS of people in DOJ/FBI/CIA/State/…
And those people are talking among themselves, and they have a pretty big clue much more than we do, of where things are going.
We are talking potentially thousands of people who at the bare minumum are going to see letters in their files. Manyu who are going to see future advancement oportunities curtailed.
So do you think they are scared ?
Further these are CIA agents and analysts – they are not stupid people.
These are people who have conducted disinformation warfare campaigns in foreign nations – these are people who have manipulated the press in the US in the past.
You think they are not doing so now to protect their own interests ?
As Schumer said – Do not mess with the US intelligence services – they have a dozen ways from sunday to get back at you.
Well Trump and Barr and Hunter and Durham and Gulliani are not just messing with them. They are taking them on directly – as well as the media and the left and the democrats.
This is a gigantic game of chicken – and it you have not figured it out yet – Trump is not “flintching”.
You Think Trump is hiding things – which is of course why he cooperated fully with Mueller.
Trump has far more cards than the House.
While he can not stop these ambiguous implicative anonymous leaks, he does have great control of what information gets released.
You rant because he refuses to cooperate with the house.
What happens when he starts declassifying and releasing WHAT HE WANTS made public ?
The WhiteHouse letter DOES NOT say – we will fight you tooth and nail and never give up anything.
It says – if you want information from the whitehouse FOLLOW THE RULES.
More smug misinformed bs.
Ordinarily presidential phone transcripts are placed on a server where numerous high clearance individuals within the State Dept can access them.
These documents were Immediately HIDDEN away, moved to a highly classified system maintained by the National Security Council, where only his lawyers and a few Trump cronies had access.
That was a departure from how the server is normally used and how memos of the president’s exchanges are typically handled.
Tell me what was in the transcript you read that required his lawyers to have it hidden away so promptly.
Ordinarily the permanent staff in the whitehouse does not leak like a seive.
So Ordinary is out the window.
Next – you do not know what is ordinary, nor does the press,
you know what someone – an anonymous source has said.
Regardless, ordinarily is not “the law”.
You have admitted that these communications are restricted access.
In doing so you have entirely lost the argument.
Actually you did before.
These documents have ALWAYS been “ordinarily” highly classified.
They have NEVER leaked before
When something highly classified leaks – EXTRA-ORDINARY measures are taken.
And these steps were taken in early 2017. almost 3 years before the Ukraine call.
Next, the classification authority in the US resides in the president.
While he nearly always defers to subordinates, The president can classify anything, or unclassify anything. There is a process for appealing classifcation decisions but it takes years – often decades and things are rarely declassified.
The president can decide to severely restrict access to pretty much anything by up-classifying it.
Further – while severly restricing access has the effect of thwarting leaks, it also has the effect of slowing or stopping the spread of policy decisions.
We went over this with Putin Trump talks.
Lets say in a conversation wih putin Trump agrees to turn over the nuclear codes.
Has a crime been committed ? Treason ? High Crimes and Misdemeanors ?
No! trump can tell Putin anything, until he does something to make it happen there is no crime.
If Trump promised Zelenskyy a blow job, that promise is meaningless until he does something to impliment it.
You rave over restricting access to transcripts.
Well the distribution of transcripts is the way policy is implimented.
If distribution is limited and nothing said takes effect – there is no crime.
We had a version of this with Trump’s purported requests to McGhan and Lewendowski to fire Mueller.
Telling someone to fire Mueller is not obstruction (even firing Mueller is not obstruction).
Nothing can be obstruction until actions are taken to put it into effect.
You keep using Loaded words – “hidden” – from who ?
These are not documents that just anyone is free to access.
They are available to only the specific people the president chooses.
There is no requirement that a call to a world leader be transcribed or listed to at all.
There is no “hidden”
They were secured from leakers.
Nor is this speculation – as early in Trump’s presidency all his calls were being leaked.
If the people who had been granted access to them before had been trustworthy, nothing would have changed.
There is no negative import to denying untrustworthy people access.
Even your WB complaint is more evidence that the very people you want to hitch your wagon too are not trustworthy.
Todate no one has demonstrated that there is any actual issue with these calls.
8 committees in DOJ reviewed the complaint and found nothing improper.
Because there isn’t. Even Dershowitz recently noted that like the phone calls or not – they are the routine of diplomatic exchanges between world leaders.
Biden openly admitted to extorting Ukraine.
This is also why very little of the WB complaint is devoted to Biden.
The thrust of the complaint is opposition to Trump’s policies regarding the Ukraine.
All you have is evidence the WB and who ever shared with him are not trustworthy with the foreign policy of the US.
Neither you nor he seem to understand that the PResident sets foreign policy – not advisors, not congress. When we do not like that – we vote in another president.
Look at the fight here over the Kurds. We do not agree on what Trump should do.
Is there someone here who can properly assert that Trump CAN NOT do what he has chosen ?
“Name one charge” – The WB has not actually made any charges.
His allegations all are about policy.
And BTW several of the “allegations” are very close to PROVEN false.
Ukraine was investigating Biden since February 2019.
If the WB did not know that he is very poorly informed and should not be working at the CIA as an analyst.
You can not blackmail a country into doing what they already decided to do on their own
BEFORE Zelenskyy.
Read the WB complaint – Biden is NOT featured.
The objective of the complaint is to stop ALL investigations into Federal Government Medling in Ukraine in 2016.
Why in the world do you think it is legitimate for any WB to try to stop the US or a foreign nation from investigating past Government misconduct.
The transcript is 5 pages long – the WB complaint 9, Biden gets about 5 words in 5 pages and maybe twice that in the WB complaint.
So what is it about the over 5000 words in Trump’s call and almost 10,000 in the WB complaint that is an attack on a political opponent ?
To my knowlege aside from Biden protecting his son from an investigation AND doing the same for an oligarch in return for MONEY there are no other allegations – from Trump, From the WB that involve another 2020 political candidate.
You keep trying to conflate “unusal” with guilt.
Absolutely the Trump presidency has been “unusual”.
No FBI director EVER briefed a president elect on anything like the Steele Dossier.
Trump felt like he was being blackmailed and setup. And FBI documents reveal that WAS THE CASE.
I do not think that a transcript of a phone call between an NSA and a foreign ambassador has EVER leaked before – and that happened before Trump was inaugurated.
Within the first few weeks multiple phone calls with foreign leaders leaked.
When has ANY of these happened before EVER ?
What is unusual is that so much of the permanent whitehouse, the permanent executive has been actively working to sabatoge the president.
Kelley Responded by significantly reducing access to the very things that were being leaked.
If you honestly beleive that all the president and the NSC’s communications with foreign leaders and ambassadors should be done in public – then CHANGE THE LAW.
Regardless, Like you I see alot of unusual things occuring – things that are actually crimes.
And I see Trump doing unusual things to thwart crimes that other presidents have not had to deal with.
“Name one charge”
Todate the ONLY evidence that Ukrainian aide was being withheld to leverage Ukraine to investigate Biden has been the WB.
That is the only serious allegation the WB makes.
It is not in the Transcript.
The Transcript has been confirmed by the Ukraine.
In the leaked Texts, the EU Ambassador absolutely shuts down any suggestion that the hold on the aide is tied to anything political.
In fact the documents made available indicate that Ukraine was not aware of the hold – even after the phone call.
There is no indication anywhere outside the WB complaint that The hold on the Aide was not about getting more from the EU. In the Transcript – everything related to Aide was tied to getting more from the EU.
The only charge in the WB complaint that matters thus far has no evidence to support it – outside hearsay in the complaint. and lots and lots of evidence to contradict it.
Denial Central. Sad.
It won’t work.
Yes, Robby
Toss arround mindless repetition of meaningless phrases as a substitite for facts and arguments.
Denial of WHAT ?
If your posts are nothing more than “I am right and your wrong”, or “Trump is obviously despicable”, or “Anyone that does not agree with me is repugnant”, then you posts are pointless – unless you believe you can persuade people by insulting them.
Whatever the issue – I would think EVERYONE would want real valid arguments.
We are addressing consequential matters.
We set the constitution, the law, and even our moral standards BEFORE we evaluate the legality, criminality or morality of specific conduct.
We do this to avoid hypocracy. We do this so that we can avoid our own biases,
So that we can apply the same standards – whether those are criminal , or moral standards, uniformly.
AND we do so to avoid chaos and anarchy.
Some standards are different for different contexts – conduct that is acceptable in a private context is sometimes not in a government context.
So pick ANY issue – legal, criminal, moral, explicitly identify YOUR standards.
Then apply them to BOTH Trump’s conduct and the conduct of others,
If you can not apply the same standards to the same conduct or different people and reach the same result – you are not merely a hypocrite, You are lawless.
If Hillary Clinton’s conduct with Perkin’s Coi, Steele, Fusion GPS and assorted Russian Assets is acceptable to you – then anything Guiliani has done most also be.
That does not mean that conduct is not distasteful. But we resolve that through elections.
If the General Conduct of Comey, Strzok, Mueller is acceptable to you – then so is the conduct of Barr, Durham, Hunter.
If the Conduct of Biden, Obama, Bill Clinton are president or vice president involving forieng powers is acceptable to you – then so is the conduct of Trump.
The above are broad generalizations – there are potential reasons why Barr’s conduct could be less acceptable that Comey’s or visa versa.
But if you wish to distinguish one from the other – you must do so on the basis of FACTS and LAW.
One of the blogs that I regularly read is Instapundit. Yesterday, one of the posts had links to the following articles (I can’t link them here, because the 1 link rule will send my comment into moderation, but you can find all of the articles by googling them) :
“A People Betrayed : Twice before, Washington let Kurds die to promote foreign-policy designs. Now it’s the Bush Administration doing the deed.” LA Times April, 14, 1991 (Bush 41)
“US Abandoned Us , Say Kurds” The Independent, September 4 1996 (Clinton)
“Bush Betrays the Kurds” WND, September 19, 2007 (Bush 43)
“Obama Betrays the Kurds” National Review September 30, 2014
“Trump’s Betrayal of the Kurds May Be the Dumbest Move of His Presidency” The Intelligencer, October 9, 2019
This is not a justification of Trump’s decision to relocate 50-100 soldiers, in order to move them out of the way of a potential Turkish invasion. We can argue that, and we have been arguing that, for days.
However, it does put into perspective the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Kurds, which has been going on for a very long time. Even the sainted Obama caught flack about it. Jay seems to believve that there is a nation-state of Kurdistan, but there isn’t and the US can’t make that happen, Until it does, the Kurds are going to be fighting the Turks.
Trump basically said at his press conference that that he does not want to have ti go to Dover Air Force base to tell the parents of American soldiers killed in action, that their son or daughter died in the Syrian desert, helping the Kurds fight the Turks.
Do the Kurds deserve better than what they’ve gotten from the US? Maybe. But they are fighting for independence from Turkey, Syria and Iraq. It’s not our fight. And there are several factions of Kurdish fighters, one of which, the PKK, are communist terrorists, who have murdered thousands of Turks. Do they deserve our help? Almost certainly not… although they have gotten it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/turkey-has-legitimate-grievances-against-the-u-s-11570576128
My point, which I’m making in the full understanding that none of this complexity will break through the consciousness of the TDS afflicted, is that this is a very longstanding and complex problem, which did not start with Trump (far from it)and which Trump, like presidents who have struggled with this problem before him, is trying to resolve.
I do not know whether the US has betrayed the Kurds in the past – I have no idea whether we promised them anything.
It is not betray for two groups to work together towards ONE purpose they share, and not others they do not.
Generally I support a Kurdish nation carved out of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria
But when we drew the lines dividing countries in the aftermath of WWI – we forked up the mideast.
I know the PPK is labeled “terrorists” – I have no idea if that is true.
The US has agreed to label all kinds of groups “terrorists” – in order to build international support for “the war on terrorism”.
Was the IRA Terrorists ? The Checkens ? the Irgund ? The american Colonists ?
I am not trying to downplay terrorism just noting that a label is not the same as reality.
Separately as Samatha Powers book exposes – unintentionally, it does nto matter whether we seek to screw some group or help them – the outcome is bad.
Powers was a major advocate for the US Humanitarian use of US Hard power.
That is an admirable goal.
In practice it has produced outcomes WORSE than doing nothing, even allowing genocide.
The US does not have the ability to use hard power in a humanitarian fashion unless we are prepared to commit to forces across the globe forever.
We have peace in Ireland today – that took 1000 years of british occupation.
I doubt the Kurds are “the good guys” – at best they are the least bad guys.
As I always do, i read the first 3-4 paragraphs and moved on. I am addressing the 3rd one.
“But when we drew the lines dividing countries in the aftermath of WWI – we forked up the mideast.”
There is a massive mistake in the way one uses pronouns, “we”, “you” ” they”. Those words can be used in very problematic ways . When you say “we” forked up the middle east, I am going to assume you mean “we”, the USA.
No WE did not! The middle east was divided after WW1 by the British, French and Russians. Their forked up mess is what the USA is bogged down in today. Britain was also the first country to place troops in the middle east in WW2.
Other than oil money, why are we (USA)there?
We in this instance means the western powers – including the US.
Wilson was there and heavily involved.
Nor is this the only instance the US as part of the west has Forked things up.
I have been watching Ken Burns Vietnam on Netflix.
The US forked the vietnamese at the request of the british to favor the french.
And then the British and French LEFT leaving the US holding the ball.
After which we made innumerable mistakes on our own.
Language, Pronouns etc.
I would encourage everyone to write as accurately as possible.
But these are blog comments not doctors thesis.
Everyone here bemoans my long comments.
Well “we” takes up alot less space than “the British, French, Americans, and Italians”
My comments would be alot shorter if rather than trying to accurately related facts, and just emoted vageries generalizations and insults.
So who messed up the middle eadt from your POV. We or they?
We – the Western powers including the US.
Wilson was an absolutely horrible president – and do not forget he was both an early progressive and a democrat.
He loathed the constitution, there is almost nothing in his approach to governing that would not appeal to a modern progressive.
He was incredibly racist – his treatment of Blacks in his administration threw them back 30 years. Blacks in Government LOST decent jobs they had held for decades because of Wilson’s reforms.
He should have stayed out of WWI – there would have been a negotiated peace without the US. He set the stage for WWII, He participated in peach negotiations that F’d up the mideast – and many other parts of the world that remain problems through today.
No Wilson was not the most culpable regarding the mideast. Mostly he just Aquiesced as the French and British Fracked it up.
But he put our name to this mess and is culpable.
And therefore WE are culpable.
“ Attorney General William P. Barr met privately Wednesday evening with Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul who is one of President Trump’s frequent confidants but whose Fox News is viewed by the president as more hostile toward him than it used to be.
The meeting was held at Mr. Murdoch’s home in New York, according to someone familiar with it. It was unclear if anyone else attended or what was discussed. Aides to both Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Barr declined requests for comment on the meeting.” NYT.
Why is the AG of the US meeting privately with Murdoch?
Because he’s a flunky partisan violating his DOJ mandate to attend to protect the nation in a non-partisan fashion. Another fuckhead Trumpster violating his oath of office.
“Why is … ?”
Are you owed an explanation ?
Maybe he is investigating new charges against Bill Oreilly ?
Maybe he is trying to find out whether Fox knows something about MifSud, or Biden ?
Maybe he likes Murdock’s brandy ?
Murdock and Barr are secretly plotting a government takeover of NYT and WaPo.
Remember – you heard it here first!!!!!!
Murdock and Barr are both Cross Dressors and they were celebrating J Edgar Hoovers death.
Another credentialed Conservative speaks out about the Trumpian assault on America.
David French: “ I was president of the Harvard Law School chapter of the Federalist Society in 1986-87. I didn’t agree that I was signing up to a defense of limitless presidential power including the right to commit crimes without fear of investigation by Congress.”
What is a “credentialed conservative” ?
Is there a conservative accrediting institute ?
French has made a fundimental error.
Congress does not investigate Crimes. The President Does.
Congress’s NORMAL powers include executive oversight.
Powers Congress must vote itself include the power to conduct an impeachment investigation.
Without voting to open an impeachment investigation – the house is limited to its oversight powers. Any allegations of criminal conduct must be turned over to DOJ.
eight separate offices of the DOJ have already reviewed the WB allegation and concluded there is no crime alleged. Because there is not.
Regardless, Congress can dig deeper WHEN THE VOTE TO AUTHORIZE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
The entire power of the executive IS vested int he president.
The entire power of the House is NOT vested in the speaker.
Pelosi has ONE vote, Schiff has ONE vote.
To conduct an impeachment inquiry they need a majority vote.
AFTER that they can conduct investigations that go beyond oversite.
No one has argued otherwise.
Not even Trump personally.
Why is this so hard Jay ?
If you do not want to be accused of running “star chamber” investigations – then DON:T.
It is simple.
YOU have claimed (falsely) that Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders are not classified – if they are not then conduct PUBLIC hearings.
Contra your claims – Trump has NOT refused to co-operate.
He has refused to participate in a Sham.
What part of conduct this like the prior 3 efforts to impeach a president or 60 judicial impeachment proceedings in US history ?
Have the full house vote.
Form a committee specifically to conduct the inquiry.
Appoint a chair that is not going to have to be a fact witness.
Preferably one that is not going to run a partisan shit show.
Provide subpeona power to the minority as well as majority.
Allow the minority and majority to call witnesses.
Conduct nearly all hearings in public.
Limit closed door hearings to classified information.
In case you have not figured it out there are several reasons the House is NOT going to “play by the rules”
1). They do not have the votes.
2), There are LOTS of democrats who do not want to have to run for re-election having voted to start impeachment.
3). They do not want to give Republicans in the house subpeona power,
4). They do not intend to actually impeach.
The actual objective is to use the next couple of months to trash Trump publicly.
With the hope of:
stopping the investigation of the investigation.
distracting attention from the upcoming Horowitz Report.
Weaken Trump as much as possible before the december Recess after which the focus will be on the election.
Democrats are not serious about impeachment, They are not even serious about an impeachment investigation.
When they are serious – they have the means to show that, and when they do, they are entitled to be treated seriously.
Of all the above items the ONE that is the most important – is holding as much of the hearings publicly as possible.
Most of the hearings the Democrats have conducted since gaining the house have gone HORRIBLY.
Even hearings as unrelated to Trump as inquiries into White Supremecy were complete debacles. Candace Owen’s mopped the floor with the entire democratic party.
The Hearings into ICE have proven disasters.
Homan is not charasmatic or eloquent. But he is surprisingly knowledgeable, and he has relentlessly made it clear that blame for the current border problems rests with the law.
That there is nothing Trump is doing that Obama did not do.
That the house could solve the border problems if they wanted to.
Regarding Trump – the Cohen, Mueller, and Lewendowski hearings were total disasters.
We know little of Volkers hearing because it was behind closed doors – but the republicans are demanding the transcripts be published as they thought it was damning for democrats.
Even the IC IG hearing really did not go well for democrats.
I am all for Democrats holding as many PUBLIC hearings as they want.
Have we not lost enough in these undeclared wars that congress supports, but will not go on record to avoid the “hawk” label that may costs seats?
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-saudi-aramco-attacks-pentagon/pentagon-confirms-large-deployment-of-troops-to-saudi-arabia-idUKKBN1WQ25P?il=0
Two thousand more troops, including fighter pilots. As Priscilla pointed out Trump does not want to tell give condolences to parents who have lost a child in combat any longer, and then he pulls this crap.
We are not dependent on middle east oil. Europe, China and Japan are. Let them keep the straits open! Let the Saudi’s protect their own! So the Saudi Aramco IPO is being impacted. Big deal! So the price of oil goes sky high. Fine, that makes our oil companies much more profitable. Drilling rigs expand, more wells are put in place, more fracking takes place, increasing domestic supply. Fine.
Give the Saudi’s what they need equipment wise. If they need people to help run them, let them contract with private contractors that have experience with the equipment.
But no more military in undeclared wars and war zones between two other parties!
The noose tightens another notch.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s financial records must be turned over to the House of Representatives.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that lawmakers should get the documents they have subpoenaed from Mazars USA. The firm has provided accounting services to Trump.
And it will be appealed and ultimately you will lose.
We do not get to make up the law and the constitution.
we can change them – but until we do, we are stuck with the ones we have.
Congress does not have any authority to investigate individuals.
We already have a 9th circuit decision that prohibits creating new requirements beyond those in the constitution to be president.
This has the same problem.
The 1916 IRS tax law severely restricts access to tax records – even restricting Congress – and the president.
Congress has NEVER been given ax records that can be identified to a single person.
There are many many other problems.
Have you learned nothing from your nonsensical emoluments nonsense.
If the government has not done something ever before – it probably is unconstitutional or illegal.
When you go to court with creative interpretations of the law that have never been used before. YOU ARE WRONG – pretty much always.
It you want Trump’s taxes – change the law and the constitution.
Can you provide a link to the article – as there are two independent cases on this.
And they each have different problems.
The one involves the NYC DA and allegations related to the Daniels case.
If the NYC DA can demonstrate jurisdiction – which might but probably is not an issue,
Probable cause of a crime – which I do not think they are close to.
Probable cause that the search will result in further evidence of that crime,
then the DA will likely win that case.
It is also the best case, even though it should not be, as the probable cause standard of the 4th amendment has been near obliterated.
That should concern all of us.
But just to keep you on your toes – because you do not seem to grasp that there is not “Trump Law” a weak decision regarding probable cause means that Trump was properly allowed to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden.
In fact the NYC DA is dojng fundimentally exactly what Trump was doing,
using your language – seeking dirt on a political candidate from an opposing party.
There are constraints on how that must be done, but it is OBVIOUSLY atleast sometimes legitimate to do so.
Even I will give the NYC DA Trump’s tax returns IF the NYC DA can demonstrate
jurisdiction,
probable cause that a crime was committed
probable cause that the information requested will provide further evidence of that crime.
But I do not think she can or has.
Conversely, there is already probable cause regarding Biden and the Ukraine, and the standard to start an investigation rather than subpeona documents is only reasonable suspicion not probable cause.
While the house request for documents is different.
First the House must request the documents through Treasury – the law already provides for that.
The house does not have any authority over individuals, it has oversite of government.
Everything the house does with respect to individuals must be justified based on gaining information to write laws. NOT investigation.
The only time Congress can investigate an individual is in impeachment.
And then they have to have a REAL impeachment.
Anyway the issues between the two cases are DIFFERENT.
Could there be something there?
Could be.
May not be
Mazars USA is an accounting firm providing accounting and tax service’s in multiple national locations. They began business in 1921 and now have a large number of employees and partners providing these sevices.
If this company was 1/2 as annoying with documenting and insuring legality of tax information as were the ones doing our taxes at the for profit leg of our health system, Inwill be very surprised if they find anything.
It will take getting into the actual accounting entries creating the numbers for the taxes before something is found.
Accounting firms can also be held responsible for fraud in tax returns.
The fight over Trump’s tax return is just stupid.
I am sure that if provided to anyone the contents will be leaked and they will be spun into stories claiming malfeasance.
BUT, Trump does not prepare his tax return.
Tax returns do not provide the information all those ranting think they do.
They will tell very little about where Trump gets his money. or where he spends it, only generically what he spends it on.
Likely atleast 100 accountants work on the return.
As you note they have shared liability for the return.
I honestly beleive Trump is fighting the release of the tax return to bait democrats.
So long as they waste time and energy chasing it, they are leaving him alone on other things.
And if they ever “catch” the tax return there will be nothing there.
What happens if after the massive effort D’s make to get the Tax return – they come up dry ?
It will be the Mueller report all over – all promise, maximum effort to chase down a dry well.
Yesterday AG Barr visits Murdock.
Today Shep Smith announced he is leaving Fox News, just finished his last show.
Tomorrow it is expected Donald Trump JR will be named to fill the slot.
So?
I have not heard him often, but I suspect Trump Jr. Will suck.
Do you really think Barr cares who anchor’s Fox shows ?
But what the hell – investigate even more.
“At long last, have you no shame ?”
THANK GOD! Shep Smith would only fit in at MSNBC and even then, he may be too extreme left. I have asked Fox News multiple times when were they going to fire him. Guess enough asked the same question.
Trump Legacy In Action
“Isis militants break out of prison in Syria after bombing by Turkey
Escape comes after Trump cleared way for Erdogan to launch offensive on Kurds”
“Turkey Mistakenly Bombs US Forces”
“Yesterday the President did a live impersonation of a man having an orgasm at a campaign rally. His supporters cheered.”
“ WASHINGTON (Reuters) – One of the two Florida businessmen who helped U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal attorney investigate his political rival, Democrat Joe Biden, also has been working for the legal team of a Ukrainian oligarch who faces bribery charges in the United States, according to attorneys for the businessmen and the oligarch.”
“ The Pentagon has announced the deployment of thousands of additional troops to “enhance the defence of Saudi Arabia”. US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper says he has authorised the deployment of additional forces, including fighter jets and a defence system.” This after Trump in defense of his troop pullout from the Turkish border told Americans he was doing that to bring home USsoldiers from the Middle East.
Sounds like we should have gotten even further out of Syria.
I beleive the Ukrainians are charged with campaign finance law violations.
They are also innocent until proven guilty – just like Joe Biden – who is actually accused of Bribery now – can we start besmirching anyone close to Joe Biden because he is accused of accepting a Bribe ?
Which Oligarch would that be – the One Biden was taking bribes from ?
That would be my guess.
Documents of money transfers from an Oligarch to Biden have been made public.
The most likely source of those would be people who worked for that Oligarch.
Presumably you are aware that an iranian oil tanker was hit by rockets in the gulf ?
Tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia are high.
I would prefer that the US stayed out of that.
I would prefer Trump stayed out of that.
But I am not surpised.
Saudi Arabia is in our national interests,
The Kurds are not.
I will bet all the neocons that have been railing at Trump have quieted down.
“Kiss Obama’s Ass”
This is the retarded schLUMP dumbbells think shouldn’t be taken away in a straight jacket
Below are the charges in the Declaration of indepence against George III.
I can find several that apply to Obama.
I can not find one that would apply to Trump.
I am presuming you were quoting Krystal.
All you have done is proven Krystal is as unfamiliar with the declaration of independence as you are.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Your clip is both obviously and horrible edited.
That Bill Krystal and you think it is substantive undermines your credibilty.
Even Trump supporters do not try to sell the memes they create as reality.
The meme is funny and interesting – but only if you take it as a meme.
If you try to argue it seriously – all it does is make you look stupid.
Your fired!
Another one Bites the dust!
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-11/kevin-mcaleenan-out-acting-head-of-homeland-security
God, not the doctored chart nonsense.
Does the media think saying things makes them True regardless of facts ?
NOAA openly admitted that Projections included tracks through Alabama.
And they were not Rolled into doing so by Trump.
They HAD TO – because their projections are published and because they have been caught fudging with their past work there is a whole army that keeps track of all their past published work.
That is what happens when you lose credibility – others hold your feet to the fire.
“ NOAA openly admitted that Projections included tracks through Alabama.”
Blah blah blah. Those were projections made days before Trump doctored the chart, which showed the then CURRENT projection, which didn’t show any such danger.
“Those were projections made days before”
So ? You really want to make this about timelines ?
You confuse timelines all the time – because you can not reach any of the conclusions you want without a timeline.
And “doctored” is more word games.
Do you understand how idiotic your argument is here ?
To “Doctor” the chart would require a deliberate intent to knowingly deceive everyone into beleiving the Huricane would strike Alabama,
Are you really trying to sell that Trump knew the Huricane would not strike Alabama but projected it would – I guess Putin asked him.
I would have to check – and you are just not worth that much effort, But I am pretty sure that NOAA had hurican path probability diagrams that included Alabama within 24hrs of Trump’s chart.
….
“Trump showed the current projection” – what – do you think that Trump personally called NOAA 10 minutes before going on air and asked for an updated chart to be transported to the Oval by Marine 1 ?
Armenian families remaining in Turkey are under threat today from the Turkish Army, many already having to flee their homes
Armenian Relief Society (ARS) ; “ Unfortunately, during the past days, in northeastern Syrian towns of Kamishli, Hasakah and Derik, many of the 600 Armenian families have been forced to flee their homes in order to escape the bombardments.”
There’s over a million people of Armenian ancestry in the US- think Trump will get any applause from them in 2020?
Read your story – it makes no sense.
You have the armenians in Turkey and Syria simultaneously.
The turks have never been nice to armenians – killing atleast a million in a genocide almost a century ago.
Regardless:
ARE YOU SAYING it is the US job to prevent Turkey or any other country from harrassing any group inside or outside their borders ?
I beleive something like 2M Uighers are in concentration camps in China right now – are we supposed to do something about that ?
So let me be clear:
If some group elsewhere in the world is being harrased – by Turkey or any other group,
you are personally free – or free to send your sons and daughters to aide them in whatever way you see fit.
You may NOT however send MY Son and Daughter.
I did not raise my kids to be cannon fodder in your virtue signaling.
My mistake substitutingTurkey for Syria.
So, you’re willing to send your sons and daughters to fight and die with the Saudis who are being harassed by the Iranians. There ya go again, hypocrite signaling…
I am not willing to send my Son and Daughter to fight anywhere that is not in our interest.
I would have left the mideast on Day one – regardless of the mess it would have made.
As would George Washington.
I think Trump is too much of a war monger.
But he is still the LEAST likely to send my kids off to die of any us president or candidate since Reagan.
I would like a perfect president.
I will settle for the lessor evil.
The only current contender less likely to get us into a stupid war is Gabbard.
When you are selling a slate of candidates – democrat or republican that is less of war mongers than Trump – I will be interested in your criticism.
In the meantime you are just a hypocrit.
BTW the entire syrian debacle – is on Obama.
Here is an excellent article on the mess in Syia.
There are no good guys in Syria – and unfortunately that includes us.
We have accomplished what we set out to.
It is time to leave.
No ISIS is not defeated, nor is Al Qeda.
And they are not going to be – certainly not by us.
Islamic Jihadi’s terrorists will exists so long as the people in those regions support them.
Our involvement makes things worse. Not better.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/turkey-and-the-kurds-its-more-complicated-than-you-think/
“So, you’re willing to send your sons and daughters to fight and die with the Saudis who are being harassed by the Iranians. There ya go again, hypocrite signaling…”
I am glad that you know my heart and mind better than I do so that you are able to expose hypocracy I was completely unaware of.
I do not recall saying we should fight for The Saudi’s.
Only that the US has an actual interest there.
But apparently it is hypocritical for me to suggest that if we are going to make mistakes we make the least stupid ones.
And how is it that you can let yourself off the hook ?
You do not want to provide the Saudi’s any assistance, we have had to listen to you rant about the Saudi’s for the entire Trump presidency.
But the YPG – somehow we owe them our children’s blood according to you ?
Yell me in what world that makes sense ?
Absolutely we shared an intterest with YPG – defeating ISIS.
They have been driven from Syrian.
That was purportedly our reason for being their. Though even that is debatable – you would have to ask Obama why we and in syria. No one else knows.
“The president held a campaign rally last night and attacked Hunter Biden.“
What a Disgusting lump of shit he is, to use the power of the presidency to attack the son of his political rival like that.
Who of those here will be first to will wrap themselves in the same shit mantle and defend that.
Democrats NEVER say nasty hateful and disgusting things about republicans ?
Grow, up Jay. What is unusual about Trump is that he plays the game by the same rules as the democrats and the media.
every single republican in my lifefime has been derided as a cook, a nazi, a racist.
What Johnson did to Goldwater was absolutely despicable.
Goldwater was one of the most decent people in US politics.
The left tried hard and failed to slime Reagan.
I do not think either of the Bushes, were good presidents. But they were decent people,
and the left was relentless in attacking them.
I have no idea whether he would have been a good president – but we could have had Dole rather than Clinton and we would not be talking about BJ’s in the oval.
I doubt McCaine would have been a good president – but he was a genuine hero, and he was certainly dignified and respectable, and he could not have been a worse president than Obama. And you smeared him.
Romney would have been that perfect centrist that you all seem to love – but will not actually vote for. Romney, Kaisich, Flake, again a decent respectable person, well spoken,
Yet you called him a nazi and a racist and all kinds of other things.
I am constantly telling you that Trump is the CONSEQUENCE of the left.
Get rid of him if you can – you could end up having to deal with an actual totalitarian, racist, …
You and the media have been attacking Don Jr. Eric, Melainia, even Barron Trump since before the election.
You attacked Palin’s children. You attacked the Bush Children.
Yes, the families of politicians should be left out of the circus – you first.
Regardless, Hunter Biden has INARGUABLY profited greatly off his fathers political power.
As apparently have the sons of Kerry, and Pelosi as well as many others.
Getting jobs you could not possibly have gotten based on your skills or talents is not illegal – and it should not be. But it is fair game for criticism.
You Attacked Trump himself for the leg up his father gave him – and there is no doubt he benefited from his parents, as has his family. No one in the entire Trump dynasty would be where they are but for the first shots they received from their father.
But there are differences – Trump succeeded. He grew what he got from his father to something far larger and more diverse. Trump’s children are delivering as the hears to his crown. The Trump family might have a silver (even golden) spoon – they might because of their father have opportunities that their experience and background does not qualify them for. But they are delivering on expectations. They are doing difficult jobs successfully.
They are not in cushy sinecures, Tony Soprano no work jobs.
And more important still Niether Trump’s nor his children;s success has come as a result of leveraging public power.
Even if the Biden’s, the Kerry’s the Clinton;s the Obama’s have done absolutely nothing illegal. Their wealth and that of their family was NOT made in the free market. it was made BECAUSE of the public power they weild. Even if that is legal it stinks to heaven.
You have zero problems unsuccessfully claiming Trump is really in government for the money – as if he needs more and as if he and his family made billions by selling public power.
Legal or not what all those politicians – democrats or republicans who have gotten rich, and whose families have gotten rich because of their ability to weild public power are far more deserving of criticism.
Hunter Biden decided to live off the drippings of his fathers power.
I have no problems with Trump attacking him.
And you do ?
Poetic Justice.
‘NEW: SDNY, an office Giuliani once led, is investigating whether he broke foreign lobbying laws in his dealings in Ukraine and are examining his
efforts to remove the US ambassador to Ukraine.” NYTIMES
And HOW is it that you think Gulliani could have broken a law here ?
John Kerry has been telling Iran to ignore Trump he will not be president after 2020.
If that does not break any laws – then there is no way anything Guiliani did breaks any laws.
BTW – I do not beleive that SDNY has any jurisdiction at all over actions outside the US or actions of the state department.
Regardless, please explain this Guilini broke the law thing ?
Joe Biden got foreign prosecutors fired – how can that be legal and ANyTHING Guiliani did be illegal.
Anyway there is lots of stupid crap going on about the Ukrianian Envoy.
But the story is real simple.
Trump did not like her
The Ukraine did not like her.
She serves at the pleasure of the president – as does most of the state department.
To the extent Trump has done something wrong – it is not firing nearly all fo the state department, and the CIA, and the NSA and ….
You do not seem to understand this
TRUMP WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
The PRESIDENT determines foreign policy.
Not the state department, not the Ukrainian Envoy.
Not even the house and senate.
That is in the constitution.
In the event that any law exists that conflicts with that – it is unconstitutional.
As to Guiliani – he is private citizen. There is very little that he can do in the area of “foreign policy” that is illegal – just as Kerry can go running arround interfering with US foreign policy to his hearts content, and just as Basketball stars can go to North Korea, and Clinton can hire MI6 operatives.
Absolutely positively Guiliani was working to “dig up dirt” on pretty much the entire democratic party. And it looks like he found LOTS of dirt in the Ukraine.
And he is free to do so.
And Trump is even Free to Ask Rudy Guiliani private lawyer to go to the Ukraine to dig up dirt.
This is not the most seemly side of politics – but Hillary spent the entirety of 2015 and 2016 doing precisely this – and I did not hear you shouting “lock her up” ?
Trump excercising the powers of the president – as in a phone call with Zelenskyy,
Can not legitimately ask for something like an investigation – unless there is reasonable suspicion to do so. That is the only allegation in this whole nonsense that comes within 100,000 miles of being an actual crime.
Rudy Gulliani can go to the Ukraine – as Trump’s lawyer, with explicit instructions from Trump, to “get dirt” on political enemies – he can even go and ask the ukrainians to “make dirt up”
This is not different from the Crap Clinton did in 2016 – except for the fact that Clinton and the DNC really were asking the Ukraine to “make things up”, and Guiliani is merely asking them to expose what happened in 2016.
I want to hold my nose when I hear about Clinton in 2016.
But it was legal.
Guiliani’s actions don’t even smell as bad as a Clinton fart.
And they are legal.
What is NOT legal is when the government got involed in 2016.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/11/andrew-mccarthy-unravels-the-real-russia-collusion-narrative/
And that is what – Guiliani, Barr, Durham, Hunter, and Trump as looking into.
And it already stinks to high heaven, and as more facts are added it is only going to get worse.
Your fixated on Guiliani. I do not even think DOJ has an actual credible case against the two Ukrainians they arrested. The campaign finance complaint that is being alleged, is minor and the only person ever prosecuted for it was Dinesh D’Sousa – and that was blatantly political, and Trump rightly pardoned him.
And you really do not want people prosecuted for it – the FEC found $65M in contributions over the limit in the Clinton Campaign. Thousands of people would be going to jail.
What we need to do is just get rid of the FEC – they are unconstitutional.
The government may not constitutionally interfere in the non-violent private actions of private parties in an election
Jay, really, what are you expecting from them? Davilla will ascribe the view on trump that you and I and 50+ percent of the country have to tds. Apparently the Georges, that is, Will, Romney and Conway, not to mention any conservative with any actual standards and principles, are all tds cases. So, all you will hear on tnm is ” So what” from them no matter what trump does. They will tell you that big trump ever does actually do something truly bad they will certainly join in on the criticizing. So who actually has tds, us or them?
You are beating your head against a wall.
Tnm is far from being a moderate venue, what can one do? Drop me a line Jay at tennis658@aol.com if you wish to have a sensible conversation. I use that particular address to receive tnm comments.
Ha, I can’t get into that account, its been too long since I used it. If you are interested in e-mailing me Jay try 66cityband@gmail.com
As I read the pissing contest between Jay and Dave from a little distance, the issues are not a Davilla issue, it is a couple that will never be solved.
Dave overwhelms this sight with so many comments and words within those comments that most of them are not read or not read completely and many facts are overlooked. Much of what is read are the first few paragraphs and that is mostly personal comments about the others position, not facts documenting the fallacy of the position.
On the other hand, Jay uses other twitter or news comments and then follows up one a one or two sentence comment that is 100% anti-Trump which provides no support for his own position.
So we get the two individuals arguing from a TDS perspective, or commenting somewhere in the post that actually addresses the issue.
There are not enough here to get into substantial discussions on things taking place because anyone who does gets inundated by emails and turns off notifications and trying to follow anything on word press is totally impossible with the numbers of comments made.
But if someone wants to discuss issues, Dave and Priscilla will discuss that with facts that can be researched and found to b true for the most part. One may not agree with the theory of the facts, but that is also an opportunity to discuss why.
TDS has destroyed logical debate .
I have not studied the structure of my comments to the extent you apparently have.
Regardless, things on TNM get too personal all the time.
Because that is what happens when you engage in fallacy and ad hominem.
The argument shifts from debate over the facts, to debate wrapped arround the fallacy.
When you hurl insults – you get insults back.
What Trump has changed about politics – is that the spitballs are not all coming from one side now.
I would prefer to clear public discourse of spitballs – and fallacies, and insults.
But that is not happening.
And even if it did – I would start with the source, and that is not Trump or the right.
Oddly I am probably the most ardent “defender” of Trump here.
But of those not falling off the left side of TNM, I am probably the least politically supportive of Trump.
But I am the MOST tired of the lying and slurs and insults of the left.
I am not mostly defending Trump – I am mostly attacking the REAL problem
What happens when someone gets in a pissing contest with a shunk?
Who wins? Who loses? Is it better to back away and avoid the skunk?
There is nothing preventing substantive discussions of
Trade,
Foreign Policy
Immigration
or innumerable issues here.
When Jay and Robby choose not to inflict continuous TDS on us,
those serious discussions happen.
And they rarely hinge on, and sometimes do not even mention Trump.
There are two ways of viewing the world that show up on TNM.
One is what are the facts, what are the principles, and how do assorted politicians and parties conform to those facts and principles.
The other is What has Trump said. done, thought – whatever it is – it is wrong.
“Jay, really, what are you expecting from them? Davilla will ascribe the view on trump that you and I and 50+ percent of the country have to tds.”
If you do not want accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome why in god’s name are you opposing Trump keeping Promises that Obama made that you claimed to have supported ?
We all know that the neo-cons, way too many republicans, the generals and way too many in CIA, NSA, State …. would have the US drug into every skirmish in the world.
The fact that the so called “experts” support endless war is not news.
It was not news when Both McCain and Obama promised to get us out of all these wars in the mideast and elsewhere.
We – the american people VOTED to get out of these wars in 2008, and 2012, and 2016.
Is there someone posting on TNM that until Trump tried to get us out was actually opposed to getting out ?
All the people you are now citing as experts that we should defer to – these are the same experts that got us into these messes in the first place, and the same experts we voted AGAINST in 2008, 2012 and 2016.
Please give me a credible reason that you oppose any of this today – after voting for it got atleast 8 years ?
If you do not want to be accused of TDS – then do not change your values like the wind based on whatever party or person is in control.
My positions on every single issue have been the same – whether the conduct being examined was that of a democrat – or a republican.
All of Clinton’s actions in 2016 – including ACTUAL Collusion with Both Ukraine and Russia were offal but legal. The less offensive actions of Guiliani are even more clearly legal.
Bush should have gone into Afghainstan, taken out the Taliban and left IMMEDIATELY.
I will admit I was not ADAMANTLY opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq – but I was very troubled by it. I was dubious of the WMD claim – and openly opposed to the Bush “preventive war doctrine”, and not comfortable with the “humanitarian war” thesis that many democrats floated. I opposed Iraq – but not as vociferously as I should have at the time.
To my recollection Bush avoided every other oportunity for intervention in the mideast – and I supported that.
Obama was elected to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and not get us into other foreign wars. I supported that – I did NOT support Obama – I did not BELEIVE Obama, and 8 years later – we were not out of Iraq or Afghanistan and we were new messes in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Nigeria – and probably others. Further to this day no one can really explain our interest in any of those places.
In case you have forgotten WE DID NOT get into Syria to fight ISIS. The initial goal was Regime Change. Fighting ISIS became a goal because Obama could get republican support for it.
Trump was elected promising to get us out of all these messes.
I did not beleive him either. He has not done a very good job of that.
But he is actually making progress – shitty progress, but progress nonetheless.
Why is anyone here actually fighting that ?
George Romney died 25 years ago.
Mitt Romney is a milquetoast version of Obama who actually did built something in his life – unlike Obama.
George Conway is the husband of KelleyAnne Conway is the first female campaign manager to win a presidential campaign. That is the only significance to George Conway.
George Will is probably the most significant political thinker in this country over the past 40 years. It is likely that Will and I have very few differences over policy or ideology.
While more – there are also few differences between George Will and Donald Trump over policy.
Unfortunately no Republcan with the character of George Will or even Mitt Romney is ever going to be elected president.
What all of your “Georges” have not grasped is that you can not change policy if you can not get elected. And leftists selling disasterous policies and ideologies will destroy anyone (even democrats) of good character in an election.
Why ? Because people like you do not give two shits about character – until anyone not of the left is elected. After that – actually long before, you will pummel that person relentlessly – you will call them racist, nazi, mysoginist – hateful hating haters. For you the ends justifies the means.
And before you tell me you are not really a leftist.
We have heard it before – and I will give you one of your own fallacious arguments back.
You stood there and did nothing – and Bill Clinton was elected.
You did nothing and Democrats selected “Al Give my boner a massage, Gore”,
You did nothing and Democrats selected Hillary – no one could possibly more vengeful or corrupt Clinton.
You have accused The Trump campaign of Colluding with Russia – when the only ones Colluding with any foreign power was Clinton – and she was colluding with just about every foreign power – including Russia.
You had no problem at all with Obama – and his administration investigating an opposition political candidate (apparently SEVERAL – as well as journalist, and congress) as president with absolutely no reasonable suspicion of an actual crime.
Joe Biden’s OVERT Threat against the Ukraine was made Publicly in 2016 – while a couple of NYT reporters took note – I did not hear anyone – not even the most extreme members of the republican house demanding Biden’s impeachment.
I did not hear anyone demanding an investigation.
I did not hear anyone even suggesting Biden’s conduct was a problem.
But Trump is elected – and SUDDENLY Character matters.
Those of us who actually have good character are supposed to suddenly start foaming and frothing – because now that Trump is president – you suddenly give a shit about character.
I think George Bush (both) was a poor president, but a very decent person.
You called them Nazi’s.
I think John McCain is a national hero
You called him a Nazi – and your presidential candidate called his running mate a pig.
Mitt Romney is a decent honest man – even if I disagree with him on many things.
You called him a Nazi and a murderer and all kinds of other things, you lied about Benghazi – when Romney was immediately right about it.
Regardless, Romney lost.
My fundimental disagreement with George Will is that regardless of all of Trump’s flaws, he remains not merely the least bad choice, but the least bad character, and the least bad policies.
It has taken my entire lifetime – and then some, but Trump has taught republicans something that Democrats have known for a long long time.
Nice Guys finish last.
It is humorous that trump enablers react to the thoughts of principled conservatives like George Will by discounting him because he has strongly criticized trump. “Why should we take the opinion of a trump critic seriously, when they are simply a trump critic?”
So, they can stay in their bubble and reject all the contrary views as tds. They have chosen Trump’s character as the hill they are willing to die on.
Roby, I know this was a comment for Jay, but if your willing, please answer a question. It will help me with your comment as well as Jays use of third party communication.
Scenario:
George Will writes article.
Jay copies a statement from article and states ” How can any despicable Trumpansee defend this position”
Jay has not made his position known.
So how would someone be expected to reply?
State why Trumps position is defensable?
State why they support Will’s position.
State why they are not a “Trumpansee”, but support the position.
Isn’t all of these debating George Will and not Jay since Jay never said what he believed?
I do not know why Jay bangs his head against the wall of “so what” from Trump’s defenders here. I have in the past gotten into long fruitless bouts with Dave that I should have known better than to do, so I am in no position to tell Jay not to.
I would disagree that Dave’s posts are composed of facts in the best sense. They are composed of a mixture of truths, half truths, and pure bullshit. They are Dave attempt to build a wall of NO! Around the things he wishes to deny, which is a lot of things. You can argue with him, as a fellow libertarian. Anybody from the left, in even the mildest form is just falling into a pit to take up the Dave argument challenge.
I think that Dave and Priscilla make up a block, and that block is one the is ideologicaly your home as well. Anyone with the slightest liberal tendency is just going to interact with that block in frustration, I don’t mean mild frustration, especially given the daily events and how they appear to people like me. Really, it’s a davilla flavored site and that is how it will remain. In my opinion Jay and I would be better off having our own conversation and leaving tnm to the libertarian right.
Roby, you may be right about Dave. Like I said, if he has not made his point in the first 3-4 paragraphs, I delete. If he has and then goes off on his tagents, I delete when they start. I dont waste time on things that are not pertinent to my debate.
However, I do not agree fully with your description of me being in the block with Dave and Priscilla. You and I have had discussions in the past where we have agreed on certain things. Dave and I have had numerous debates where we disagree completely. I am further removed from Jay here than anyone because we dont agree on immigration, taxes, trade or government regulations. and since Jay will not get into any discussion other than arguments with Dave, I cant get past him being a Pelosi/Warren democrat. And Dave does not agree with me on government oversight of certain industries or trade, with some other issues.
The difference with you and I is we have discussed our difference in the past, as well as where we agree.. Jay post some tweet against some Trump policy, I comment with my reasons I think he is wrong ( I argue the policy, not the ass making it) and he comes back with some snide comment that has nothing about why the policy might be wrong other than Trump did it.
Just because I believe we need a completely new immigration law, we need fiscal policy to balance the budget, we need a complete revision to social security so individual contributions can be invested in equities to earn 5-7% instead of 1.5% in government debt, we need trade policies that require free and open trade if we are going to buy their cheep crap. we need a completely different foreign policy where the free countries all contribute to freedoms interests equally, we need a totally different environmental policy where all countries contibute based on output to CO2 reduction and we need a government to get the devel out of social tinkering once rights have been determined, all of this does not make me a Trumpansee.
(As a note to social tinkering, look at what has happened to womens sports once transgenders have been allowed to identify with a sex.)
Robby’s entire “block” debate is just a demonstration that he has no understanding of anything outside his own bubble.
The primary thing that you, I and priscilla share is the ability to discuss our differences without loaded emotional language and insult.
We all decry the bitter divisiveness of things today – but that bitter division disappears when those on the left are absent.
Look at the current Democratic Slate.
Do you think that Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Tulsi Gabbard, could have an interesting and informative debate ?
I Do.
Do you think anyone not on the extreme left can have any kind of debate with Sanders ? Warren ?
We have constant wars here about Trump – Trump’s STYLE – is exactly the same as that of the left. Everything that Jay or George Will loath about Trump is just “rules for radicals” writ large.
Except one thing – it is just style for Trump. Trump rants about silencing others, but he does not mean it – we can tell because he actually has some power to do so and he does not use it to do so.
While with the slightest power – those on the left do actually silence people. for the left it is much more than style.
I do not believe it is possible to know where you actually stand with respect to Jay.
Jay, more so than anyone is so driven by bitter loathing of Trump, that you feel like he would disown his children if they supported Trump.
I do not think it is possible to know what Jay thinks on any issue – because everything he says on any each is driven by his loathing of Trump.
“I do not think it is possible to know what Jay thinks on any issue – ”
And other than extreme blinding hate for Trump, neither do I. And that is why I dont try discussing issues with him any longer other than asking him “his” position on something he copies from another source.
He has been ranting about Trumps middle east policy and other than saying he would worry about his adult kids if they were there, he is silent on his position of America in endless wars without a declaration by congress. I stopped asking!
I disagree with you on many of the things you think we need.
But there will never be a rational discussion of ANY issues where anyone from the left participates today. Not even Robby.
With Jay – Trump is the center of the world. Someday Trump will actually be gone and I am not sure Jay will have a soul left when Trump is gone.
Robby’s world does not revolve arround Trump, But his approach to everything still hinges on argument by insult and moral accusation rather than facts logic reason.
If we could tone down the vitriole it is likely that Robby and I are closer on values than I am to you or Priscilla. But values are not principles, values are what you want, but principles are foundational and constrain HOW you can acheive what you want.
I would be surprised if anyone here has a life that is farther outside a bubble than I do. I would be shocked if anyone here interacts with more gay and trans, people than I do, or more minorities of every possible shade. I would also be surprised if anyone here interacts with as many purported Trump supporters.
The friends and people I know who are the most rabid Trump supporters, get along with everyone – gay straight, black, brown, yellow – they are also the most prone to self censor.
They will not tell you what their view are unless they think you either share them or are tolerant of them. While the friends I have on the political left presume that in almost any setting that everyone agrees with them and they are free to say offensive and intolerant things.
” But his approach to everything still hinges on argument by insult and moral accusation rather than facts logic reason.”
this might be true with response to your comments, but he has never gone off the rails with me. He has commented about my Libertarian leaning positions and lumped me in with you and Priscilla, but I did not take that as an insult.
I could be totally wrong about Roby, but I think if Trump or Sanders/Warren were running against a politicians with political positions like Manchin or Kasich, he would be more likely to vote like me, Manchin over Trump or Kasich over Sanders/Warren. But he will not do what I will do with Trump/Warren. He will vote for horse manure over cow manure, even though we will still be in deep $#)/ either way while I will give the Libertarians one vote toward 15%.
I started this – paricularly with Jay – who is just low hanging fruit and so obvious.
But it is still WRONG to be debating the people rather than the issues.
I am going to offer the legitimate excuse that – when fallacies – particularly insult and ad hominem are introduced into the argument – logic is lost and the debate quickly devolves into an argument about the people involved, not the issues.
Jay explicitly demands that constantly.
Whenever an argument becomes – agree with me or your evil, any possibility of rational debate is gone.
I will further confess to following Jay and Robby into the personalization of everything.
I am conflicted over that. Alynsky’s tactics work. They work whether you are on the left or right, they work whether you are right or wrong.
And they work against facts, logic reason.
So what is the appropriate response to the Alynskyite tactics of the left ?
Trump has very successfully adopted the same tactics.
That is the most disruptive thing Trump has done. It is the font of all conflict surrounding him.
It is what offends Romney, and Will and lots of rational conservatives.
It is also what attracts his base. It is why democrats lost in 2016,
And probably why they will lose 2020.
When Trump turns the tactics of the left against them, he is also championing aver person in this country who feels that when the Hillary spoke of deplorables – she meant them. That when those on the left rant of hateful, hating haters – they mean them.
Everyone has seen the sign’s “Hate not welcome here”.
On one level that is obviously a good message.
But it is also massive virture signaling.
And if it means anything much more than I will not let Hitler in my home. it is really a message of hatred and intolerance.
If I disagree with you over who should make what wedding cakes – you will not tolerate me ?
Or who should participate in which sports ?
Christian fundimentalist’s trope is hate the sin love the sinner – in otherwords ALL are welcome here – even haters.
As Maryann Wiliams noted – conservatives are more tolerant of her than progressives.
Regardless the question is how do you deal with those who will use effective tactics that are destrictive of logic and reason, and have no place for facts, and intentionally destroy people as the means to use force without justification ?
I would like to beleive – as Will does that getting into the mud with them is the wrong choice.
But we have history to teach us – they will roll over the Will’s in a heartbeat and he will die labeled a racist if they have run unchecked.
“So what is the appropriate response to the Alynskyite tactics of the left ?”
it depends on what level your on.
As the president, you do basically what 43 did with the lefts attacks on him and what Clinton did for the period when the GOP was trying to crucify him.You stay above the fray, work for the country and make short comments like letting others handle the situation because there are too many important things to concentrate on.
As a member of congress, you get into the weeds and defend anyone you want to defend in any acceptable method.
As a member of the media, what can I say. They have denigrated that profession where it is no better than used car salesmen
As an individual, you address the issue once with another on the left and then ignore them when they persist without logical debate like you would with any bully.
The question was actually rhetorical.
But addressing your answers – if letting it roll off your back means getting More Bush’s McCain’s and Romney’s elected – if you can get elected at all – then NO!
There are issues with respect to the GOP handling of Bill Clinton.
But actual issue based investigation is legitimate.
Character assassination, False moral claims are NOT.
I do not recall anyone claiming Bill Clinton was a fascist or a Nazi.
There were claims that he was a liar – given that he perjured himself twice, I think you can say that.
With specific respect to Trump, He is what we elected AND he was elected BECAUSE of who he is.
Few who voted for Trump thought that once elected he would be polite and above the fray.
Trump voters were tired of being called hateful hating haters and they elected someone who was going to fight back for them.
MOSTLY George Will is not constantly called a racist – though it has happened.
And MOSTLY Will is able to here the character assassination of the left and think – they do not mean me. But the guy on the Ford Assembly line does not have that luxury.
When the left talks of Deplorables and hateful hating haters – they mean HIM and he knows it. And they mean the evangelical christians in this country – who are content to allow gays to marry – so long as they are not forced to mary them in their church or bake them cakes or …
If we were merely talking about personal attacks on the president – you might be right.
But we are not.
Read Jay’s comments – “FU and anyone who looks like you”
Ron this is not even a close call. The very people ranting about hateful hating haters ARE the hateful hating haters.
Except that they do not yet control government – we are not far from the USSR or China where people were accused by their neighbors of thought crime and had to be re-educated.
In 2017 Milo Yanopolis could not speak on campus without violence breaking out.
Today Dave Rubin can not do so.
Schiff has changed the rules for his hearings – they are now being done as depositions.
The House rules subject anyone leaking information from a closed deposition hearing to ethics investigations, which even if without merit get you removed from the committee for the duration of the ethics investigation.
This occured with the formed Ukriane Envoy who testified yesterday.
Before she completed testifying – all of her testimony that favored the left – leaked out – as did that of Volker. But Republicans are now silenced – and Schiff will not release the depositions.
Can you say “Star chamber” ?
There is apparently some pressure on pelosi by democrats to hold an actual vote authorizing impeachment hearings. And maybe that will happen.
That is a good first step.
But either democrats are prepared to inquire into the truth – or this is a farce.
The reason that Democrats are running this “star chamber” is because Nadler’s earlier hearings went horrible. Democrats looked BAD.
They looked like their goal was not to elicit facts from witnesses but to get them to frame their words with the right spin to be able to reach impeachment.
Either your goal is to find the truth or your goal is political advantge.
MAYBE the latter is tolerable if you are deciding some arcane facet of the budget – though I think not. But impeachment may be political but it is serious.
So let me make this clear.
Just as the house is judging the president.
Voters are judging the house.
If you are trying to game the process – YOU are the problem.
You want Trump to be respectful ?
People are entitled only to the respect they have earned.
“But addressing your answers – if letting it roll off your back means getting More Bush’s McCain’s and Romney’s elected – if you can get elected at all – then NO!”
So your dominating Ricks site with overwhelming number of verbose comments with Jay will keep that from happening? I dont think so!
Maybe for you the standard of speech is different for the president than Congress.
Not for me.
Regardless, respect is earned. It is not an entitlement.
I treat with respect those who have earned respect.
I do not owe respect to those who do not behave in a way that deserves respect.
If you have been caught “bearing false witness” – you are not entitled to anyone’s respect.
Not Trump’s, Not Romney’s, Not Bush’s.
I want to distinguish between individual freedom – in the context of gender, I support anyone’s freedom to be whoever they wish to be, and the ability to impose that on others.
Your example of women’s sports is the perfect example.
There is a difference between your freedom regardless of your genes to express your identity as any gender you wish, and a legal requirement AKA FORCE that others must accept you as that identity.
We are rapidly approaching the destruction of women’s sports – there will be only men’s sport’s and men identifying as women’s sports very soon.
Nor is sports the only domain that is likely to be transformed.
As MTF Trans becomes more common place MTF Trans people are going to replace biological women most everywhere – especially those places where women have had the greatest difficulty competing.
Women’s equality could be rapidly acheived in a very perverse way by MTF Trans people. with the odd outcome of biological women ending up inferior to men even as women.
Regardless, my point is that there is a difference between the freedom to be whoever you choose and the right to force others to accept you in all contexts in that choice.
If you actually value freedom, you must also value the freedom of those who do not accept your freedom – so long as no force is used.
We must take care that when we use the law to protect the freedom of one group we do not diminish the freedom of another – including the freedom to not accept others.
It is my hope that Transgender is an area where we MIGHT come to the understanding that – we must both give people the freedom to say “I am a woman” or “I am a man”” independent of biology, while at the same time understanding that we can not FORCE everyone in all contexts to accept that. AND that we are not going to resolve this with a bunch of laws that decide on a case by case basis precisely what is a women in sports, or in business.
Dave, trans issues. Agree 100% with your comment.
Womens sports is being destroyed, just read what has already happened. Articles are on internet for reading.
Hopefully schools will create teams for trans. Universities need to do the same. The olympics needs womens track, trans track and mens track along with all other sex divided sports. Professional leagues like golf need PGA, LPGA and TPGA. Basketball needs WNBA, NBA and TNBA.
Females identifying as males will never threaten a male athlete position, but few females can match a male athlete in speed, strength, height or weight when competing for positions. Yes, there may be a few females that can defeat borderline males that would never qualify for male teams, but those situations are far and few between.
I am going to be very interested in how those who have stood up for identity positions react when womens sports, such as womens track, is dominated by a couple men who have switched or local kids are negatively impacted by boys saying they are girls.
Ron.
I am not exactly trying to “answer” the Trans question – though I AM using it as a proxy for myriads of other issues.
I am ABSOLUTELY for the freedom to live as you wish – so long as you do not use force against others.
My interest in whether gender is a rainbow or fixed by biology or any other thesis is purely accademic. If you want to identify as gender fluid or pan sexual or the opposite Gender – I am OK with that.
I am also OK with you shooting heroin, overdosing and dying. Or atleast I am NOT going to use anything stronger than persuasion to thwart you.
But there is a difference between your freedom, and imposing a duty on others to incorporate your freedom into their lives.
Your free to be who you wish to be. You are NOT free to compel me to hire you or agree with you or serve you.
Lets try a more extreme example.
You are free as an adult to be sexually attracted to children.
I do not like that. I find it revolting. I do not accept it.
But I beleive there are people who that is true of – possibly even driven biologically,
But you are not free to ACT on that – because acting incorporates another person.
Your freedom to be as you wish can not compel another to accept you
Those constraints apply to peodophilia.
They apply to transsexuality.
They also apply to homosexuality. transsexuality, drugs, sexuality and race.
Your rights END with the use of force – including government and regulation against the freedom of another.
Scenario.So, force. Lets say school system has made a choice without any court case to allow male trans to compete in their female track team. Just a athlete showed up and they said yes. Multiple real females did not make team since this individual qualified first in all events they applied for.
Are you ok with this?
I am not..
I have a position – which I think you can discern from my comments.
But I am NOT seeking to argue that position.
I am asking others to THINK about the consequences of the assorted different approaches to this.
There are myriads of issues we face every day that are no different from the Trans issue.
What is most useful about the trans issue is that it is not too hard to see that if you go past – you are free as an individual to conduct YOUR life as you wish, to AND EVERYONE ELSE must respect and support that, that there are pretty drastic consequences.
I am not trying to hide my position.
But I am trying to get everyone else to take a positon – understanding the consequences of that position
If you decide that people are free to chose whatever gender identity they wish AND entitled to the full acceptance of society in that gender identity,
That has consequences.
I want to know whether each of us – will defend not just the freedom to be Trans, but the assumption that imposes a duty of respect on the rest of us, and the consequences of doing so.
Or if they decide that – just because you are free to do as you wish with your life, everyone else is not obligated to support that choice.
Robby,
You presume you are entitle to the agreement of others without ever making an argument.
Of course you are frustrated, of course you are banging your head against the wall.
It is a wall of your own making.
Actually persuading people is not a right
I have fired facts and logic at you like a machine gun.
If facts and logic were intrinsically persuasive – you would be libertarian by now.
They are not.
But they are the only thing that persuades me,
and the only thing I am interested in.
And the only means of justifying the use of force.
“I think that Dave and Priscilla make up a block, ”
First you need to spend alot more time with people who think differently than you do.
You seem to think they are all the same.
Priscilla and I – most people not on the left, can have discussions with each other about politics without holy war.
We can have them without calling each other nazi’s or resorting to slurs.
Absolutely there are some people in every group who are unable to relate to others except as 4 yr olds, but TODAY few on the left are able to have an adult discussion.
This is not about “blocks”.
It is about the ability to interact with others – particularly others that are different from you.
“and that block is one the is ideologicaly your home as well. ”
You use language in such bad terms.
Inherent in your use of ideology is that all idealogies are equal (but some are more equal than others).
That is false. Through most of human existance we have had slavery – today nearly the whole world accepts that slavery is wrong.
Right and wrong do actually exist. Not only that but over the course of human history we have developed a logical foundation for right and wrong. Something is not rght because you gut tells you it is, it is right or wrong because it conforms to principles that are fundimental – principles without which we have anarchy.
I know you eschew philosophy – but your lack of interest does not make it without value or importance. Just as your lack of interest and understanding of mathematics, does not mean we are free to construct bridges however we please and expect them to function.
“Anyone with the slightest liberal tendency”
Libertarians are also known as Classical Liberals. Long before the word libertarian existed – liberals, such as most of our founders, such as thoreux, or Mills or voltaire developed the liberal philosophy.
Liberal actually means something – it means prizing individual liberty as a foundation principle.
Even 60’s liberalism – such as the berkeley free speech movement or the civil rights movement are inherently liberal in the classical sense and completely at odds with the modern left.
Doesn’t the dissonance between todays “extreme left” – and whatever it is you think you are give you the slightest reason to contemplate that something is off ?
How is it that the left of the 60’s sought to bring free speach to college campuses and the left of the 21st century seeks to silence competing views ?
Is it beyond you reasoning abilty to grasp that these two “blocks” are NOT the same ?
That they are infact diametrically opposite, and that if one is “liberal” the other is illiberal ?
Is it beyond your reasoning ability to grasp that the difference between the “extreme left” and the moderate left is just one of degree ?
Given that you argue that all the time regarding the right ?
“is just going to interact with that block in frustration,”
You are frustrated because the left has come to beleive it is entitled to have its way because it is morally superior.
I have no control over other peoples choices. Nor do I want it.
I do not care where you fall on the ideological spectrum – I welcome debate, discussion with you rooted in facts, logic and reason.
I do not care where you fall on the ideological spectrum – if your idea of argument is insult and fallacy – you are not welcome by me.
Since I see that I really failed to answer your question and just went off on my own tangent I will try to do a bit better.
You sincerely want to debate, to weigh facts and arguments and learn something. So you are frustrated with those who don’t debate with you in the way you hope.
Personally, I have given up on debating. I might occasionally argue a point with a reasonable person, but it reaches the point of diminishing returns quickly.
Even between reasonable people who live mostly in the same fact universe it’s hard to prove any point about politics. When people are not reasonable and/or live in different fact universes, say the FOX universe and the NYTimes fact universe, then it’s just useless.
I have my opinions, I value facts in coming to them, but I don’t believe my opinions are any more than opinions. I am not here to win a debate. I am just here to sound off. Seems to me that Jay is doing likewise.
Ron, when Rick first posted this a week or so ago I wrote maybe 5 or 6 posts, some using passages and quotes from conservative figures that supported my opinions. You could have engaged in a debate on any of them and I would have replied to you. You didn’t and that is ok. Dave produced his huge piles of NO!, Which I ignored, since engaging with Dave is pointless for me.
That is how it goes here
Roby, final comment, promise.
If you review my comments, you will find I said nothing about the subject of Ricks post other than to agree with Rick, but adding impeachment should proceed fast, and later I commented I did not think that would happen, that Pelosi would drag it out.
You commented multiple time on impeachment. Since I agreed with the impeachment to be voted on, not inquery, I remained silent. Nothing really to discuss.
Not until Jay posted something about pulling troops from Syria did I become very active given my position no troops should ever be in a war zone without a declaration of war and other countries closer to the problem areas sending their young to defend their own territory and ” friends”.
So I have found nothing as to why anyone thinks we should stay in Syria other than the Kurds have fought with us. That is not a reason given the facts of how they got our protection in the first place and its Trumps decision.
Ok done! I will refrain from expecting anyones logical discussion opposing my views.
If you or anyone else wishes to have a discussion of what we should actually do in Syria:
Remove Trump from the discussion – what is right is not determined one way or the other by what Trump chooses.
Have a real discussion that grasps that time exists, that we are not dealing with a single moment.
That as an example if we must remain present to preclude the Turks and the Kurds from fighting NOW, that we are committed to doing so until we can be sure they will not fight – and that could be forever.
Have a discussion that grasps that perfection is unacheiveable, that people may die – even in large numbers no matter what we do. That there are more issues than some kurds fighting some turks – that as an example the disposition of 3.6m syrian refugees is an issue,
that the national security of germany and france are an issue.
I am not looking to dictate how YOU weight those issues, just asking that you not oversimplify such that you think the answers is clear and obvious.
I keep refering to the book review of Samantha Powers “the education of an idealist”.
In the real world Power’s humanitarian interventionism failed miserably under Obama – so much so that even Obama abandoned it by Syria.
I do not ask that you agree with that assessment – only that you come into a discussion understanding that nothing is as simple as it appears. and that if you claim moral superiority you bear MORE moral responsibility for the consequences of your morally simplistic solution than those you chastise would of something more real world.
My “solution” – washington’s “solution” – stay out of the affairs of other nations to the greatest extent possible, is not morally elegant. It is far from perfect. It need not even be absolute.
But the alternatives have a horrible track record. And if we do not acknowledge that we can not make informed decisions.
There is only one “fact universe” – if you and I disagree about the facts – one or both of us are WRONG.
Government is about force. Politics is about the use of force.
It is not moral to use force willy nilly.
Sound off all you want – hold whatever opinions you want on most anything.
But when you seek to move from opinion to the use of force – you MUST justify what you seek to do. Sounding off is insufficient.
You and I can debate music and art – it is extremely rare that debates on those topics become bitter and polarized. That is because we both accept we have neither the right nor the power to impose our views on each other. That the world will continue with you beleiving what you do, and I disagreeing.
But change that such that one of us has the power to impose our will on the other.
Change the debate such that if I prevail – no one will ever be able to play them music you like again and all of us will be forced to listen to mysogynist hip-hop 24×7.
Now the debate will get orders of magnitude more bitter, and violence may well erupt.
The reason that engaging with me is pointless for you – is that I will require you to justify the use of force.
most of us grasp that it is incredibly difficult to justify the use of force, and that inherently means you will be severely restricted in turning your oppinions into govenrment policies.
Should it be fruitless ? Maybe not. Should it be incredibly hard to use force ?
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
“Huge piles of NO!”
Absolutely! – the answer to the unjustified use of force is always NO!
To the extent Jay makes an argument ever, they are all of the form:
Only a trumpanzee would disagree with X.
There is no possibility of ever having a positive discussion following a remark structured that way.
“It is humorous that trump enablers react to the thoughts of principled conservatives like George Will by discounting him because he has strongly criticized trump.”
Bizzare argument – make a claim with no basis in fact. support it with nothing and then call it humerous.
George Will is a highly principled conservative – I greatly respect him.
It is likely that there is little difference between us on Policies.
It is likely that there is little disagreement between us on character judgement.
To the extent there is a differences between us it is that Will is apparently willing to accept the bad character and bad policy of the leading democrats over Trump’s bad character and somewhat better policy.
I’m not.
IF you want presidents with good character – start nominating them.
Biden had problems before the recent revalations,
We have let an awful lot of mysogyny slide because he is just Uncle Joe.
Don;t leftists tell us to lock up all those “Uncle Joe’s” before them molest our children ?
Until recently there has been minimal reporting of Biden’s political corruption, though there are allegations surfacing that what is currently exposed is the tip of the iceberg.
I would suggest if you want a rule of thumb for which Politician is politically corrupt – follow the money they have made in politics.
Shokin the purportedly Corrupt Ukrainian PG that Biden fired is a modest retiree in Ukraine. He might own the small house he lives in. Joe Biden is a multimillionaire. Biden has NEVER had a non-government job.
Trump has actually managed to lose money as a politician – and you are constantly damning him as corrupt ?
Warren constantly lies about demonstrable facets of her own personal life.
She crazy lies. She is the Jussie Smollet of Presidential contanders, Desparate to find someway to acheive that coveted Victim Status merit badge.
That is your idea of Character ?
Sanders published Rape Fantasies when he was younger. For damn near a communist, he sure owns alot of homes. And again he has not really worked a day in his life outside of politics. There is lots more on Sanders, but that will do for a start.
Regardless, do not try to hang George Will – an actually decent person, arround my nech until YOU give a shit about character.
You don’t
You equate good character with theft.
You have no credibility on character.
How about you clean the shit out of your own house before you complain about the dust in that of others.
“Why should we take the opinion of a trump critic seriously, when they are simply a trump critic?”
Still clairvoyant I see.
Who said Will is not being taken Seriously ?
YOUR problem is that you think that Will exists in a vaccuum – that because he is selling what you want others to buy – that they should be compelled to buy it.
Do you take George Will Seriously ?
He has spent 50 years saying very nearly the same things I say here everyday that you call insane.
I doubt you could slip a sheet of paper between us on policy or ideology issues.
I already take EVERYTHING George Will says seriously.
What about you ? Do you take ANYTHING he says – outside his criticism of Trump seriously ?
I am sure I can find editorials from Will Critical of the character of inumerable democrats – probably every one of the current front runners – are you going to take those seriously ?
The only time you take anyone seriously is when they are saying what you want.
You are the one in the bubble.
Blood on Trump’s Hands
More Blood On Trump’s Clumsy Fimgers:
Brett McGurk “ Turkish state-backed media hails a “successful operation” to “neutralize” an unarmed 35-year old woman working to unite Arabs, Christians, and Kurds in NE Syria. Ms. Hevrin Khalef was reportedly dragged from a vehicle and shot to death. That’s a war crime.”
“That’s a war crime.”
Again!!!!!! If this is a war crime then congress should declare war on Turkey and then send overwhelming force to neutralize the threat.
You cant have it both ways!!!!! Saying the Turks are committing war crimes, but not declaring war!!!
Please explain why you think you can. Read the Article I, Section 8, Clause 11of the constitution. Why can the president unilaterally send troops to die without congress telling him to do so? Other than congress sitting.on their fat asses and abdicating responsibility for that issue..
Because the members of Congress know that, no matter how much they may want to authorize a war, at some point their vote in favor of an AUMF will be shoved down their throat, rightly or wrongly, by an opponent who likely did not have to vote at all.
This is exactly what Barack Obama did. Obama was not even in the US Congress when it passed the authorization to invade Iraq, but, in 2008, he repeatedly claimed that “he would have voted against it,” and used his imaginary “no” vote against both Hillary in the primaries and McCain in the general.
Yes they do know they would have to defend their vote. But that is how our constitution was written. But the idiots people elected in the 60’s passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that authorized Johnson to send troops to southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. Since that resolution was passed, over 60,000 military have died in undeclared wars and over 200,000 injured. (153,000 Viet Nam, 20,000 Afghanistan and 32,000 Iraq 2) Some believe giving a President these unlimited powers is fine.
Well now we have a President using these unlimited powers in many different ways (i.e. troop deployment to defend Saudi oil interest) and they are having a cow.
It is not a war crime.
It is just a bad act probably committed by agents of government.
Those happen all the time.
It is little different from the drunk cop who went into the wrong apartment and killed an innocent black man in his home.
Bad things happen.
Wow! Jay – Bad things happen in the world.
A female police officer in TX went into the wrong apartment – probably inebriated and shot a black man in his home.
Was that Trump’s fault ?
If Obama was president would it have been his ?
Not so long ago you were telling us to Trust the Turks over the Saudi’s.
Now you are telling me that we should go to war with the Turks ?
Maybe we should just get out of this messes in other countries ?
Is it within your ability to understand that everyday throughout the world – bad things are going to happen to good people – and it is outside of the powers of the US government to prevent that – no matter who is president ?
We are not responsible – morally or otherwise to impose perfection on the world by force instantly. Nor is it within our power to do so.
“ Wow! Jay – Bad things happen in the world…. A female police officer in TX went into the wrong apartment – probably inebriated and shot a black man in his home…. Was that Trump’s fault ?”
Another asinine false comparison from A-hole Central
If the apartment building was under Federal Govt protection, with guards in place at every floor, and the person in charge of those guards suddenly removed them, in opposition to the advice of numerous experienced consultants, who warned Alcoholic tenants were living there who needed to be monitored, would you absolve that person in charge of criminal stupidity and not be shouting for his/her removal?
When you’re an ass you’re an ass all the way…
from your first rationalization..
To your last false foray..
“If the apartment building was under Federal Govt protection, with guards in place at every floor, and the person in charge of those guards suddenly removed them, in opposition to the advice of numerous experienced consultants, who warned Alcoholic tenants were living there who needed to be monitored, would you absolve that person in charge of criminal stupidity and not be shouting for his/her removal?”
So once the first US soldiers set foot in Syria we were permanently obligated to protect all groups in Syrian from each other and anyone else ?
In your analogy US forces are the “global police”.
And that is precisely what we are all debating.
I think it is fair to say that neither Ron, nor I, nor Priscilla wish the US to be the “global police force” That we either do not beleive that Trump or Obama or the US government has promised “federal protection” or in the unlikely event they actually have that they were authorized by us to do so.
Any to be clear – while Trump has made a decision, I know my support is NOT based on Trump’s decision, I do not think that Ron’s or Priscilla’s is.
I have actively been supporting getting the crap out of the mideast ince before Trump was elected.
Trump promised to do so. He has been VERY SLOW in honoring that promise.
He only looks good in comparison to Bush who promised he would not get us into these things in the first place, and Obama who promised he would get us out and ultimately left is in more conflicts than when he started.
Let me go further – we should leave Afghanistan NOW.
Just leave,
Let whatever happens happen.
If that returns the Taliban to power – so be it.
If the Russians gain global influence and prestige – so be it.
I doubt it will last long. Russia’s last forray into afghanistan did not go so hot.
I do not think we should have gone to Syria AT ALL.
Not to fight Assad, not to fight ISIS.
If ISIS wants to create a pretend country in the middle of the desert – let the people who live their figure out how to deal with it.
If the Russian’s want to help – LET THEM.
Nor Should we have gone into Libya. Without out intervention Ghadafi would likely have slaughtered lots of his own people. With it – they have been slaughtering themselves even more brutally in a bitter civil war.
I beleive in “american exceptionalism”.
I beleive in “making american great again”.
One of the first steps is to accept that much of what our government has done throughout the world – whether vietnam or Iran of Iraq or …. has been net harmful.
As a matter of constitutionality – foreign policy is the near exclusive domain of the president.
As a matter of historical efficacy and morality – we had best listen to Washington and not meddle where we have no business.
But as disasterous as out foreign policy has been – and if you think that is some modern artifact go read Mark Twain’s criticism of late 19th century us foreign policy – which is little different from that of today, as disasterous as our governent has been the actvities of private americans through out the world has been incredibly positive.
When ho chi minh declared vietnam independent of the french – he used the US declaration of independence.
We are a beacon to the world – when we can shut down out state department and CIA.
So no, I am not all that interested int he oppinions of alot of elites who have never been right about anything – not for 250 years.
TRUMP GOLF UPDATE — 12 OCT 2019:
While Turks were being ethnically cleansed today Trump was back at his golf course in Virginia.
That’s 220 days he spent on a golf course, for which taxpayers have spent $111.6 million of the tab.
Anyone who thinks that’s OK is as despicable as he is.
Obama, Trump, Bush, Clinton.
More time on the golf course.
Or more time doing anything that is not using the power of the executive to Fork things up.
I am all for it.
Our founders vested an unfortunately large amount of power in the federal govenrment – but they deliberately made it very hard to use.
And up through the Civil War we did not use it much at all.
I am entirely for that.
I am fully for grid lock. I am fully for government doing as little as possible.
This photo turns up after Lying Donald claims no knowledge of these gentlemen, and asks how did Rudy ever get to know them?
Jay please elaborate just a little. Please understand not everyone is following this like youvare. Who are these two guys?
I do not know much about the picture.
The more fundimental issue involves Guliani.
John Solomon has been digging into things in the Ukraine for a couple of years.
Some time ago Guilini started Digging into the Ukraine.
He has met with a large number of people in many countries who have told him many things.
He has likely met with corrupt oligarchs former and current members of the Ukrainian government as well as many other govenrments. He has met with good guys and bad guys.
He has done so as Donald Trump’s lawyer.
He has done this to gather information that would be useful in defending Trump against Mueller and this Russia/Collusion nonsense. During the course of this he has uncovered not merely the evidence of the origens of the Trump/Russia nonsense, but evidence of misconduct by Biden.
I have no idea if Fruman and Parnas are guilty of anything – though they are affilated with a corrupt oligarch – I beleive the same one Biden is associated with.
If Guliani is somehow tainted, then Biden is much more so.
Regardless, Guliania was conducting an investigation. I have zero doubt that involved dealing with lots of scurilous people.
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on earth – dealing with ANYONE there is troubling – including for Biden, his son, and the US Government.
What is it that you think this means ?
You have proven that 5 people were photographed together.
Everyone in creation seeks to get photographs taken with the president.
But lets go further – obviously Pence, Trump, and Guliani know each other.
Lets go further – lets presume which I suspect is the case that the other two people are the recently arrested Ukrainians who are among the many sources of the raft of evidence Guiliani has been gathering about 2016 Administration and democrat use of Ukriane and Russia to interfere in the US election.
Someone – possibly Guiliani has gotten financial records showing Transfers of money from a corrupt oligarch to Joe Biden.
Do you think that documentation came from Mother Theresa ?
BTW the “charges” against Fruman and Parnas are ultimately about trying to obtain a license for Recreational marijuana use.
Whatever you may think, that does not amount to a vast effort to overthrow an election.
I have no liking for Erdogan, and I think that it was a huge mistake to allow Turkey into NATO, because its security concerns are not aligned with the concerns of the EU and the US. Also, because Edogan is a lying bastard and a thug. Nevertheless, he believes that if he allows the PKK to continue to attack Turkey from the safe zone in Northern Syria, it will lead the end of his rule, because the Turks despise the Kurds and they want the PKK driven from the Turkish border.
By getting involved with both the Syrian Kurds and the PKK, the US got in the middle of this complex and decades long struggle, and put ourselves on the side of the enemy of our NATO ally.
We cannot help the Kurds achieve their goal of an independent nation-sate (sorry, Jay, it actually dosn’t exist), Americans are not willing to support a neverending war (especially one that was never authorized by Congress), and our alliance with the Kurds in Syria was for the purpose of defeating ISIS.
The strongest argument for staying is the concern that ISIS will quickly regroup and start taking back land for their Caliphate.
The weakest, in my opinion, is that the Kurds deserve our neverending support, because we helped them defeat a mutual enemy.
Priscilla, the West has made many mistakes over the years. One of the biggest still remains today.
Turkey was much different in the early 1950’s when the movement to allow Turkey into NATO began. Turkey wanted to remain outside the Soviet sphere and Europe wanted a country blocking the spread of communism. The countries east of Turkey were already absorbed by Russian aggression.Turkey was admitted in 1952
Today, Turkey is an Islamist nation led by a person who is all a dictator except for title. The first step in supporting the Kurds would be removal of Turkey from NATO. Then NATO should declare its support of the Kurds. Once that has occurred, NATO would determine how many troops would be required for the Kurds. They would be in effect, creating a Kurdistan. Congress would declare war on Turkey, directing the commander in chief to send troops to Kurdistan based on NATO’s need.
That is how I think it should happen instead of our president being able to willy nilly send troops across the globe to endless undeclared wars.
NATO was formed in 1949, Turkey was added in 1952.
Trump was 5 years old at the time.
Edogan was probably not even born yet. (I don’t know how old he is…)
” …. he’s the cause of craziness in others”.
That is spot on, mate.
CLASSIC.
MIGA: Make ISIS Great Again
Larry Norman – The Great American Novel
“You are far across the ocean but the war is not your own,
And while you’re winning theirs, you’re gonna lose the one at home;
Do you really think the only way to bring about the peace
Is to sacrifice your children and kill all your enemies?”
The weaponization of whistleblowing.
Also a damning case for why the WH locked down foreign communications.
In early 2017 180 leaks with national security implications in 6 weeks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/whistleblowers-and-the-real-deep-state/ar-AAIE447
During a recent meeting in Cairo, the 22 member arab league condemned Turkey for its aggression. It wants the UN Security council to sanction Turkey.
Why hasn’t it done that?
Syrian Diplomatic Forces have said they want Syrian air space off limits from Turkey. Doesnt any of the Arab countries that condemned Turkey have fighter jets.Seems to me I remember much debate in this country about all the jets we provided to Saudi Arabia.
France and Germany said they are stopping all military equipment purchases by Turkey. Why were they sending it in the first place. Turkey has been fighting the Kurds for years.
So let me get this straight. We have allies chastising us that will not send their planes to make Northern Syria a no fly zone, we have allies that have sent combat and air equipment to Turkey and the U.N. refuses to punish Turkey, but they want our troops there in harms way to possibly be killed by French or German weapons.
What am I missing? They want us there to defend the Kurds, but wont do anything themselves and did not stop sending killer hardware when it was clear what it would be used for in the first place.
I am not saying you are wrong.
But what you are missing is that this whole thing is not some morality play in soundbites.
THERE IS NO GOOD ANSWER.
The Kurds are NOT actually allies, they are a group that we shared a goal with.
The Turks ARE actual allies.
Further the Turks are not “the good guys” nor are the kurds.
With near certainty no matter what we do, something bad will happen.
While I highly doubt we will see ISIS trying to be a nation state again.
I have zero doubt we will see them re-emerge as a threat.
If you beleive that rquires us to stay in Syria then be honest – we are going to end up being a colonial power. imposing our idea of society and govenrment on other peoples by force.
Because – neither Turkey nor the Kurds want what we want for them.
Ron, I found this to be a very interesting and detailed analysis, and I would like to hear your take on it (yours too, Dave) because I think that you have made some of the same points. (CTH is a very pro-Trump blog, primarily on a policy basis) :
“Ultimately the largest stakeholder in this dynamic is Europe, because they stand the greatest risk if Erdogan is successful and then turns his assembly toward Europe. Remember, Erdogan as President of Turkey is now the gatekeeper; and Erdogan is also a member of NATO….Unfortunately Europe will not defend itself; will not kick Erdogan out of NATO; will not take their own ISIS fighters back for trial and punishment; and instead, just like Lindsey Graham, the EU demands the U.S. remain as perpetual zookeepers.”
President Trump will use military weapons to protect allies that are: (A) willing to protect themselves, and (B) willing to pay for the support of the U.S. military protection.
It is really a common sense doctrine… Help those who help themselves.”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/13/president-trump-is-100-correct-on-syria-withdrawal-heres-why/#more-173577
Priscilla, I think I have made my position very clear in previous comments. This article just adds to what I have said about European countries saying ” let the dumb yanks spend their lives and money defending us”.
Saudi’s have a formidable air force. France has an air force, they helped in Iraq 1. Germany has an air force with 27,000+ personnel. Any of these could create a no fly zone over northern Syria. They need technology and equipment. Fine, we send them what they need.
But when Europe looks back in ten years and finds a Maduro/Hussain type leader in an Islamist country creating terrorist safe havens that allow easy access to western countries, they can look back on their inaction today to protect themselves.
I suspect Erdogan has been providing a safe haven already for former ISIS and Al Quida individuals and this will come out in a few weeks. Of course Trump will be blamed, not the Europeans. They will be the ones most vocal to take the heat off themselves.
I will close by saying if I supported getting involved in other countries problems, I would send troops to Venezuela and free those people from the murderous leader they have and allow millions of Venezuelans to return home. It is in our backyard, not half a globe away.
Also, Trump will not communicate his position in a way a leader should make it. He will tweet some “mafia don” comment in a way that gives people like Jay material to use for weeks. As I have said many times, I support many of his policies, but cant support the man. Cant vote for him.
In Altoona, IA, former VP Biden says “No one in my family will have an office in the White House, will sit in on meetings as if they’re a cabinet member, will in fact have any business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or foreign country. Period….“
Will President Blood On His Hands make a similar promise for his family today?
Will Biden promise to give bag all the money that he and his family have ever made off of government service ?
Kushner was extremely effecting in mid-eastern deplomacy.
He was also instrumental in getting Criminal justice reform through.
Kushner BTW is a billionaire in his own right and does not need to be engaged in public service.
I suspect he and other Trump’s sit on the boards of many businesses – because those businesses want the experience of people who have actually run multibillion dollar ventures – rather than those that have gotten thrown out the the navy for getting coked up.
I wouldn’t not give a crap if Hunter got a leg up in his daddy’s private business,
That is no skin off my teeth.
You have spent 3 years telling us how the Trump’s are raiding the public coffers.
Yet, your examples are crap and Trump has LOST 1.5B since becoming president.
He donates his government pay to the IRS – Will Joe agree to do that ?
He donates any profits from his businesses that result from US government or foreign diplomat use of Trump facilities.
Will Hinter and Joe give back the money they made from China and Ukraine ?
This whole episode has been disturbing for me.
Joe Biden would not be my choice for President. Though I thought he was the best choice among democrats.
But the Hunter episode is damning.
Even if absolutely every other claim against Biden was false,
He KNEW Hunter was being investigated at the time he was running the US Ukriane anti-corruption group in DOJ/FBI and blackmailed the Ukrainians to fire Shokin.
There is an absolutely crystal clear conflict of interests their.
The moment he as aware that his son was being investigated – he can and should do every single thing that he possibly can as a father to protect his son. But as VP of the united States he MUST separate himself from everything associated with Ukrainian corruption investigations.
The standard of ethics and conduct is NOT proof of guilt, it is the appearance of impropriety.
You have used a far lower version of that standard to indict Trump in things he is not even involved in.
Trump has no involvement in running Trump Enterprises, and no involvement as president in any investigations of Trump Enterprises.
VP Biden’s actions are easily arguable as obstruction of justice.
You have told us over and over that Trump would be obstructing justice if he fired Mueller – even if a new SC was appointed.
Why doesn;t that standard apply to Biden in 2016 ?
I keep getting told by Democrats that it does not matter that Mueller investigated every single handshake anyone in the Trump campaign had with absolutely anyone of russian descent – whether they were US citizens or had the slightest ties to the Russian government and found nothing, if Trump had interfered – even though he is inarguably either far better at covert operations that the entire western intelligence or actually innocent – yet you still want to tell me that just ranting and railing about Mueller was obstruction.
By the same standards does it matter whether Hunter was innocent ?
And there are an increasing number of allegations about VP Biden – including that money ended up in his own pocket.
First these allegations should be investigated. There is purportedly documentation of them.
Probably provided by the two guys that SDNY just arrested – talk about obstruction of justice !
Regardless, I am very disappointed in Joe. I thought he was too gropy, and gaffe prone, and not all that smart. But I did actually think he was honest.
He is not. The only open question is how dirty he is.
Two Despicable Politicians Chat :
Lindsay Graham: “Just spoke with President @realdonaldTrump.
I applaud his decision to work with Congress to stop Turkeys aggression in Syria through crippling economic sanctions.
This decision by President Trump will be a game changer — in all the wrong ways — for Turkey.”
TRANSLATION: “I just spoke with the firebug to whom I gave matches who after throwing one into a tinderbox says we should provide funds to put out the fire and pay for the funerals of those burned to death.”
Jay,
If Trump had decided to thwart the Turks you would be screaming that he was aiding YPG Terrorists.
You lost credibility a long time ago.
Retired Marine Gen. John Allen: ‘There is blood on Trump’s hands for abandoning our Kurdish allies’
For you Trump suck-up sycophants who don’t know, he’s a former commander of American forces in Afghanistan and former special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS.
Ron if you’re still having trouble understanding where I stand on this issue: TRUMPS A FUCKING IDIOT FOR HIS PRECIPITOUS STUPID DECISION TO PULL THOSE TROOPS FROM THE BORDER.
Lets just bring Dick Chenney back as president – that should make you happy.
We could have 100,000 troops in by xmas, We could be fighting the turks and the Iranians and the Taliban.
We could just do Vietnam all over again.
Jay, you are too old for this shit.
You were alive for vietnam.
You know what happens when we get sucked into these things.
Do you think there are not hundreds of thousands of vietnamese that we promised we would protect ? You do know that probably nearly 1million people were killed by the north vietnamese after the war ?
Were you begging us to go back ?
Please save me the crocodile Tears over the kurds.
I have as of yet heard no evidence that the US officially promised them anything.
If the US did – whoever did should be fired. We should never make open ended promises or promises we can not keep. Frankly we should be extremely reticent to make promises that commit US blood to someone else’s cause.
So that you are really clear – I am not even sure I support US Government economic sanctions.
On this I am with Gabbard.
An no – I am not interested in however many generals, and colonels and CIA analysts and …. that you can trout out.
Which of our military incursions into the mideast do you wish to celebrate ?
What has our DOD, CIA, State, … done over the last 40 years than gives them credibility ?
In fact what have these people gotten right over the past 40 years (or more) ?
As far as I am concerned Trump has listened to this people for far too long.
Sen. Graham is about as hawkish as they come. He is the only 2016 contender that was more of a hawk than HRC. No one is wrong all the time – and Sometimes Graham is right about Trump. But I had no interest in his views on foreign policy BEFORE Trump was elected.
Right, Dufus Donnie is intent on getting us out of wars, that’s why he’s sending thousands of troops to fight with the Saudis.
Rassmussen polled support for the statement “It is time for us to get out of these ridiculous endless wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. We will fight where it is to our benefit, and only fight to win.”
Without attributing it to Trump and found
58% of Likely U.S. Voters agree
20% disagree
22% are not sure.
Even 55% of Democrats agree with the statement
69% of Republicans
50% of voters not affiliated with either major political party also agree.
This is actually a bipartisan issue.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Trump’s decision to remove the 50 U.S. troops from northeastern Syria: they would have prevented Turkish forces from advancing into the country… We all know that if there were still those … soldiers, Turkey wouldn’t attack,” Kinzinger, an Air Force veteran, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“To see this yet again, leaving an ally behind, abandoning people that we told that we were going to be with is disheartening, depressing, frankly it’s weak,” Kinzinger told CBS’ Margaret Brennan. “I don’t see how it follows through on the president’s biggest promise in the campaign to defeat ISIS.”
However much sympathy I might have for the Kurds – they are not an ally.
We have no treaty with them.
They are a group – not even a country – with which we have a common enemy.
That is all.
Turkey is an actual ally.
Maybe not a good one but we are bound to defend them against agression by actual treaty.
Further they have 3.6M Syrian refugees they are looking to relocate BACK to Syrian.
Are you saying that the Kurds get to keep large parts of Syria for themselves – and the Turks are stuck with the refugees ?
We had to beg and cajole and plead to get the turks to take these refugees in the first place – otherwise most of them would be dead.
And if you piss off the turks too much – instead of returning them to Syria, Erodegan can send them to Europe.
The backlash against this is confined narrowly to NeoCons and their allies and Trump haters – and not even all of them.
There is not a perfect solution.
We are not staying. One more promise Trump is keeping – though way too late.
I would have supported Trump withdrawing US Troops from Syrian in Jan. 2017.
Or you could quote Liz Cheney
In one swift move Donald Trump has just un-defeated ISIS.
Sleep well, Trump cultists.
Link problem – wrong song.
Eve of destruction is great, but this is more appropriate, especially with Hunter coked out of the navy
Keep it coming.
I got the entire 60’s
The world has changed – a Draft dodger from the 60’s is actually trying to avoid repeating the mistakes of vietnam – and the far left has joined with Dick Cheney to drag us into more war.
“Hundreds of ISIS supporters escaped a detention camp in northern Syria, where the U.S. is preparing to pull out about 1,000 troops.” NYT
That in addition to the dozens of ‘high value’ ISIS detainees Trump assured us 2 days ago would remain in custody, who are now free.
He fucked up on the abrupt green light to invade Syria he gave to Turkey; he needs to admit his mistake and ask forgiveness from the Kurdish families suffering because of it.
(Cynical laughter).
“Right, Dufus Donnie is intent on getting us out of wars, that’s why he’s sending thousands of troops to fight with the Saudis.”
Has somebody invaded Saudi Arabia ?
The 1,800 soldiers are there on vacation, safe & secure, right dhlii…
Our soldiers should not be fighting in Saudi Arabia either.
Are they ?
When was the last time a US Serviceman was killed in Saudi Arabia ?
Or shot at ?
Guess I post things and no one reads them, even though they are usually short for the most part. I shared this yesterday thatvTrump sent troops,3000, to S.A to protect the oil interest in that region.
just another assinine decision in a long line of assinine decisions since Korea.
You and Priscilla have been commenting on Syria, and I did not feel I had something to add.
The consequences of getting out will be bad. The consequences of staying would likely be worse. The best thing we could have done was not go in the first place.
I do not care much if Trump sends troops to SA for close to no reason at all.
But if he sucks us into some other Mideastern conflict I am not going to be happy.
That’s not completely true – I do not care what Boeing and US Businesses Sell SA,
But our soldiers should get out.
SA might not be the most evil player in the mideast, but they are not “the good guys”.
If we do not crawl in bed with them – that does not matter.
Dave , careful. First you say ” I do not care much if Trump sends troops to SA for close to no reason at all. ”
Then you say “That’s not completely true – I do not care what Boeing and US Businesses Sell SA,
But our soldiers should get out.”
these are contradictory statements. Why send troops for no reason at all, but expect them to get out.
However, I care very much when and where troops are sent. Every deployment has consequences. Sending troops to S.A. To protect billionaires and European oil interest just sets expectations that any country in a conflict with others would find Americans assisting them. THIS NEEDS TO STOP!
I am aware of the contradiction.
As I said my views on our foreign entanglements mirrors that of George Washington.
But I am NOT GOING TO GET WHAT I WANT.
I can still celebrate that Trump has taken a relatively large step towards sanity – even if not nearly as far as I wish he would go.
If the Saudis are willing to fight Iran, Syria and Russia. along with our other ME allies, (Israel, Jordan, etc) we should help them. They’ve already been attacked by Iran.
I’m not such a non-interventionist that I believe we should become isolationists, and we need to help protect Israel, which will certainly be the target of any coordinated attck from Iran and Russia.
Protecting Saudi oil assets is in our interests, no?
Priscilla, ” we should help them” Before I jump all over this, How?
Ron, I am likely more closely aligned with you on this.
EXCEPT, that I can cope with imperfection.
We are not going to get the US military out of Europe, Korea, Japan, and all over the rest of the world.
And having them smeared accross the globe increases the odds we get sucked into a conflict that is not ours.
But I can still celebrate that we have removed our military from acting as a tripwire between two groups that need to resolve their differences on their own. And that we have little interest in either.
Whether you, I, Ron, Jay, Rick or Robby agree on precisely when we can and should use the military and we we should not,
The use of force should be determined by reasoned arguments – not TDS.
I was not always as disinclined to the use of US Force as I am today.
But a lifetime of expereince has taught me that it very rarely works out.
I have been watching Ken Burn’s vietnam, and I realized watching it that Vietnam was lost before I was born.
What I saw as the turning point was when Ho Chi Minh was in Paris negotiating the peaceful exit of the French and trying to convince the West that “socialist” was just a label, that the Viet Minh were primarily Nationalist Vietnamese, that the goal was their own country and that should be a democracy, Meanwhile his subordinates in Hanoi massacred a couple of hundred Viet Minh who were more capitalist or Catholic.
At that point Viet Nam was lost. The more catholic and capitalist south was not going to be able to trust the Viet Minh.
Regardless, we were entirely clueless to all of this.
I do not think we are any better at understanding what is going on in other parts of the world even today.
Jay is trying to sell us the “wisdom” of the intelligence and defence communities in government.
Here is Matt Tailbi on the coup that those are running, against Trump.
For those who think this coup is just about Trump – think what if Obama had started in Jan. 2009 intent on actually keeping the promises he made as candidate ?
What if he had decided instead of war mongering in Libya and Syria, and Yemen, and Nigeria, that he was really serious – and we were getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq ?
He would have been at odds with the very same powers and forces in the same places as Trump is now. He would have faced the same often erroneous strategic leaking, we would have the same talk of recklessness and abandoning allies.
Our military is exceptional good at killing bad guys. That is ALL that they are good at. They are clueless about nation building, they are clueless about our future threats and needs.
And the Military is more competent than CIA, NSA, State or even FBI.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
Haha, I knew that would spark a reaction from you, Ron. I actually think that you are perhaps more Trumpian that I am, in the foreign policy sense, because Trump’s moves in the ME have clearly been focused on forging an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia first, and also pulling in the Arab states that want to push back on the Iran-Russia attempt to 1)become the dominant power in that region, and 2)destroy the state of Israel. He clearly wants us out of the region, and he says so.
So, I do not think that we should have ground troops in the region, although I am in favor of having strategic special ops troops that are there to assist an Arab-Israeli coalition. I think that, given the fact that the Saudis are essential to this alliance, it’s important that their crude oil reserves are protected.
We should continue to send them billions in arms and military technology, particularly missile and drone defense systems, that will protect those oil fields, which were already successfully attacked a month or so ago.
The real question you’re asking is should we fight this battle, and I would say no…unless, it becomes WWIII, which it could, I suppose.
But, unlike the Kurds, who were our situational allies, fighting a mutual enemy in ISIS, Israel is our actual ally, and a nation that shares our democratic values. If Israel is attacked by Iran or one of its proxies, I believe that we have to be ready to respond militarily.
(The Kurds have already formed a new alliance with the Syrian Army and Russia, against Turkey, so everyones’ crying and wailing that the Kurds were to be exterminated seems to be premature)
Priscilla, Israel is a completely different story. Israel requires everyone to spend time in their military. Israel does not expect America to send troops to defend tnem, while their young sit back at home watching what is happening on TV. Israel has a large defense budget. So they asked for help, it is usually hardware and technology. Maybe a few technicians running the hardware. No combat troops are required.
Where I have significant differences with those that go off the rails when we will not send our young to die is they are only doing it for political posturing. They go ape shit crazy about the Kurds, but make no mention about the thousands that die yearly in Uganda, Sudan or Mozambique. Are lighter skinned middle easterners lives more valuable than darker skinned Africans?
Yes, I support a policy to get the hell out of other countries and stay out! And that is a position I have held since Viet Nam. Just because it is Trump does not make it right or wrong. I support many of his policies that lifer politicians don’t. But they also dont support the constitution to the degree I do either.
Given all that, I wont be voting for Trump. I cant stand the man.
Understandable, Ron. He often irritates the hell out of me, and I basically like and support him. But I can totally understand those who find him to be personally intolerable.
Each of us gets to choose who we vote for, and why.
I can absolutely understand all the reasons people have for not voting for Trump.
I expect I will vote libertarian.
But I absolutely know that as the election approached and I enter the voting booth I will be conflicted.
Any libertarain I vote for will be a far better candidate.
But they stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
There are still good reasons to vote for them.
But as I have said before if you put a gun to my head and give me no choice but to vote and require that I pick Trump or one of the democrats.
The question is not even difficult, the answer is Trump.
For all his many flaws, he is not as bad or dangerous as any democrat.
Did the filmmakers get their room comped in appreciation?
“WASHINGTON — A video depicting a macabre scene of a fake President Trump shooting, stabbing and brutally assaulting members of the news media and his political opponents was shown at a conference for his supporters at his Miami resort last week, according to footage obtained by The New York Times.”
It is purportedly a clip from “the Kingsman” which I would not descibe as Macabre
But NYT is too “shocked” to link to it.
My guess is it is the exploding heads scene with media figures replacing the global elite conspirators.
We have already seen the Trump WWE video long ago – as well as Rambo Trump and a number of others.
I beleive there is a Sanders Superman Clip somewhere, and Gifford’s Trump beheading and the Trumpified version of Julius Ceasar that played in Central park.
If you want outrage you are going to have to do better
Now if someone on the left were to do the same thing, you would also be unimpressed?? That is funny! You and all on the right would be outraged. If someone wants outrage FROM YOU over anything trump and his followers do they will die before they get it, no matter what he or his followers do. But you are simply, well, no one, a completely anesthetized knee-jerk internet defender, one of the thousands. Boring and meaningless.
This incident is just one of the many, many details history will record about the trump years, and the trump cult of personality. As whole the details add up to a big picture that will be very clear to future generations.
“Now if someone on the left were to do the same thing, you would also be unimpressed??”
No, I would be very impressed. If those on the left managed to put together a powerful and popular meme – I think that would be fantastic.
I do not BTW have any problem with Trump as Julius Ceasar or Kathy Giffords Trump beheading – except that they were bad – meaning they were not funny or poigniant
If the Trump/Kingsman clip is equally bad – I will criticise it for stupidity.
Regardless, I am near absolutist on free speach – all speach is legal.
At the same time we are all free to criticize the speech of anyone else. – for quality, for political reasons, for violence. But we can not censor it.
REAL VIOLENCE against others is NOT permissible.
You are fixated over some meme that almost no one has seen.
At the same time at the Trump rally in Mineapolis where the mayor extorted 593K of additional funding from the Trump campaign for security, Trump supporters outside the fascitlity was punched and beaten and there was almost no media reporting of that.
REAL VIOLENCE is ALWAYS more offensive than some meme.
Why are you OK with the near total media blackout of real political violence in the US today carried out exclusively by those on the left and instead fixated on the fact that Right Wing meme’s appear to be better than those of the left and otherwise indistinguishable ?
“You and all on the right would be outraged. If someone wants outrage FROM YOU over anything trump and his followers do they will die before they get it, no matter what he or his followers do. But you are simply, well, no one, a completely anesthetized knee-jerk internet defender, one of the thousands. Boring and meaningless.”
I am libertarian – not right wing.
I am not “outraged” at the violent rhetoric and memes of the left.
I am disappointed in the blandness of them.
I am also critical of the underlying thesis of most of them – Trump is just Not an authoritarian.
But if you want to paint him as Julius Ceasar and you can make people laugh or actually make your point – more power to you. That is how free speach actually works.
Regardless, I am not aware of anyone of consequence outside the left looking to silence anyone. Criticise – sure. Silencing is the exclusive domain of the left.
“This incident is just one of the many, many details history will record about the trump years, and the trump cult of personality. As whole the details add up to a big picture that will be very clear to future generations.”
It is unfortunate that your cliche is likely to get to write history – though I still suspect you will prove wrong on that ultimately.
Time and distance make it pretty clear that the current insanity originates from the left.
Both Priscialla and I linked the Matt Tailibi article. Matt is most definitely NOT on the right.
I have linked many Andrew MacCarthy articles – MacCarthy is NOT a big Trump fan.
I have also linked lots of Johnathan Turley articles – also NOT a big Trump fan.
The fact is the left has gone completely bat shit crazy.
Lets be clear – Mueller and his cadre of “angry democrats” conducted one of the most partisanly biased Special Counsel investigations ever. The anally probed Trump and the Trump campaign. They scrutinized every single time anyone withing 1000 miles of Trump shook hands with anyone who might be russian or know someone is russian.
They found NOTHING.
That is REALLY REALLY REALLY bad for the left and for everyone spouting all this Trump/Russia nonsense.
As I have posted before – When you make moral accusations of another, you are OBLIGATED to prove them. Failing to prove a fact – makes you poorly informed. Failing to prove a moral accusation make YOU immoral. It undermines YOUR integrity, it destroys YOUR credibility.
You have called Trump and his supporters liars and tyrants and racists and every other name in the book, and you have FAILED to back those accusations up.
YOU are the big loser – and that is how it should be – and of history does not reflect that – that is a failure on the part of the intellectuals writing history.
But this attack on Trump was not merely from the left, or from the media, as both MacCarthy and Tailibi have pointed out it involved significant portions of our government and continues to do so.
If Trump had called Zelenskyy and actually said every word that Andrew Schiff parodied – that would STILL be far far far less significant than what is inherently a coup.
If Trump has actually colluded with Russians – that would be far less significant than DOJ/FBI/CIA/State trying to influence US elections.
YOU keep selling this – “you can not investigate political opponents” garbage.
Candidate Trump can seek Dirt on Candidate Clinton or Biden – just as Candidate Clinton can seek Dirt on Candidate Trump. It is not something we like, but it is also not a crime.
Even President Obama CAN investigate Candidate Trump – and the several other Republicans he targeted – just as President Trump CAN investigate Candidate Biden.
What NEITHER can do is use the machinery of our govenrment to investigate without conforming to the laws and constitutional standards that apply to ALL investigations.
The first of those is that “reasonable suspicion” is required to open an investigation – that is a legal term of art. It is not a query of your guts. It has specific defined criteria.
It is clearly met in the instance of Trump requesting an investigation of Biden.
It is probably not met in the Trump/Russia investigation.
To get a warrant or subpeona – the standard is “probable cause” – both that a crime has been committed and that the warrant will lead to further evidence of that crime.
That standard was not even close to met in Trump/Russia.
While Biden’s public statements regarding Ukraine are sufficient probable cause.
My point is that the Machinery of our govenrment has been abused pollitically and corruptly – not by Trump – but by Obama and his minions and continues to be abused.
And that is far more significant than anything Trump related – or any memes regardless of party.
Joe Biden can breath a small sigh of relief
John Solomon has Burisma’s financial records – their entire financial records.
And he claims that there is absolutely no evidence of the purported 900K going to Joe Biden.
But that the 50K/month number purportedly paid to Hunter is way too low.
Burisma made two consulting payments of 83K each Month – one went to Biden one went to another Biden associated american. Both members of the Burisma Board and both partners in Rosemont Senneca. And many months there were 3 payments.
Solomon also said that a DOJ/FBI investigation into Burisma started in early 2018 – long before Guiliani got involved and that the US Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovitch was repeatedly interfering with Ukrainian and US efforts to investigate not just Burisma but other corruption involving US politicians and lobbiest and Ukrainian energy companies.
That the Ukrainians asked for her to be removed repeatedly – long prior to Guiliani’s involvment.. Basically it appears that Yovanovitch was enaged in obstruction of Justice.
The two Ukrainians associated with Guiliani who were arrested for unusual lobbying related campaign donations – are aparently just the tip of the iceberg, there are aparently nearly half a dozen democratic senators who were receiving regular campaign donations from a US Lobbiest funded by Ukrainian gas companies who then wrote letters to the Obama administration requesting increased investment in Ukrainian gas companies, which were then followed by 10’s of millions of dollars in loans and grants to those ukrainian gas companies.
John Solomon also suggested that we should pay close attention to the Office of Special Counsel (unrelated to Mueller) as they are coming to the end of a long running investigation into corruption involving US politicians and the Ukraine.
What we have going on is a gigantic game of Chicken – where Democrats and Deep State Allies who know what may be coming are seeking to kill off investigations before they complete.
And you wonder why Yovanovitch was questioned in secret with rules that will handcuff any republican that leaks what she testified to ?
Trump needs to demand a refund From Minneapolis.
Apparently Schiff is no longer going to ask the Whisleblower to testify – because – well Republicans get to ask questions too! and the might ask about the WB’s collustion with Schiff.
Interesting, and frightening, article from leftwing Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. Keep in mind, Taibbi can’t stand Trump, but he understands that the enemies (not opposition, enemies) of Trump are far more dangerous than a bad president:
Overthrowing Trump, in a coup and/or an illegal impeachment by secret court (which is the same thing) is far worse that having him re-elected for 4 more years. Democrats are no longer in support of democracy or of our Constitutional rights and freedoms, and many never-trump Republicans are right there with them. If they succeed in removing a duly elected president, America, as we know it will be over. Taibbi gets it.:
“My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
The Resistance is counting on TDS to hide the fact that it is anti-American. If there are enough people like Jay and Roby, who support any “alternative” to Trump by any means, they will try to remove him before the election. And, if they do, it may likely precipitate a civil war.
Great minds think alike.
I would also note the long list of leaks and I would pay particular attention to the fact that NONE have proven true, and one a few have had a small kernel of Truth.
Think about that as you listen to the news today – whatever it might be.
Think of it every time you hear another Trump Gotcha story sourced from senior but anonymous administration members.
We are in a very weird moment. Increasingly – the right wing conspiracy theories are in way way too many cases proving to be true, while at the same time almost everything anti-trump in the NYT or WaPo is turning out to be false.
I hear media pundits trying to claim Trump and surogates are trying to distract attention from Ukraine, and wondering who beleives this nonsense. Go to those right wing wack job sites – or to fox, or to republicans in the senate or house.
Republicans and Trump supporters and even those on the extreme are not running FROM the Ukraine – they are running TOWARDS it.
It is the left that is struggling valiantly to confine the Ukraine story to only ONE thing – Trump’s request of Zelenskyy to investigate Biden. That is the only part of the entire Ukraine story that with tremendous effort can be spun as harmful to Trump.
One Republican who managed to get onto ABC – mostly the major networks will not put republicans on, and if they do they shutdown any attempt to get outside the left’s narative.
Regardless ABC confronted this Rep on Trump’s call to Ukraine and asked the representative to condemn Trump’s actions and the rep said
Absolutely NOT. I expect the president to ask – even demand that foreign leaders investigate possible instance of past corruption involving americans – particularly those in our government, an election does not preclude investigating possible misconduct – or democrats would not be free to be chasing this impeachment ruse.
There is so much to emphasize in this article.
First – though there is significant overlap between democrats and “the deep state”.
The really big problem is “the deep state” – democrats and republicans are supposed to be a check on each others powers and conduct.
Our intelligence services, our defense department, our state department our law enforcement are NOT supposed to influence our elections, or set our policies.
Whether we elect Trump or Clinton or Obama or Sanders or Warren or Biden.
The executive branch of government works FOR the president to impliment the policies that president ran on. If you can not persuade the president to change polices, or impliment the policies that president choses – then you must resign.
Democrats Republican, neo-con or whatever – YOU do not run the government, YOU do not decide the US relationship to the world or to its citizens.
With respect to the “deep state” – I do not think this is so much a “partisan” thing.
The “deep State” is essentially OWNED by a form of moderate neocons.
Brennan is politically an avowed leftist, but his misconduct was not because Trump was on the right, but because Trump was a threat to the neoconish “deep state”.
Candidate Obama was atleast as big a threat as Candidate Trump.
But there is a huge difference between President Trump and President Obama.
Trump keeps his promises. Obama was not merely coopted by the “deep state”, he ultimately bought into it and led it.
The criminal Spying under Obama was unprecedented. Spying on many political candidates, spying on journalists, spying on the Senate, and actual whistleblowers ended up in Jail.
President Big Belly followed his GUT on Syria, here’s the result:
David Sanger (NYT): “ President Trump’s acquiescence to Turkey’s move to send troops deep inside Syrian territory has in only one week’s time turned into a bloody carnage, forced the abandonment of a successful five-year-long American project to keep the peace on a volatile border, and given an unanticipated victory to four American adversaries: Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and the Islamic State.”
🙄
So far the only news I have heard is that:
A turkish journalist in turkey was killed by turks.
And approximately 700 familiy members of high value ISIS prisoners might have escaped.
I would prefer neither.
But it is certainly not the end of the world.
BTW the article is FALSE – for exactly the reason that Ron, Priscilla and I are supporting Trump.
US Forces were NOT anywhere to “keep the peace”
It is that wrong thinking that we are opposed to.
It is not our job anywhere to “keep the peace”.
We are not the worlds policemen.
Our forces were in Syria to end ISIS occupation of parts of Syria.
That has been accomplished.
ISIS continues to exist – that is beyond the powers of our military to address.
But they are no longer a quasi national entity.
Mission accomplished
Time to come home.
All those here who agree Trump Is a
character defective human being
step forward…
Hello? Echo, echo, echo…
Anyone there? Echo, echo, echo…
Jay, I know you are mentally incapable of separating policy from person.
You ask who thinks “Trump is a character defective human being”.
I step forward. I know you have not read what I have said and if you have, you have not understood what I said because you keep asking this same damn question in 100+ different ways, but fail to understand the responses you get.
So again I say, I support most of Trumps policies.
I believe Trump is close to a despicable individual.
As president, or private citizen, I would not want him in my house.
I would not walk across the street to shake his hand.
If I were a father of a college age girl, I would jot want him anywhere close to her
I will not vote for him.
But I support withdrawing forces from combat zones until local countries are the primary forces, I support a strong border, I support FAIR trade and using tariffs to make trade fair, I support reduced government regulations, reduced government spending and tax policy that does not reward liberal/ conservative programs (elimination of SALT or any state specific programs that reduce federal taxes).
Are you really mentally incapable of understanding the policies can be the agenda of many politicians and separate policy from person?
I think Trump has a number of character flaws.
He brags,
He exaggerates,
He lobs insults – though he does not usually insult people until they insult him first.
He pretty much follows Alinsky’s rules for radicals to the letter.
He is a mysogynist
But he is not actually despicable.
He keeps his promises – rare for a politician.
In otherwords he has integrity.
He is law abiding.
I am sure some of these will have Jay and Robby frothing and foaming.
But they are both correct and what you would expect out of a successful business person.
Meuller and Comey have anally probed Trump.
They have investigated every single handshake that he or anyone within 1000 miles of him has had that was with anyone who might even know a russian.
While Mueller went to some trouble to assert that he did not “exhonerate” Trump.
To the extent it is humanly possible to do so – Mueller actually did.
Nowhere will you get Mueller to say that he did less than the best job possible.
In point of fact he lead an extremely biased team who no one should doubt their drive and motivation, and they came up with NOTHING.
Further they want incredibly far afield, they did not confine themselves to the Trump/Russia nonsense. but get into a significant portion of his business dealings.
NOTHING.
The average person – including any of us could not likely withstand the kind of scrutiny Mueller and his team gave Trump.
Who here thinks that they could survive an investigation as deep as Muellers from someone prepared to manufacture crimes and stretch the law beyond recognition ?
US Attorneys spend lunch hours speculating about how they could charge Mother Therasa.
And yet Mueller for all his obvious desire to do so came up with nothing.
If you do not understand the significance of that you are blind.
As president Trump has more closely followed the law and constitution than any prior president in my lifetime.
There has been a downward trend of president losing in the Supreme court – from Reagan who won 70% of the time through Obama who won 45% of the time. Trump is winning in Scotus more than any president since Reagan. Often 9:0.
Nearly everything that Trump has done that has pissed the left off is to undo an Obama policy and return to following the law.
With Obama we could not be sure that even if he lost in court that he would not just go ahead with something anyway.
ObamaCare as passed by Congress and as implimented by Obama were radically different.
What passed Congress would have failed on its own very quickly.
Obama did what was necescary to preserve Obama Care without regard to the law or constitution.
Conversely though Trump has had adverse rulings from lower courts – he has followed those rulings – until he was able to get them overturned.
None of this surprises me.
Every transaction in private enterprise is voluntary.
No one has ever been forced to work with Trump.
Anyone who does not trust a private actor – need not.
Go elsewhere or just do not do something.
To remain in business, businessmen must earn the trust or customers, suppliers and everyone they exchange with.
If they lose that – they fail.
Using the official definition of despicable, to me he is.. Despicable person is defined as one who is contemptible, mean or vile.
Contemptible= worthy of intense dislike ( I do) or scorn ( he is)
Mean=cruel or spiteful
Vile= disgusting, repulsive.
I found Trump to be repulsive during the primary season running against the others and using bully type tactics with his put down names. His treatment of women and how he gloated about that was unacceptable. I find him spiteful with his intense negative tweets about others that disagree with him. So he is deserving of my intense dislike for the person. Thus, I will not vote for him like before.
You find him acceptable as a person, but dislike his policies, much like policies of both major parties that you dislike. You have different reasons for not voting for him.
Neither character nor measures of policy are binary – true/false bad/good.
The definitions you came up with for despicable all define it is other subjective terms.
I am not looking to debate the meaning of subjective terms.
Do you disagree with the more objective measures of character I offered ?
There are extremely few instances I can think of where Trump has initiated an attack against someone else.
I do not consider it “bullying” to “punch back twice as hard”.
Just to be clear – there have been a few instances in which Trump’s remarks were over the top. SOME of Trump’s early comments about McCain were out of line.
Quite often Trump’s attacks on someone are taken out of context by the press.
“His treatment of women and how he gloated about that was unacceptable.”
I had a major problem with that too. But I would still note that was from a something like 15 year old recording that was supposed to be a private conversation.
I do not want to discount his remarks about women wholly, they are probably the reason I decided I could not vote for him.
At the same time – if there is no “statute of limitations” on past remarks – we are all repugnant – and certainly every politician of either party.
“I find him spiteful with his intense negative tweets about others that disagree with him.”
Again that is all tit-for-tat.
It is “unpresidential”, it is “undecorus”,
It is not a significant character flaw.
Further, unlike you I do not beleive that it is possible to prevail in a contest where the other party is following Alinsky’s rules without adopting them yourself.
“So he is deserving of my intense dislike for the person. Thus, I will not vote for him like before.”
I do not like him either. But if we are going to restrict voting to people I like – I am never going to be able to vote.
“You find him acceptable as a person”
No, I am just trying to accurately assess his character AND be able to do a weighted comparison to that of others.
When I do that – Trump has many flaws – some that are nearly unique among republicans (but common on the left). But taking all flaws and all positive qualities into account AND weighting each – he comes out ahead of an awful lot of politicians by my measure.
My evaluation of his policies is actually much like his character.
There are some I am very happy with.
Some I am less happy with
and some I outright oppose.
But again doing a weighted comparison – there is not a democratic candidate coming out ahead.
Further in 2020 he has one additional significant positive.
A good economy. And that is an aggregate measure of most of his critical policies.
Yes Ron, I can separate character from policy.
Like you I’m in favor of some policies Dumbbell has backed: tighter Immigration, census questions on country of birth, Buy American Hire American for federal projects. And yes, AOC is an idiot.
But the damage he has done long term to this nation FAR OUTWEIGHS the minuscule good – good any other DECENT Republican would have done. He’s the WORST *thing* that’s happened to the US Presidency in the history of the nation. He’s eroded the values of the nation as deleteriously as a degenerate urinating on a sand castle. The nation will continue to decline for decades as a result of his cancerous presence. Luckily I won’t be around to experience the dire results.
My view is the politicians that are in elected to positions are a result of society and the values that are held by that society when they vote. For every action, there is a reaction. Trump is that reaction to the extreme left movement of the democrat party and the inaction of the GOP members of congress. They say they are going to do something when they run and once elected, they do nothing but what the lobbyist and money interests that own them want done. The democrats are the same, just owned by a different lot of lobbyist.
The problem is not Trump. The problem is the direction that the younger generation is taking the country. The reaction to the “old white guys” voting for Trump will be followed by a far left democrat. Might be this election or 2024, but it will happen. We see that today with Sanders and Warren, supported by Pelosi.
And that is the values of the younger generation becoming the voters and leaders of tomorrow. They, and Trump are the product of the “divide and get elected” policies of those like McConnell and Pelosi.
So Jay, can we clarify one thing from the latest comments. You said what you support but did not address intervention in foreign countries civil war and border wars.
Dave is about where I am but with some differences. Priscilla is more interventional than I am. If you have read my previous comments you know that I support hardware and technical assistance. I said that for months while Russia was annihilating Ukrainians and Obama did nothing to help them back in 2015. And if an enemy of ours attacks an ally of ours and their military is losing ground to that enemy, then I would not have objections for strategic military assistance in support of their fighters. I dont support any boots fighting in any wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Last, I supported Kuwait and the way Iraq1 was handled because there were many countries involved and 41 stopped when Kuwait was freed. I did not support 43 trying to finish daddy’s war as Hussain was not a threat to many in my estimate ( which came to be true).
So, if you would, leave out Trump and Kurds. Where do you stand on foreign military intervention.
“tighter Immigration”
Super majorities of americans support that.
Further thought it is marginally arguable he supports tighter immigration policies.
His articulated position is more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.
I really support open borders – but those can not work absent at the minimum denying non-citizens unearned government benefits.
“census questions on country of birth”
BZZT, Wrong – the census question is on citizenship – again that has supermajority support.
And it has been on the census almost always. and it has ALWAYS been on the long form census.
I not only have no problem with the Census citizenship question, but SCOTUS got it completely wrong.
“Buy American Hire American for federal projects.”
Again super majorities of americans support that.
I find it more complex.
As a practical matter, products that are critical to national security must have a supply line that is not negatively impacted by conflict with any country.
The US as a matter of law stockpiles a variety of raw materials specifically to address this.
So what other Trump policies do you take issue with ?
“But the damage he has done long term to this nation FAR OUTWEIGHS the minuscule good”
What damage – are you talking about policy damage or what ?
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3:23
BTW Jay – you share many character Defects with Trump – though Trump is far less dour.
I am not a particularly religious person, but I do accept the Christian belief that we are all imperfect, and that we are all, if you will, sinners.
Some are more imperfect and more sinful that others. Some sins are worse than others. And some sinners are redeemed by the good that they do. But, overall, most people are not only flawed, but they are flawed in many ways. Many people are ignorant, lazy and hateful. Many are vain and egotistical. Many people are cowards and hypocrites. Most people are selfish in at least some ways. Some people are irresponsible parents. Some children fail to appreciate their parents, even when those parents have done their best. Many people allow alcohol and drugs to ruin their lives, and the lives of their families. These are all common, relatively ordinary vices, that we see everyday, in people all around us.
Most politicians, in one way or another, are hypocrites, and, very often, our job as voters is to try and choose the least hypocritical candidates, specifically those who will keep most of their promises. Sometimes, the least hypocritical candidate may have other character flaws that make him/her so unattractive to us, that we can’t, in good conscience, vote for them. Sometimes ~ lots of times ~ we vote for the less flawed of two flawed candidates.
Jay I fail to see anything that Trump has done that has done “long term damage” to the country. I think that, when you say that, without providing a single shred of evidence as to what that “damage” is, you fail to convince anyone, other than Roby, who already agrees with you, that we have anything to fear from the big, bad orangeman.
So, in answer to your question, yes, I believe that Trump has character flaws. None, to me, are worse than the flaws of any of those who are trying to destroy his presidency.
Priscilla: “So, in answer to your question, yes, I believe that Trump has character flaws. None, to me, are worse than the flaws of any of those who are trying to destroy his presidency.”
If any of those you allude to have as serious flaws as Trump, if they hold public office they should be removed from it – As Trump should be removed.
An impeachable FLAW for any public official is habitual public deception, of which Lying Donnie is guilty daily. Even Fox News verifies that charge:
Jay, Amen!(Yes a religious term). This does.not make his policies bad, just the person.
We keep drifting into this binary.
Some of Trump’s policies ARE BAD,
but less bad than Obama or Bush.
None of this is black and white.
Much of what Cavuto fixates on
are legitimate disagreements – they are areas in which we should actually search for the facts,
Many of them are not areas we will ever find the truth with absolute certainty.
Others are areas where we are blowing things way out of proportion.
Russia did interfere in the 2016 election – and 2012 and 2008 and …..
The actual evidence is that 2016 russian interferance was not substantively different in nature or scale than before.
Up until the last days of the Obama administration no president ever sanctioned Russia for election intereference. No president raised the issue.
Why ? Because russian interferance is inconsequential, because the US “interferes” far more, Because trying to make a big deal out of inconsequential Russian actions would actually harm the US.
An implied premise in Cavuto’s assertion is
This interfernce was important, and that the US does not do the same thing,
and that past presidents have not turned a blind eye to inconsequential actions of Russia.
With respect to Cavuto.
Checking what he says COMES WITH HIS JOB.
I beleive Cavuto is an oppinion journalist, If he is not – then yes he should be fired for this.
Differences of oppinion are not lies.
Differences of policy are not lies
Inaccurate projections are not lies
Factual errors are not lies.
If these things were lies we would all be headed to hell 4 times over.
“Tarriffs are a wonderful thing.”
I beleive that is demonstrably false – but that does not make it a lie.
It makes it a bad policy. A policy that most of the country including much of the left buys.
Exactly how is it that Trump is a “liar” for beleiving the same thing that most of the country, most democrats and a minority of economists beleive.
My near certainty that Trump is wrong does not make him a liar.
Cavuto should “check his facts”
“I am sorry you do not like these facts being brought up but they are not fake”
“Mexico would pay for the wall”
That is a prediction.
It might be a broken promise – though it might arguably be a kept promise.
Trump has not gotten Mexico to “pay for the wall” but he has gotten them to significally improve their border security.
Cavuto should “check his facts”
“I am sorry you do not like these facts being brought up but they are not fake”
“Russia did not meddle in the 2016 election”
I do not beleive Trump said precisely that.
HOWEVER,
what has been established is that Russian 2016 election meddling was NOT unusual,
that in fact it was INSIGNIFICANT.
It is increasingly unlikely that Russia had anything to do with the wikileaks document releases.
Its other efforts were miniscule and did not even favor a particular candidate.
What IS increasingly apparent is that the Obama administration DID meddle in the 2016 election – in unumerable ways.
Clinton as well as the DNC AND the DOJ/FBI were all meddling in Ukraine to push out a false russian narrative.
Clinton and the DNC are allowed to do that.
the DOJ/FBI are not.
The current fixation on Ukraine is a transparent democratic effort to try and hide that 2016 meddling.
Cavuto should “check his facts”
“I am sorry you do not like these facts being brought up but they are not fake”
Cavuto’s rant about what Trump has said publicly about world leaders or cabinet officals is nonsense.
It is extremely normal for an administrion to express public confidence in people they are not completely happy with.
Further in we do not know in many of these instances whether these people were fired or decided to leave on their own.
Turnover is not “lying”
As to his remarks about world leaders – whoop di do – again quite normal.
What is NOT normal is this MANUFACTURED effort to transform ordinary diplomacy into claims of lies.
Changing ones mind is not lying. Nor is saying something and then being persuaded otherwise.
WOW! “Differences of opinion are not lies.
Differences of policy are not lies
Inaccurate projections are not lies
Factual errors are not lies.
Would I have loved to had a mother with these beliefs.
” Ronnie, were have you been? ”
“I was at Donnies”
Two days later.
“How did scrape your arm?”
“I did it playing baseball two days ago”
“I told you you could not go to the school to play baseball. Did you lie to me about being at Donnies?”
“No mom, that was a factual error, not a lie”
Common on Dave, you cant believe all these things Trump says one day and says the 100% opposite the next day are not damn red faced lies.
Sometimes your defense of Trump defines “Trumpanzee” and I dont even know what that is officially.
A lie – as in your hypothetical is a deliberate act of deception.
For something to be a lie – it is not sufficient to prove that the allege fact is in error.
Newton’s laws of physics are factually erroneous – they are not lies.
When you accuse someone of lying you are not making a factual claim, you are making a MORAL one.
You are NOT saying – you made an error,
You are saying – You intentionally sought to deceive.
Rather than use your hypothetcial.
What was wrong with using the specific examples that Cavuto claimed were lies ?
Cavuto accused Trump of lying for saying anything positive about Tarriffs.
And in the specific instance for making an OBVIOUSLY subjective claim.
Truly subjective things like “beauty” are almost never lies.
How is it that you can intentionally deceive someone with words that are inherently subjective ?
For Cavuto to not be making a false moral accusation, he would have to know Trump’s thoughts.
In 1987 Andres Serrano produced a work of art called “Piss Christ” – a photo of a crucifix in urine.
Is that beautiful ? Possibly you do not think so, but can you accept that someone else might think that it is ?
I think that it is deeply offense AND that it is beautiful.
Trump is a F’in liar, plain and simple. One can not say one thing today and say the completely different thing the next or a week later. There are many instances where Fox has run clips of him saying something that he completely reversed in another clip.
The man is suffers from mythomania and pseudologia fantastica, using lies to try to make himself superior,
Jeez, Jay is right about your unending support for this guy.
“Trump is a F’in liar, plain and simple. One can not say one thing today and say the completely different thing the next or a week later.”
You can’t ? There is a cottage industry of Youtube clips of politicians – mostly on the left saying one thing and then later another ?
That might be lying. It also might be changing your mind.
Look at the mideast.
Trump was elected to get us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syrian – and myriads of other flashpoints.
From the day he was elected – though he asked for precisely that, he has defered to the generals, the CIA, the Deep State, Once in a while he has had a blow up at them.
And here we are 3 years after an election in which the american people spoke CLEARLY,
GET OUT!!!! And not only are we not out but even the smallest step to get a tiny bit our is being fought with intense political warfare.
So was Trump lying when he defered to the generals. Wehn he did not order everyone to do exactly has he had promissed when elected, or is he lying NOW when he says enough is enough, I have listened to exceuses and given you 3 years to make things work your way – on top of the 16 years you had before – now we do it my way, now we do it the way the people who elected me demanded ?
Is that lying ? Because it has taken Trump 3 years to force the issue ? Because for 3 years he has acquiesed to the same false nonsense from “the deep state” ?
Was Trump “lying” when he said that the Trump campaign had been spied upon ?
Was Trump lying when he said that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt ?
Did it find ANYTHING ?
On issue after issue The media and the left have accused Trump of lying and ultimately it has proved he was correct.
I would also ask about peoles judgement. We have the left excorriating the Trump “deplorables”.
Yet after even Mueller and his bad of highly partisan angry democrats spend 2 years digging, they found no instance of any american “colluding” with Russia on the 2016 election,
NONE. And they stated that unequivocally.
And yet a plurality of Americans actually believe that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
So who is it that is “deplorable” ? Gullible ? suffering from really poor judgment ? Incapable of grasping facts ?
We are constantly told that those on the left are smarter than the rest of us – then how is it that it is these so called smart people who beleive so much that most of us understand is complete garbage ?
Ron,
I am not “supporting this guy”
I am fighting for judgment made based on consistent standards, rather then judgment by feelings and personality.
Absolutely if you say X one day and Not X the next – that is evidence that you MIGHT have lied. But it is evidence not proof. There are many other possible explanations.
The next step would be to HONESTLY ask for an explanation – not toss out an “are you lying now, or were you lying then” nonsense.
Pelosi and nearly every democrat is one the records supporting a border wall.
Now they uniformly oppose.
It is possible they were lying then, or now.
It is possible they have changed their minds.
I have not personally held precisely the same positions 100% consistently from the first time I could utter anything through to today.
People change their minds – if they did not, we would still be in vietnam.
Sometimes they change their minds for good reasons, sometimes for bad.
Sometimes they are just lying.
Regardless, stating one oppinion one day and another on a different day is NOT usually a lie.
Saying something that is clearly in conflict with facts – that is a lie.
One of the problems with the hyper alinsky political environment we have today is we confuse politics and alinsky’s strategies for truth.
Republicans and democrats constantly accuse each other of being wrong, of lying, of an assortment of sins.
But those accusations and the criteria that each party uses are NOT supposed to be the standards by which ordinary people make judgments – whether in politics or the rest of our lives.
We do not (I hope) make judgments of the other people in our lives in the way that politicians do.
.Nor despite the fact that the parties want us to do so – should we make political judgments in the way that politicians do.
As an example Trump has both insulted and flattered Kim Un at various times.
Is that lying ? Is it important ? Is that diplomacy ?
Maybe Jay cares. Maybe you care. But I do not care what Trump says about Kim Un today or tomorrow. Especially not in the context of what is obviously diplomacy.
Neither Trump’s insults of Kim or his praises have any real world meaning.
They do not bind the US to go to war, or to honor Kim in some way
I care what is DONE.
If Trump strikes a bad deal with Kim – that is a big deal.
If Trump strikes a good on – that matters.
I would hope that ordinary people – including Jay and Robby would make their judgments of politics and politicians in the same way in which they do of their neighbors.
Not in the way that their respective political parties demand.
Even more so I would hope that the media especially would inform us driven by facts – not who said what.
We have way too much media that is telling us that something Trump says is a lie – or something Biden says is true – not based on facts that have been uncovered but based on conflicts with oppinion peices.
As an example I keep hearing that Hunter Biden was investigated and found innocent of any wrong doing. And that Joe Biden was similary exonerated.
That is garbage. There have been several Ukraine investigations, and atleast on US investigation, Half of those are still open. The other half resulted in large fines.
Thus far nothing has established quilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nor has their been a neutral much less an exonerating outcome.
It is unlikely that any investigation of Hunter will ever find anything except an offal Oder.
Nothing it appears Hunter has done is illegal – it just stinks.
And it is legitimate grounds for public inquiry.
Conversely Joe Biden’s conduct was clearly unethical, and could easily be criminal.
Yet we are told constantly – do not look behind the curtain – our betters have told us there is nothing there.
I am not defending Trump.
Some of Cavuto’s examples were squishy, but for most he was just wrong.
There is not a single example Cavuto used that clearly was a deliberate act of deception.
Most of his examples were hightly subjective value judgments
You and I do not share the same views of Tarrifs.
One of us is likely wrong – in error.
But both of us beleive that what we are saying is true.
Neither of us is lying.
It is possible that Trump is lying about Tarrifs – it is not likely.
Another error Cavuto made – and Jay makes all the time and the media makes all the time is confusing something that was said for a fact.
As Mueller made clear and Democrats frothed over – an investigation almost never exonerates anyone. Mueller cam about as close to exonerating Trump as possible – but did not actually do so. The Hunter Biden was investigated in Ukraine. That investigation was interrupted, but it eventually resulted in Burisma paying large fines on two occasions.
That is not proof of guilt – but it is a far cry from exonerated. And there have been further investigations into Biden and Burisima since February – so this is far from over.
Yet the media has tried to shutdown anyone who wants to mention Biden’s conduct in the Ukraine – as if it is an established fact that Biden did nothing wrong.
It is not – and it can not be ever established that Biden did nothing wrong.
But it MIGHT be possible to established that he did something wrong.
We can argue about whether there is a basis to investigate.
It is inarguable that Biden has not been proven innocent.
There is not a basis for silencing those who do not agree with you.
You and I do not share the same views of Tarrifs.
One of us is likely wrong – in error.
But both of us believe that what we are saying is true.
Neither of us is lying.
True,
But if you and I both know that American importers pay the tariffs and one of us says “China is paying for the tariffs”, one of us is a lair
.On May 9, 2019, Trump said the tariffs are “paid for mostly by China. That is a bold faced lie! The tariifs are imposed at the time of import and he knew that the day he imposed them!!!
When a tarrif is levied against an imported good, what does “who pays the tarrif ” mean.
China has devalued the Yuan. It has done so approximately proportionately to the tarriffs.
The consequence of this within China is a small destruction in the value of chinese savings.
AND a reduction in the amount of value that the chinese can get from other countries in return for what the produce for the US.
There has not been a consequential increase in the cost of Chinese products to US consumers.
I am not a big proponent of trade wars.
I am more philosophically hostile to what Trump and China are doing by far than you.
But I am not going to manufacture facts to suit a narative.
I have no doubt that the effects of chinese devaluation of the You are NOT linear accross all products – so some products may actually cost more to consumers than before and some less. But the net is close to a wash.
Before China devalued the Yuan – the economic sources I checked estimated the total cost to the economy of the Trade War with China at about 0.05% of the economy.
The bigger danger was bigger than the US/China.
The US has a MODERATELY strong economy right now.
But the global economy – and particularly china is weak.
There is a reasonable possibility of a global recession – with China being hardest hit and the US being hit the least.
That is still not good – not good for the world and not for the US.
As to who paid for Trump’s tarrifs – the “literally true answer is US importers,
But the chinese are the ones that incurred the actual loss in value.
So no – I am not looking to characterize Trump’s remarks as lies.
Further if our standard for a lie is litterally false, but in effect true,
then we should not be calling anyone a liar.
This is not like
If you like your doctor you can keep them – which was false in every possible way.
Or
Benghazi was a spontaneous attack driven by an internet video.
Which was false at the time it was said in very way.
And most of the same people who told these lies are the ones who told us there was Trump/Russia collusion.
In fact – most every instance where Trump or republicans are purportedly liars is the result of claims by others with a horrible track record for lying.
Should we beleive the people who told us about Trump/Russia collusion – on other issues where we do not know they truth ?
Should we beleive Crowdstirke – which is the only source of the claim that the russians were involved in the DNC hack – when they have been discredited several times previously over hacks they have attributed to Russia ?
It is important to know if we can beleive the president – as well as our other leaders.
I can list about 5 democratic congressment who claimed to have seen PROOF for Trump/Russia collustion. These are nearly all the same people claiming Trump is lying today.
So who do you beleive ?
CrowdStrike
Fusion GPS
Assorted politicians who have not delivered on election or other promises ?
Christopher Steele ?
Hillary Clinton ?
….
Figuring out who we can trust is important.
When a tarrif is levied against an imported good, what does “who pays the tarrif ” mean.
China has devalued the Yuan. It has done so approximately proportionately to the tarriffs.
The consequence of this within China is a small destruction in the value of chinese savings.
AND a reduction in the amount of value that the chinese can get from other countries in return for what the produce for the US.
There has not been a consequential increase in the cost of Chinese products to US consumers.
I am not a big proponent of trade wars.
I am more philosophically hostile to what Trump and China are doing by far than you.
But I am not going to manufacture facts to suit a narative.
I have no doubt that the effects of chinese devaluation of the You are NOT linear accross all products – so some products may actually cost more to consumers than before and some less. But the net is close to a wash.
Before China devalued the Yuan – the economic sources I checked estimated the total cost to the economy of the Trade War with China at about 0.05% of the economy.
The bigger danger was bigger than the US/China.
The US has a MODERATELY strong economy right now.
But the global economy – and particularly china is weak.
There is a reasonable possibility of a global recession – with China being hardest hit and the US being hit the least.
That is still not good – not good for the world and not for the US.
As to who paid for Trump’s tarrifs – the “literally true answer is US importers,
But the chinese are the ones that incurred the actual loss in value.
So no – I am not looking to characterize Trump’s remarks as lies.
Further if our standard for a lie is litterally false, but in effect true,
then we should not be calling anyone a liar.
This is not like
If you like your doctor you can keep them – which was false in every possible way.
Or
Benghazi was a spontaneous attack driven by an internet video.
Which was false at the time it was said in very way.
And most of the same people who told these lies are the ones who told us there was Trump/Russia collusion.
In fact – most every instance where Trump or republicans are purportedly liars is the result of claims by others with a horrible track record for lying.
Should we beleive the people who told us about Trump/Russia collusion – on other issues where we do not know they truth ?
Should we beleive Crowdstirke – which is the only source of the claim that the russians were involved in the DNC hack – when they have been discredited several times previously over hacks they have attributed to Russia ?
It is important to know if we can beleive the president – as well as our other leaders.
I can list about 5 democratic congressment who claimed to have seen PROOF for Trump/Russia collustion. These are nearly all the same people claiming Trump is lying today.
So who do you beleive ?
CrowdStrike
Fusion GPS
Assorted politicians who have not delivered on election or other promises ?
Christopher Steele ?
Hillary Clinton ?
….
Figuring out who we can trust
This is your idea of Trump’s great problems ?
Play this stuff pack several times.
None of these are REAL example of a lie,
This is more alinskite nonsense.
It is insult masquerading as moral certainty.
Please cite a single one of Cavoto’s examples which has the actual moral and factual signficiance of
“Benghazi was a spontaneous protest over an internet video”
Or any of myriads of other examples I can easily come up with.
I have repeatedly pummeled people here for factual error on issues like trade,
and immigration and economics.
I have not accused anyone of being a LIAR merely because I think they are wrong.
You can not even grasp that the moral error here is Cavuto’s – not Trump’s.
Cavuto is making a claim of moral failure.
If he is wrong – even about ONE item in his list, the moral failure is his.
Regardless, the point is NONE of these claims are LIES.
🙄
In July 2019, Europe proposed sanctions on Turkey for moving forward with plans to drill for oil in the waters off Cyprus. Europe has decided to reduce its use of hydrocarbons and does not want any drilling in waters off land they believe is European.
Looks like they are willing to clamp down on Turkey for oil drilling, but do nothing with Turkey except for chastizing Trump for withdrawing a few troops from Syria.
Amazing. I have come to the realization the current western world is like the current family structure in the millennial world. The United States ( parent) unable to rid themselves of their overly dependent snowflake children (Europe).
So ABC showed a video of the Turks bombing the Kurds,
only it was actually from a US artilery demonstration in Kentucky in 2017.
Oops.
Trump’s legacy:
A British member of Parliament:
https://twitter.com/tomtugendhat/status/1184015285784850432?s=21
Keep fighting the cold war.
How well did afghaistan work out for Russia ?
If Russia wants to mire themselves in mideastern conflict WHY DO YOU CARE ?
You keep trying to divide the world cleanly between good and bad
Russia bad, the UK good.
But that does not work so well.
Turkey is an actual ally – one that behaves badly in some instances, and one that has relationships to others that are not allies.
The YPG is a group that we share ONE common interest with.
BTW we share common interests with Russia too.
There are no “good guys” and “bad guys”
There are countries sometimes acting good and sometimes bad.
And all too often we are the bad actor.
If you can get past trying to divide the world this way,
You place us into a position where we are better able to criticism otheres – when they are wrong and support them when they are right.
One of the interesting things about Ken Burns Vietnam was that prior to late Johnson the majority of americans trusted that whatever the US government was doing – that was the right thing.
We do not have that today – and that is very good.
We do not trust our government – and we should not.
You do not trust Trump – I think that is wonderful.
Though Obama deserved no more Trust that Trump.
Our default should alway be a lack of trust.
Uninformed trust of the US government has never worked out very well for us.
But with Trump you have gone beyond a lack of trust.
You are pushing hard towards authoritarianism.
You seek to change the outcome of the election.
You are trying to convert your feelings about Trump into a crisis.
While it is trivial to point out that Trump has thus far hard the best presidency – FOR THE PEOPLE of any president since Clinton – thus far.
Equally important – despite the angst in the media, there have also been no extra-ordinary disasters.
We are getting out of wars – albeit too slowly, not getting into them.
We are bringing world tyrants to heel – albeit slowly, not creating new ones.
You rant alot about Trump’s foreign policy – yet that is surprisingly one of Trujmp’s BEST fields.
You keep complaining about Trump doing things that I look at and go “What has taken us so long” ?
You are crying wolf.
Trump 2020 Slogan: MRGA! – Make Russia Great Again!
“Russia Says Its Troops Are Patrolling Between Turkish and Syrian Forces” (NYT)
You have gotten what you wanted – the two groups are not going to be able to easily start killing each other, and if they do – it will be russians who are killed in some meaningless foreign conflict, not americans.
I am really fine with that.
At the conclusion of WWII many US military units had advanced beyond what was decided as the boundary between the Western Powers and the USSR.
US forces had to retreat beyond those boundaries and Russians took over.
Not that any of this matters – unless you think the US is a colonial power.
Weren’t you alive during the Vietnam war ?
If you can not recall – watch Ken Burns special on Netflix.
Just the first Episode will make it clear – we should have left at the very start.
It would have been better for the people and the country and the US.
Or go read Mark Twain on US military and foreign policy in the late 19th century.
Jay, is your side anymore morally superior when you do crap like this? And thousands are going to believe it!
https://gizmodo.com/abc-news-broadcasts-fake-syria-bombing-video-thats-actu-1839028685?fbclid=IwAR0qspA5O7aNqvXSOtn3JYf2-hdQdHrql1zw95RKwgRKqcT3fErmcnblKwo
My side?
If FOX had mistakenly aired it would it have been your side?
And you mean crap like ineptitude?
For which they hastily admitted the mistake.
Ron, you’re getting dingy.
Jay, I sure would like to be as trusting as you. From government to media to ???, you never seem to question other than Trump.
I think ABC admitted theIr mistake because they got caught. The problem is the millions that watch their news and believe that crap and never hear it was fake news.
But the desire is to impact the most people possible and they accomplished what they wznted.
But dingy , yes, but not becoming that. I have not believed government or media cow crap for years. At some point when (as Dave describes it ) factual inaccuracies become primary facts, some of us begin to not believe most of what we hear or read.
We do not even know that there was an actual attact.
All we know is that ABC said there was an attack and video that is nearly impossible to have used accidentally was used as the evidence.
If there was an attack – then where is the actual video of the actual attack.
The use of this video is very near certainly a lie – the question is whether it is a little lie – wrong video of an attack that occured, or a big lie – an intentionally deceptive story of something that did not happen.
“We do not even know that there was an actual attact.”
This is getting humorous. I can debate using facts all day, but when someone can say we don’t know if this was an actual attack and that was the reason for my posting the comment to begin with, I don’t know how to address that..
ABC said there was an attack. They used this video to support that comment. Five million (+-) view ABC news nightly. Five million saw that ABC said there was an attack. They got caught with there pants down with their lie.
Plan and simple, there may or may not have been an attack, but ABC said there was one using this video. Therefore it is a lie.
Trump or ABC, both liars!!!!
“This is getting humorous. I can debate using facts all day, but when someone can say we don’t know if this was an actual attack and that was the reason for my posting the comment to begin with, I don’t know how to address that..”
There is no question at this point that ABC ran a false story.
The probability of that being an accident or incompetence is extremely low.
It was probably “A LIE”.
I have no idea what – if anything Trump said about “the attack”
So it would be hard to pass judgement on whether it was truthful.
I watched a clip of Trump today announcing the cease fire agreement in Syria.
I do not know whether to trust what Trump says about that agreement and about the circumstances leading up to it.
I do know that I can not trust the media to give me the facts to be able to evaluate whether Trump’s remarks were truthful.
Trump said Turkey has been after this “security zone” in syria for 10 years,
Trump said that this was agreed to long before he became president.
Trump says the kurds are happy with the deal.
Trump says that he never gave a green light to Turkey’s actions.
That Erodigan informed him we was moving troops into setup the security zone – PERIOD.
And Trump’s choice was to move 28 US soldiers out of harms way or let them die and end up at war with Turkey.
Trump might be lying – but it is very hard to tell – because I can not trust the media to report the actual facts accurately.
errors of fact undermine your credibility
misrepresentation undermine your integrity.
There is a difference between
I do not beleive X because he is often wrong.
and
I do not beleive X because he is deceptive.
But Fox did not air it.
Further Ron is incorrect – it is NOT ineptitude – it is a LIE!!!!!
There is not a reasonable explanation for using a video of an artillery test in Kentucky.
It is quite literally “Fake News”.
If ABC had video of a strike in Syria they would have used it.
The fact they did not means there was no video from Syria.
It also means ABC almost certainly made up the entire story.
Lets try to find a hypothetcical where it is NOT a lie.
So there is a hypothetical reporter in Syria – and he observes Turkish bombs falling and sends video to ABC.
So they somehow accidentally air the wrong video ?
Like the video for artilery tests 2 years ago are right next to bomb strikes from Syria today ?
The next possibility is the reported observes the bomb strikes but does not send video.
And someone in ABC just goes looking for some video to represent a bomb strike.
This is much more plausible. But it is also NOT ineptitude, it is LYING.
How about an even more plausible story.
There i no reporter, someone in ABC heard from god knows where that there were Turkish air strikes and so they pulled video of something that looked like a bomb explosion to someone at ABC and aired it
That would be a BIG Lie.
BTW I have as of yet not heard a correction from ABC
So now lets compare these to Cavuto’s examples:
There is not a plausible version of the ABC story where ABC did not know that it was running FALSE video.
Conversely when Trump says that Tarrifs are a beautiful thing – that is something that can be debated, but it is not inherently false.
Beautiful was a poor choice of words – as Beauty is inherently subjective and on that ground alone Cavuto is WRONG – he is making an obviously false moral accusation.
But skipping past the subjectiveness of beautiful – which alone should have precluded Cavuto from using that as an example,
Lets Pretend Trump said they were a good thing.
Tarriffs have positive and negative effects – they are both good and bad.
Most Economists beleive that the bad effects nearly always outweigh the good.
And there is data to support that.
There are a few things in Economics where we can say “Always and everywhere”.
But not many.
Most we can say the most probable outcome is X where it the probability is high we are talking 80%.
The point is that Tarriffs are a bad idea because there is a high probability that the bad effects will be greater than the good.
But probability is not certainty.
Trump is wrong as a matter of good policy,
He is likely wrong as a matter of probable outcome.
But being wrong is not the same as lying.
Further as we are seeing with China – trade is complex.
Trump has started a trade war – or atleast a trade skirmish.
It appears that he is winning it.
It also appears that the short term negative impacts of the trade skirmish on the US are not all that high. While the potential benefits could be much greater.
I still think it was a mistake – and I will be happy to argue that Trump’s actions were wrong.
But they are not a LIE.
Words have meaning. When you mangle the meaning of words – you corrupt communications.
Trump’s speech is often butchery. It is sometimes wrong. it is full of exageration, and bragging It is imprecise – but it is not often deceptive.
In other words it is NOT a lie.
It is at worst an error.
While Cavuto’s accusation that Trump is lying about Trade is false.
And that make it a moral failure – not just an error.
ABC aired it, Jay.
This is not supposed to be a tit-for-tat thing
It is not supposed to be a contest between the press and the president regarding who makes the most errors, with each side shouting “liar liar pants on fire”.
I think that the Cavuto clip Jay offered rather than proving his point – proves mine.
Cavuto made a list of claims of items that Trump had LIED about.
It was self evident that Cavuto’s definition of lie was differences of opinion.
I am not happy with Trump;s position on Trade.
I think there is a strong body of evidence that he is wrong.
But I would not accuse him of Lying.
Obama too was WRONG about most of his policies.
The media was almost NEVER asserting that Obama lied,
and the few claims by anyone that Obama lied – were REAL LIES.
Further absolutely NOTHING that Trump or Republicans – or even Nixon has ever done comes close to this FALSE ACCUSATION of Russian Collusion.
Let me be really clear that is a PROVEN LIE.
It is increasingly evident that those who started the investigation either KNEW it was a lie or were stupid beyond belief.
It is also increasingly evident that those who started the investigation participated in CREATING the LIE.
There is good reason for any of us to be suspicious about the Conduct of the Biden’s in Ukraine. That suspicion is created by the public acts of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
No one is lying that Hunter followed Joe whereever he went, and that wherever Joe Went Hunter profited. No one is lying that Biden threatened the Ukraine as VP if they did not fire a prosecutor investigating his son.
The above is NOT proof beyond any reasonable doubt that either Hunter or Joe committed a crime. But it is a very strong foundation for an investigation. It is probable cause. In fact it is stronger than probable cause.
To this very moment nothing of similar quality or strength exists regarding the Trump/Russia nonsense.
While the DOJ/FBI screwed up royally with the Steele Dossier, the HUGE problem is that the Steele Dossier does not show up until AFTER the investigation is underway.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Trump/Russia Collusion nonsense was CREATED by the Obama administration. That FBI/CIA were running an operation against republicans – not just Trump, that started in 2015, and that was an effort to find or manufacture dirt – without any foundation to start from.
Michael Weiss:
“Two of America’s biggest enemies, Russia and Iran, simply cannot believe their luck that in a long line of strategic cock-ups and own goals, American elected a dumber-than-shit sociopath who has now gifted them (not even sold, but gifted) its interests and assets in the region.”
How do you describe people who keep defending Dumber than shit sociopaths?
Dumber than shit dumbbells?
Syria is a liability not an asset.
Liabilities are things you DO NOT WANT.
If Iran or Russia want Syria – they can have it.
You have really really bought into Neo-con garbage.
Please name any place in the world that the US has had a presence that was not wanted by the people of that region or their neighbors that has EVER worked out well.
We have spent god knows how many Trillion dollars in the mideast in the past two decades.
What is it we have to show for it ?
What did Obama have to show for it ?
What did Bush have to show for it ?
How is it you think we would be better off if we stayed in Syria ?
And when is it that you were going to leave ?
I just watched excerpts from the debate. Not for anything would I watch the whole thing. But man, has trump ever given the Dem. party and its candidates powerful ammunition and the candidates spoke very effectively about trump. Whenever I hear Bernie speak I just think to myself, crackpot, O Rourke looks young and shallow. The others impressed me. Every one of them spoke very well in the excerpts I heard and looked more presidential than our POTUS, while that is a low bar. The election is a year off, many things can happen but I like their chances. trump and the GOP have dug themselves a very big hole and provided the Dem party with very powerful reasons that trump must go. If they express those reasons as well as I heard them do it tonight they will have excellent chances. The whole country is not brainwashed by Fox news, as the polls show. Its going to be a brutal year and one side is going to be humiliated and gutted in the end.
I simply cannot imagine 5 more years of trump (counting from today). I don’t think trump himself could take it.
Roby, if you read this, can you give me 3-4 reasons that they used during the debate. Ukraine will be one, but what are the others when you say “provided the Dem party with very powerful reasons that trump must go”
I never watch any debate.
Ron, I have forgotten already their actual words. I can only remember an impression of of people speaking firmly and clearly and intelligently. I was least impressed with Sanders o roarke and Warren. I could summerize what they said about trump as being not very different from what You have said, with some Will and some Romney mixed in. Needless to say they were focused on the incredible level of lies and corruption. By now anyone who does not understand why trump has self impeached himself never is going to understand. I know that you are not among those oblivious ones.
I can add that I have been watching Sanders for maybe 40 years now and he has never changed, never learned anything new, never become more sophisticated. It’s remarkable a head that is uneducable, made of wood, simply a stupid populist ranting. Apparently he is aggravate polling about 14 percent among Democrats. But he still beats trump in almost every head to head, sometimes handily and by now everyone knows who he is. Republicans do not realize the level of stink that people outside their cult smell from trump.
Thanks, really did not want you to write out a ” Dissertation” , just three to four one liners.
But from what I get on the business news this morning, they were:
1. Ukraine ( Impeachment)
2 Syria ( retreating from our allies )
3. Elimination of the billionaire class.
I do find from sound bites that Tulsi Gabbert may be able get my vote over Trump. She is the only one with any common sense (red meat words for Dave) when it comes to impeachment.
And this is the problem with everything from you (and the left).
” I can not remember any facts, but my heart throbbed and my emotions were set off”.
Hitler and Mousolini were very good at inspiring rhetoric.
In fact pretty much every totalitarian was.
One of the reasons Trump is NOT a totalitarian is because he self evidently has NOT warmed your cockles.
Hitler won his 1938 plebescite with 89% of the vote.
That is how real totalitarians work – they use emotion to sell the masses to act way outside of the law.
That sounds like a progressive. Not Trump.
I just responded to Ron regarding the ABC “attack on the kurds” fake news.
Today Trump announced a cease fire and with it made a number of claims that may or may not be true, that if true alter the character of the entire recent mess.
I do not know whether to beleive Trump – but I KNOW that I can not trust the media to provide me with the information to evaluate trump’s remarks.
The same is true regarding your 2020 democratic canditates.
All the claims about lies and corruption have legs – only if they are credible.
That means they have facts to back them up.
If you want me to beleive democrats, the left and the media who have earned 10 pinochio’s out of a possible 4, then you need facts, not feelings.
Saying Trump lied – repeatedly, does not make Trump a liar.
It is a claim you MUST substantiate.
Failure to do so diminishes YOUR credibility and integrity.
If you are going to continue to make accusations of moral failure – you must back them up with FACTS.
Heh, come on, Roby. Their answer to everything was “Trumps’ gotta go!!” but they never specified what he was doing wrong. Not a one could explain why we should stay in Syria, other than that “we betrayed the Kurds,” who, by the way are not being “slaughtered”, but are now allied with the New Syrian Army. All Tulsi could say was, that Trump did the right thing in the wrong way, but couldn’t say what the “right way would’ve been.
The winners last night were Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg.
Not a Fox News article: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html
You are welcome to believe that trump is headed for an easy victory. In your world that is the idea of what is happening.
Well, you have become quite the populist (your own comment). Yep, trump has channeled that populist rage against the powers that be. And the progressives are channeling it too. Populism to me is pure blind rage with some oversimplified scapegoat class as the target. The populist demon has been let out of its bottle, the internet surely helped, and now it will ricochet around like a bullet in a concrete bunker, shredding things. You are hoping that right wing populism is stronger than left wing populism, but it’s all the same thing really, and someday it’s form that is after your own class will bite hard. Have fun with your populism, it’s all the rage now.
I don’t think Trump is headed for an easy win. And I am much more populist than I once was.
No matter what come November 2020 one party or the other is walking away with a serious defeat.
A defeat of Trump – absent some event that really and truly is completely unacceptable to his supporters, will create more chaos, larger resistance and will likely result in a real authoritarian to follow.
But democrats have staked their entire legitimacy on the illegitimacy of Trump.
Democrats needed to regroup after Clinton and figure out what they did wrong and how to change to win elections.
They have not done that.
Can we dispense with this “populist nonsense.”
Pretty close to every politician in existance is a “populist”.
Telling people they will get free college is a massive populist appeal.
Saying that some one or something is populist says NOTHING of consequence positive or negatice..
Are Trump supporters beating people up ?
Are they banning people from speaking ?
Are they burning things down ?
To the extent there is a “rage” problem in the US – it is on the left.
If you keep up this nonsense, if you succeed in depriving them of the government they voted for and legitimately won – and you forget that when you claim that Trump is some russian plant you are telling his supporters they are Russian dupes – and guess what – they do not need some talking head to tell them that is crap. Regardless if you take from them what they beleive they accheived legitimately – you can expect that in the future they will be less inclined to “play by the rules”
That is how the rule of law works. The legitimacy of government, and the legitimacy of the law depends on that law applying equally to others. When you create the perception that there is one law for democrats and another for republicans you undermine the rule of law, and you can expect lawlessness to increase
I hope Trump wins in 2020 – not because I like Trump, and not because I think any democrat would “destroy the country” but because if the people who voted for Trump feel cheated, the next time we will likely see them behind an ACTUAL authoritarian.
The left is sewing chaos – and chaos is the breeding ground for totalitarians,
That is how Germany got Hilter and Italy got Musolini. and ….
Public chaos is extremely dangerous, it will not merely bring Trump supporters out in droves, it will bring out everyone anxious about chaos and they will not be voting for “free college”,
They will be voting for the strong man who promises to make them safe.
Populism is merely a political appeal targeted at the broadest number of people.
It is neither inherently good or evil. Further every single politician is inherently a populist – or atleast strives to be one.
Calling something populist tells us nothing about the merits of its policies.
Nor is populism tied intrinsically to anger.
Though I would suggest that you and the left would be wise to concern your selves with people with pitch forks. We are far from that point today – but YOU are dragging us in that direction.
You keep avoiding this – but the more laws you make, the more regulations you pass the more programs you impliment the bigger and more powerful you make government to more enemies you make the more anger you create.
The relationship is rooted in human nature and logic.
We are not all the same, humans are inherently unique – we are different, and one size fits all solutions do not fit very well. Solutions implimented by force always create some backlash and anger – and the more you do the bigger you make government the more the failure, the more the resistance, the greater the anger.
You should be afraind of rising anger – not because these people are inherently filled with rage or anger, but because chaos spawns anger and appeals for a strong men, for a totalitarian.
“Not a one could explain why we should stay in Syria, other than that “we betrayed the Kurds,” who, by the way are not being “slaughtered””
You are very, very sure of that, are you? Its pure Typical Priscilla, using what you’ve acquired from Dave in denial skills. Just make it all go away with a few keystrokes.
I have seen the pictures of what is happening to the Kurds, who were in fact our ally a week ago. I have also read some dispute over whether some of those pictures are real. Well, in any case, real or not (and I will go with the idea that they are closer to the truth than not) it must be Jolly to be a Kurd right about now mustn’t it Priscilla?
There is nothing really to worry about happening (at least not in your suburban world). In your world a truly painful injustice, never to be forgotten, is Hillary using the word deplorable.
You and Dave can live in your world of smug denial, typing out that bad things are simply not happening is very easy to do. You have no idea, and I have no words that I can write to reach you, to tell you how much the smug denial routine applied to truly heart wrenching events disgusts me. You wonder why I am “rude” to you. When will I just be nice and calm about these things, non judgemental? Never. Get used to it. You have long disgusted me and your smug comment on the Kurds not being slaughtered is just one more example of who you are. You will tell me that I have no idea who you are. Your words ARE who you are Priscilla.
Lindsey Graham, another fine example of today’s GOP was bitterly mourning the treatment of the Kurds in public but when he believed he was talking to the Turks he had a very different line, in that context he claimed to understand that the Kurds were a problem for the Turks to solve.
What utterly vile shit comes from conservatives today. There is a party that is incredibly economically naive and disgustingly PC on the one hand, and there is a party that trump, lindsey graham, and people like yourself represent on the other hand. Its not a difficult choice for me to make, which flavor is worse.
Roby, I keep asking this question and no one supporting our military getting killed in Syria will answer this question. So I will ask you in a different manner.
If things are so bad for the Kurds and the Kurds have been such a strong ally as everyone complaining about Trumps actions, why hasn’t any one of the other free western countries stepped forward and placed troops in the region?????
Roby, the Kurds are a diverse group, and many of the Kurds fighting in Northern Syria are Marxist terrorists, who have slaughtered thousands of Turks. Our temporary alliance with those Kurds has put us at odds with our actual NATO ally, Turkey.
It’s fair to say that Turkey is a “bad” ally. It’s also true that we have no real alliance with the Kurds. The Iraqi Kurds, who are not Marxists, were completely abandoned by Obama’s Iraq withdrawal, and, as far as I know, not a single Dem shed a tear.
My point is not that there wasn’t a better way to handle the withdrawal. But, not a single candidate on that stage proposed an alternative. They just said stuff like “ No more endless war, but we can’t abandon the Kurds!’
Makes no sense.
When we are not in the fight, when we are not trying to figure out which bad guy to pick as our ally, we do not have to sort out who is a marxist terrorist and who is a totalitarian.
I have no idea whether the Kurds of Erodigan is worse.
And I do not need to – I am not asking us to support either.
We have all seen pictures of what happened to the kurds – they were taken in Kentucky.
That is disturbing – but half of the country does not find that surprising.
Half of the country understands the press can not be trusted.
If the press can not be trusted and the government can not be trusted – and neither can.
You are not going to get progressivism.
You are likely to get a totalitarian.
That is were people go when things are chaotic.
When they are anxious.
No the kurds were not our “ally”
Just because we shared a common goal does not make us allies.
The enemy or our enemy is useful, they are not inherently our freind.
By your definition of “ally” – Al Qeda was an ally in afghanistan – after all we used them to fight the russians.
Conversely Turkey is actually an ally. We have actual obligations to Turkey.
I will be happy to discuss terminating those obligations.
But calling the Kurds allies dones not make that so,
not does calling the Turks enemies make that so.
But it does make Washington (and Trump) right.
The less entangled with others nations and peoples the US is as a nation,
The less we will have to say “our bad guy is less bad than your bad guy”
Can you quit putting words into our mouths and pretending you know the thoughts in our heads.
Bad things are happening. No one is denying that – though we are increasing accurate in noting that we can not trust the press to inform us correctly about the bad things that are happening.
But bad things were going to happen no matter what.
I expect a return of ISIS and Al qeda – though not as a quasi country.
I also expect that terrorist attacks against the US will continue so long as we continue to mess in the affairs of other countries.
I also expect that no matter what Trump did both of these were true.
The naive denial is yours.
You are the one selling unicorns.
You are the one pretending that
some magic would preclude whatever disaster you think is imminent as a consequence of our withdrawl from Syrian, and that that magic would not require US troops PERMANENTLY deployed between enemies – neither of which is deserving of the blood of US soldiers.
“For they sow the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind.”
That is what your #resistance is doing, that is what your anger is doing that is what your growing lawlessness is doing.
Tip the scales to heavily towards chaos and you will drive the country to demand order at any cost.
That is where you are headed.
You can watch the democratic debates and call conservatives economically naive ?
What was the average economic growth for 8 years of Obama ? 1.8%.
What has been the average growth under Trump ? 2.8%.
Important!!!
Read Graham’s full thread!
Scripted political response whenever there is a conflict and politician supports military action.
I have no.idea how many times I heard “abandoning the Vietnamese will come back to haunt us, communism will emerge throughout southeast Asia and bigger problems will be created by this decision.”
I am sick of hearing that friggin lie over and over!!!
43 told America Saddam Hussain had chemical weapons of mass destruction and he feared Hussain would use them on others and the U.S.A. in terrorist attacks. How much friggin truth was in that statement that got almost 3000 americans killed and destabilized the middle east to end up like it is today.
Your TDS is totally blinding you to accept anything anyone says if its anti-trump.
Yeah Ron, we all want to get out of the mid eastern mess.
Just like we’d like to see way less armed cops roving the streets.
Less jailers guarding prisoners.
Less speed traps on highways.
Less dentists drilling teeth.
Reality check: look at the unfolding strategic realignments just days following the Turkey incursion. If you were president would you have impulsively removed those remaining 50-100 American soldiers?
Why would happen if in the next decade we slowly but surely removed all our troops and bases around the world, but only concentrated our military force to guard the American hemisphere?
Would we be safer, or less safe physically & economically?
Would we be better or worse off as a people?
Here is Tulsi Gabbard addressing your comments.
“Would we be safer, or less safe physically & economically?
Would we be better or worse off as a people?”
I can not answer than AND NEITHER CAN YOU!
Claims that something will make us safer do not make that so.
I strongly suspect we WOULD be safer and better off as a people if we did much of what you say we should not.
But with specific respect to the Mideast – I think that things are more clear there.
Our interventions in the mideast have made us less safe.
They have not made anything better for us.
The World Trade Center was not attacked because the US exports the most Soy.
It was attacked because our military has been mucking arround in the mideast.
A very long rebutal to Graham.
Regardless, Jay, many of us have been arguing exactly he same things for decades.
We have tried Graham’s way and your way for two decades.
It has failed. Badly.
I find the entire democratic uproar over all of this hilarious.
What I see in the media and on the left and from democrats is FEAR.
Fear that Trump is near certain to be re-elected.
Fear because Though Biden has stopped his free fall in the polls, it is highly unlikely that he will become the democratic candidate.
Fear because the IG report is due out,
Fear because There are Multiple DOJ/FBI investigations into the Trump/Russia collusion investigation and these are going to go badly for Democrats and “the deep state”
How badly is still open – but no one expects the results to be good.
I have only watched some clips – but I still find your response ODD.
We ALL know the facts.
The FACTS are no more nor less damning – because democratic candidates say something about them in a debate.
And the facts are STILL Innocuous.
It takes incredible hypocracy for anyone to assert that Trump has done anything wrong regarding Ukraine while at the same time not recognizing that tbe behavior of Clinton and Obama was FAR WORSE.
Are you going to try to tell me that NO ONE is allowed to investigate the conduct of the Biden’s in the Ukraine ?
If so – what you are saying is that anyone who does anything illegal can run for political office and become immune from investigation.
That is clearly not how you felt about Trump.
Please explain to me using FACTS and LAW How Trump’s conduct is not less troubling than Biden’s, Obama’s or Clinton’s ?
Biden OVERTLY threatened to without Ukrainian funding if he did not get what he wanted.
If that is OK with you – then you will have to explain to me how Trump’s conduct was
worse? Clearly you do not think that it is inappropriate to withhold finding – or you would be holding Biden to task.
To this moment there is ZERO evidence that:
Funding was actually delayed beyond deadlines.
The Ukrainians were aware of any issue regarding Funding.
That any issue regarding funding had any basis beyond trying to leverage stronger support from the EU AND to determine if Zelenskyy was actually a credible political leader – rather than someone who played one on TV.
So it is hard for me to think of why you might think Funding is an issue.
But to help you:
The moment an investigation involving Hunter Biden started in the Ukraine – Joe Biden was ethically, and probably legally required to “recuse” himself from anything involving the Ukrainian
It does not matter if there is substance to the investigation,
it does not matter if the investigator is corrupt – though there is no actual evidence that he was.
It does not even matter if what Biden did would be ethical and legal – if done by someone else.
The converse is NOT True.
Before the Zelensky call, There were already investigation – by the DOJ and on some issues, by the Ukrainians into All the things in Trump’s “hit list”
“I simply cannot imagine 5 more years of trump (counting from today).”
Why not ? It is pretty predictable.
Daily “Argh! Trump” from the left and the media.
Massive internal resistance from “the deep state” that can not seem to understand that the government is run by those elected by the people, not them.
The best (though still less than perfect) foreign policy we have seen since Reagan.
An economy that is 50% better than anything we have seen since Clinton
And a relatively quiet slow down on additional chocking regulations as well as a slow roll back of bad existing ones,
Pretty much nothing getting done by congress – which is a good thing.
And MAYBE the left looking into the mirror to figure out why they lost.
As to what I am afraid of – it is that Trump will lose.
Not because I am some great Trump supporter – but because Trump was a pronounced backlash.
If you defeat him, that will do absolutely nothing to address the underlying reasons he was elected in the first place.
Frankly the fact that he ended up being the candidate of one of the major parties itself should have been enough to cause all of us to think about how that could happen and how so large a segment of the electorate could be so disenchanted with “the ruling elite”.
Hillary was corrupt as shit. But we have had extremely corrupt leaders before – and will again. We have also had left wing nuts.
What you should be thinking about is why did 65M people vote for Trump ?
I know this is diffcult – but though there were myriads of small factors, the BIG one was that they are very unhappy with the mess that has been made of our government,
They did not vote for Trump because they wanted more “free things”.
They did not vote for Trump because they wanted more laws.
They did not vote for Trump because they wanted endless wars.
They did not vote for Trump because they wanted more “social justice”.
They voted for Trump because they saw the government as the enemy not a friend, as an impediment not a help.
Over the past 3 years not only has that not improved – it has gotten worse.
I would further warn you – Nixon was never a symbol, Clinton was not a symbol,
Trump is a symbol.
Whatever happens with Trump in 2020.
The underlying reasons he was elected – YOUR FAILURES, will not have gone away.
If you prevent the adjustments that Trumps election demonstrates are necessary the problem will become worse.
The lesson that many of us are seeing playing out on the public stage is that you and the left and the government can not be trusted.
The CIA can not be Trusted, the NSA, the FBI, the DOJ – can not be trusted.
You think what is occuring is about impeaching Trump.
It is NOT – it is about fixing the CIA, the DOJ, the NSA, the government such that what happened in 2016 never happens again.
You rant about phoney Trump/Russia collusion.
I want to know what the US government was spying on journalists, congressmen, and political candidates ?
You rant about Kurds.
I want to know why the hell we were in Syria in the first place and why the hell YOU keep trying to make it impossible to get out ?
You rant about Biden.
I want to know why it is only possible to investigate ludicrously stupid allegations against republicans, but that the arguably criminal conduct of anyone ont he left it out of bounds.
Bernie is a crack pot – because his ideas are crackpot, – but most of the other candidates have plagarized Sanders platform.
And Bernie atleast admits he is going to bankrupt the country with his policies.
Even if he uses different words. Warren will not even admit that without causing serious pain to the middle class she can not deliver on her promises.
I would like a president whose rhetoric was less confrontational than Trump.
I would also like democrats the press and the left to not be ranting “hateful hating hater”.
at anyone they oppose – whether Romney, Bush, McCain or Trump.
But the presidents language is NOT at the top of my requirements for president.
Not Fracking the economy would be toward the top.
Not killing off our soldiers to make NeoCons happy would be way up there.
Given that Obama could not manage to sustain 2% growth and that Biden and the seven dwarves are unlikely given their policies to be able to sustain 1% growth,
Tulsi did make a fine closing statement, the only candidate to acknowledge the 68 million Americans who voted for Trump, ” “I don’t see deplorables, I see fellow Americans.”
One more thing. I am not the genius who has the answer of how the US should conduct its foreign policy in a world full of evils without becoming evil itself as it did in Vietnam and, it turns out, in Iraq. But I am not one who believes that if the US simply walks away from the mess in the middle east and elsewhere and says its up to you guys now everything will just work itself out not too badly.
I served (entirely voluntarily and at my own initiative) in the Vermont national guard infantry and during the Kuwait war I was told we were likely to be deployed and I was ready to go. We didn’t go as it happens.
My new son in law, the man who makes my beloved daughter happy, and a man I highly love and admire and respect for his extremely fine character, is a military officer. He has just been deployed for 9 months to the middle east, I am not supposed to say where. That is, needless to say, worrying to us. But its the life he chose and he has gone far with it and it has provided him and my daughter with many benefits. I am glad there are people like him in the military. I will certainly worry and we will all suffer badly if anything happens to him.
I have watched conservatives who not long ago reviled Obama (who risked a mission into Pakistan to get Bin Laden) as weak on ISIS now going (OK, not without some protest), along with their idiot POTUS as he impulsively and with no coordination or warning jerks the military out of contact with ISIS. I have watched conservatives make similar about turns on dealing with putin, and they are not about to complain if their leader claims that he and Lil Kim simply fell in love with each other.
I am watching a world gone mad.
Roby, thank you for your service and thank your S -I-L and especially your daughter for their service. (Military life is much harder on the loved ones)
But life in the military is one of following orders. You do not question those. Even when you know in your mind they are bad, you follow them until you have a choice of re-upping or getting out. You, as the military person, are the ones that the rich, fat cats in Washington are sending to combat zones, for the right or wrong reasons.
And lies get us into wars and lies keep us in wars. Afghanistan is perfect example. In October, 2001, our military entered Afghanistan to capture or kill OBL, Al Quida leaders and eliminate terrorist base of operations. This was accomplished years ago, but now we are there losing lives protecting their government from tribal conflict.
How long and how many lives do we lose in idiots wars?
Ron, II thank you for your words. I understand your position on overuse of the military.
But in reply simply, I know the history of the 20th century. While I do not know what the best answer is to fighting evil on the international stage and protecting freedom as much as possible in a world that generates despots and dictators and Islamic religious fanatics, I can recognize a Wrong answer. The policies that the US followed in the first 40 years of the 20th century had terrible consequences. I will never believe that we can simply arm ourselves to the teeth and leave the world stage to putin and Lil Kim and the Mullahs, and on and on.
There has to be some middle ground between Vietnam, Iraq and appeasement and isolationism. There has to be some level that is not too much and not too little.
In the case of trump precipitously withdrawing us the answer to the question of how he could have done it better is incredibly simple. He could have withdrawn in a planned orderly manner after announcing his intentions and letting people do what they needed to do to save themselves instead of simply rushing and blindsiding everyone in what could be construed as a fit of political pique due to his impeachment proceedings and giving a giant gift to Iran, who he has claimed to oppose, and a gift to putin, well, he is no foe of putins plans, and deserting people who, for better of for worse, had been working with us. That is what he should Not have done as a way of disentangling us. I say that the way he did it looks chaotic and incredibly pooly arranged and planned because it was simply a chaotic decision. He did it that chaotic way purely because he was looking to do Something, Anything, presidential to make himself feel powerful on a bad day for his presidency. Instead he made things even worse for a lot of people, even himself, stable genius that he isn’t.
Tell me that you think republicans would have been so understanding and adaptable as they are being (oh, some are making a slight fuss but the base has already found their talking points to defend trump and attack the democrats) if a democratic president did the same thing. I am sure you live in the real world and won’t tell me that. Republicans would be completely losing their shit if a democratic president ran foreign policy the way trump is. And, they would be correct to do so.
The consequences of this will take decades to all be clear.
Roby, you have seen enough of my comments to know my answer. I could write a book on this question! But I will try to be brief.
Absolutely, the G.O.P would jump all over this. Many already have. Trumpsters would also. That’s how politics works. Not what is best for the people, world or country. It is what is best for my my party, my investors ( lobbyist) and my career.
No one knows why we were not defending the Kurds before we went in. The NY Post wrote in September 2017, nine months after the change in administrations “The implications for this strategic coup for US interests and any hope for Middle East peace are enormous but the administration doesn’t seem to have a clue about what to do about it” when they wrote we needed to assist the Kurds and that support had not been provided since their fight began trying to create a Kurdistan.
In January, 2018, The American Thinker wrote “That conversation led nowhere. Neither is Erdogan stopping the attacks against our Kurdish allies nor is Trump declaring them off-limits and promising to defend them. The fact that Trump isn’t ordering our forces to defend the Kurds is a confession of failure. It’s the result of thinking stalemated by the fact that one of our so-called allies — Turkey — has chosen to be at war with a real ally, the Kurds.”. This was after reportedly heated conversations with Erdogan when he visited the White House. Could it be he used something about kicking American bombers off the bases we have in Turkey? Ordering the removal of Nukes from Turkey?
Who knows. But whatever they tell me I call Bull Shit until proven otherwise. They are guilty of lying until proven innocent!!!!
Just to be clear.
Bush, Obama, Trump – I do not care.
I am not for sending US Troops to help the Kurds.
I will listen to the arguments that the Kurds are “the good guys”.
or the bad guys.
Maybe I will choose to send them assistance – though I would greatly prefer that our government stayed out of it.
But I am not agreeing to send US Soldiers to fight for or against the kurds.
Even if I think they are the “good guys”.
Outside intervention DOES NOT solve problems.
I am impressed by this post of yours.
One of the problems regarding the instant situation is knowing the actual facts.
Knowing whether this could have been handled better requires knowing the facts.
I do not presume that I can trust anything coming from any whitehouse.
Trump is no different.
our hope from the press is that they will check things and confirm or refute what the whitehouse says.
the evidence that we can not trust the press anymore goes well beyond ABC claiming that an artilery test in Kentucky was a bombing in Syria.
What is important is that we can not trust the press to fact check the president.
What the whitehouse has said – and purportedly released documents to support, is that Turkey told Trump they were going in whether we were there or not.
That Trump decided to remove 28 US servicemen from any area that could soon be a battlefield where they were incapable of defending themselves against a far larger force and incapable of being provided sufficient support to remain unharmed.
Assuming those are the fact NO ONE should be disagreeing with the withdrawl of those soldiers.
Unless you are looking to sacrifice 28 soldiers to create a new alamo and get us into a war with Turkey who actually is an ally.
Of course there is middleground between one option and the other.
That neither makes those middle ground options good or even moral.
Should we have left 14 troops ? 7 ?
Regardless, Trump was elected to end the fighting in Syria, and to get our soldiers out of endless war conflicts.
Further Trump has fought with his advisors – in the military in state, in the intelligence community for 3 years.
He has told them for 3 years – our job is to GET OUR SOLDIERS HOME NOW!!
The enitre “deep state” has opposed him, and for 3 years he has sometimes angrily given them their way.
They have had the time to find a better way to “get out” they have known what the goal and outcome was going to be.
It is way way way past time to leave.
In the event that something actually requires us to return – our military has proven more than capable of doing so.
That is not isolationism.
That is not allowing “mission creep” to trap us in military conflict forever.
You do not agree – that is OK.
But Trump was elected in part to do exactly this.
If you do not like that – you have a vote in 2020.
If others feel the same – so do they.
But one things should be absolutely clear.
Whether it is the military, or police or regulation or …
Where we can not agree on the justification of the use of force.
We should not use force.
That even if it is only a significant minority who opose using force – we should not use force.
We should not go to war on a party line vote.
We should not go to war by simple majority.
The use of force against others requires a SUSTAINED Supermajority of support.
None of this is Trump specific.
Obama had the same mandate as Trump to get us out of this endless war when elected.
Obama chose not to deliver.
Our use of force against others should not be decided by some elites – regardless of party – in the CIA, the DOD, the State department. They are ADVISORS. They do not determine when we go to war, nor whether we stay.
We have been in these messes for 3 years with Trump, and 8 years with Obama and 8 years with Bush,
An american 18 year of has not been alive at any time that the US was not at war in the mideast.
It is much more than a decade past time to come home.
Presuming what the whitehouse says is correct – that Erodigan notified Trump that Turkish troops would be advancing into a 300sq mile of Syria to create a resettlement zone for 3.6m syrian immigrants currently in turkey, and that the decision to setup this resettlement zone had been negotiated many many years ago, and that if US soldiers were in the path of the turkish advance that Turkey would not guarantee their safety
What would you do ?
After the marine baracks in Lebanon was blown up.
Reagan ordered the marines home.
I am less concerned about the 28 troops recently moved.
I think that is a no brainer.
All remaining US troops in Turkey need to come home NOW!
This is not about Trump.
Obama should never have taken us into either Turkey or Libya and we should get out.
The current Turkey-Kurdish conflict has gone on for 40 years, and, before that, going back to the Ottoman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(1978%E2%80%93present)#Background_(1920%E2%80%931974)
I didn’t know that there were nuclear missles in Turkey, but it doesn’t surprise me, because Turkey has been the key NATO country serving as a buffer between Europe, the old Soviet Union and the ME. Ron, I think you mentioned this a ways up in this thread.
Turkey has been holding back from invading Syria to clear out the PKK, because of the US operation against ISIS. I’m pretty sure that Erdogan told Trump that he was not waiting any longer. I don’t know if there were threats made, but, Erdogan does not want to be overthrown by his own people over this, so there may have been. Should Trump have left our American “tripwires” in there, to be killed along with the PKK Kurds?
Ignorance of the power politics and military alliances that have complicated the current situation in Syria is allowing Democrats and neo-cons to make this into an anti- Trump issue.
I’ve tried to do as much research as I could on this, because, as I said earlier, I have a bit of neo-con left in me, and this made me wonder if Trump was doing something that would put our national security in danger.
But now, I’m pretty confident that this was the best call, under the circumstances. (I’m also pretty sure that I may now know more about this subject than any of the Democrat candidates, other than Tulsi Gabbard.)
Let the “You’re a stupid, deluded Trumpanzee!” calls commence!!
We would expect that our government, state department, cia, military would know these things.
What is odd is that – Trump aparently does, and the rest fo the executive, as well as the media – not so much.
Or probably more accurately – they know all of this too, but they are content to ignore it and spin the narative into an anti-trump screed – even though they know better.
But even if Trump and/or the media and the left were ignorant of all of these complexities.
We do not need to understand all the complex interactions between the turks and Kurds or any of the rest of this stuff
If we do not insert ourselves into the middle of these things.
Jay ranted that backing away from these entanglements would make us less safe.
That is a highly dubious claim.
Few of us are for isolationism – though I am for far less involvement than most – even here.
But even absolute isolationism would mean that the US would NOT be ignorant of the nuances of assorted regional conflicts that we were involved in.
It is much harder to screw things up – when you are not involved.
It is much harder to make things worse – when you are not involved.
Jay ranted about negiligences – IT IS negligence to disk arround in the affairs of others when you do not know what you are doing.
We have fixated on Ukraine over the past few years.
Ukraine shot to prominence and became a millstone arround out necks when Hillary Clinton fomented a coup in the ukraine and provoked Russia into invading.
While Ukraine was certainly a mess before.
Clinton and Obama inarguably made it worse.
“One more thing. I am not the genius who has the answer of how the US should conduct its foreign policy in a world full of evils without becoming evil itself as it did in Vietnam and, it turns out, in Iraq. But I am not one who believes that if the US simply walks away from the mess in the middle east and elsewhere and says its up to you guys now everything will just work itself out not too badly.”
It is irrelevant whether things will go badly if the US extricates itself.
It will go badly if we do not.
If you wish to sacrifice the lives of US soldiers it is YOUR duty to tell all of us what benefit will come from that loss.
You ave been alive long enough to remember Vietnam – so how well did afghanistan go for the Russians ? For us ? Libya ? Iraq ?
Where have US Troops clearly made things better.
The question is not how bad things will get if we leave, but whether they would be better if we dont.
Wishful thinking is not a good outcome.
My question regarding Bin Laden is Why did it take so long ?
I do not recall a single republican that has said we should not have gotten Bin Laden.
Aparetnly we live in different universes.
Please get informed – we did not go into Syria to get ISIS, We went to force regime change.
The consequence of that blunder was ISIS.
Further from the begining Obama’s policies regarding Syria were exactly what you are after from Trump nebulous and undefined.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I am fine with leaving.
I was fine with leaving under Obama.
I was fine with not going into Syria – or Libya.
While I am sure that you can find A conservative that matches your claims about conservatives – Lindsey Graham comes to mind.
The US relationship to Putin and Russia has been ambivalent from 1999 when he assumed power.
Both Bush and Obama sought to improve relations – as specifically did Hillary Clinton.
In fact Obama was looking to improve relations to Russia right up to when he did not.
Who said
“the 80’s are calling and they want their foreign policy back ?”
HOLY SHIT!
‘Trump just became the first US official to confirm the presence of 50 US nuclear bombs based in Turkey. “We’re very confident” they’re safe, he told reporters, via WH Pool “
50 NUKES THERE!
He’s confident?
Like he was confident Turkey’s cross border incursion was going to be innocuous?
You Trumpanzees confident in his confidence?
Oh My god – Trump revealed something that everyone on the planet with a brain already knows.
Impeach immediately!!!!!!
Can a truly incompetent president be charged as a traitor?
Oh no, he can’t, he is too ignorant to understand laws and is therefor not capable of being guilty of anything.Besides he has been suffering from acute Affluenza all his life and lives in his own universe as a result. So, let us not judge him.
Humm…Maybe now we understand a little better why he is not addressing Turkey’s hostile attacks on the Kurds. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors and what Turkey is telling the ambassador about staying out of their fight with the PKK and what they will do if we dont.
Would it be better to have Americans die defending the Kurds and having defensive weapons removed from the Russian doorstep, or doing what is going on now. How about Germany and France sending men and we leave nukes in Turkey?
The law on treason is in the constitution.
Anyone accusing anyone of treason is an idiot PERIOD – whether they are republican or democrat.
No one has committed Treason.
Anyone talking about Treason who can not demostrate the elements of Treason as specified by the constitution is just a fringe extremist unfamiliar with the facts or law, and trying to use inflamatory rhetoric to pummel others into their point of view.
No sensible person can argue with this accurate assessment:
Rick Wilson: “Just so we’re perfectly clear: Donald Trump’s phrase “we’re the boss” is demonstrably untrue.
Donald Trump, Commander In Chief, is a submissive, groveling cur to every third-world strongman.
He’s a eunuch. He’s a patsy. He’s a credulous boob led by his ego and his dick.”
Too true!!
Erdogan just told the US to go fuck ourselves in regard to Trump’s call for a cease fire. In a news conference: “Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was defiant in a call with President Trump on Tuesday, vowing that U.S. sanctions on the country would not force Turkey to declare a ceasefire in northern Syria, according to a Turkish broadcaster.
NTV reported that Erdoğan told reporters on a flight back from Baku, in Azerbaijan, that he told Trump that Turkey would “not negotiate with a terrorist organization,” referring to U.S.-backed Kurdish militant groups operating in northern Syria, according to Reuters.”
Meanwhile Erdogan’s been on the phone daily with Putin. He reportedly told Putin he wouldn’t object to any Russian advancement of their military against Kurds there. Also more of those Russian S-400 missiles already operational in Turkey are soon scheduled for delivery – despite “strong” US objection; and Erdogan accepted a State Visit invitation with Putin to discuss future Russian-Turkish strategic relationships.
Yeah – our nukes are definitely safe there!
See myb response to Roby at 3:22. No need rewriting it.
So Erodegan has made it clear that he will go to war
Are you prepared to go to war with Turkey rather than move 28 soldiers out of harms way ?
I keep stressing this – and you keep ignoring it.
Government is FORCE.
When you choose to do something through government – you are chosing to use force.
If you ban the sale of lose cigarettes – those who refuse to obey will be subject to FORCE, to the point of killing them if that is what it take.
If you are unwilling to kill over a law – DO NOT MAKE THE LAW.
The same is true on an even larger scale with nations.
We can negotiate all we please – if you can not persuade another nation to do as you wish, your choices are war or back down.
Are you going to go to war with Erodogan ?
“Can a truly incompetent president be charged as a traitor?”
No, incompetence is not a crime, not even a misdomeanor.
Neither is stpidity.
Negligent stupidity is a crime.
Penalties for negligence are steeper the higher the position of authority of the accused’s acts of negligence.
“Negligent stupidity is a crime.
Penalties for negligence are steeper the higher the position of authority of the accused’s acts of negligence.”
False. Negligence is a tort, not a crime.
In VERY RARE instances – such as criminally negligent homocide or reckless handling of classified documents negilgence is an ELEMENT of a crime.
But negligence alone is never a crime.
Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
If you can not demonstrate the criteria above – and you are talking about treason you way out in space – whether you are on the left or the right.
LET US SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS!
(90% chance they’ve been altered by now)
Jake Tapper: “ Gulnur Aybet, a Senior Adviser to the Turkish President Erdogan told @camanpour last week that “President Trump and President Erdogan have reached an understanding over precisely what this operation is… He knows what the scope of the scope of this operation is.”
You keep fixating on what is “said”.
What matters is what is DONE.
What do you expect in a transcript of a call with Erodegan ?
So Biden investigation quid pro quo ?
While the conversation might be interesting.
What matters is what Turkey DOES.
Not what Either Trump of Erodegan SAY.
As to Transcripts – the public needs those from Schiff’s hearings.
They are not classified. They should be public.
While democrats are leaking dribs that the think are beneficial.
What republicans are saying is that the testimony delivered already has completely undermined the entire investigation.
But Schiff is locking down the hearings such that only he controls the narative – and we already know that he will just make things up.
Though it seems doubtful – all fo congress should vote to open an investigation,
and they should all have access to these transcripts before doing so – even if the public does not.
Yet again – no one outside of Schiffs committee is allowed to even hear or read testimony and no one except democrats is allowed to talk about it.
This has never been done this way before.
A Prognosis Sadly Comes True
Jay,
The only place it has come true – is in your head.
We are all facing escalating levels of rage and outrage – in the left and the media, over incredibly ordinary things, and Trump remains much the same.
He is not “losing it” despite incredible pressure and the fact that much of the executive is working behind his back against him.
But you and the left – are losing it.
Trump stumbling on the defensive at meeting:
Schumer to Trump: “Is your plan to rely on the Syrians and the Turks?”
Trump: “Our plan is to keep the American people safe.”
Pelosi: “That’s not a plan. That’s a goal.”
so why doesnt Pelosi fulfill her constitutional duty and have the house vote on a declaration of war? With all the whiney assed moaning coming out of the senate including that useless majority leader, I suspect they would follow suit. Then Trump is required by law to follow their war declaration.
I HAVE ASKED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES AND EVERYONE HERE HAVING A **** HEMMORRAGE OVER TRUMPS ACTIONS AVOIDS THIS QUESTION!!!!
Might it be they dont really think the Kurds are really worth it and just want to birch about it and score political points????
Its ALL BULL SHIT!!
I agree.
It’s all bullshit.
But for the benefit of the nation the current MOUNTAIN OF BULLSHIT now president has to be removed, replaced with a smaller lump of bullshit.
Agreed?
Jay, nice move. Still did not answer why you think Pelosi is avoiding supporting the constitution.
Ive said enough already. When you have too much power delegated to the president from the responsible wing of government based on the law of the land, the responsible wing of government begins believing they are no longer responsible. That is where we are today and your outrage against Trump is the defining example that has happened. I cant say it much plainer than I have many different ways already.
So keep blaming Trump and I will blame everyone that circumvents the original intent of the constitution until the parties found ways to avoid those requirements.
Aside from saying “bullshit” alot – you have not actually said anything.
You want Trump removed.
Why ?
Be specific.
Do not tell me about your feelings.
Do not tell me that you do not like his words.
Tell me based on ACTIONS why he must be removed.
With everything that happens anywhere in the world that Trump has any part in you can guarantee that the next news cycle will be the media and the democrats and the left, and Jay telling us all how what Trump has done is horrible.
And Pelosi stormed out
Even your own spun version of events is not problematic.
So Pelosi wants to fixate on the differences between a plan and a goal.
If she wanted plans – she could have remained in the meeting – with mytiads of other democrats, and listened to numerous people from the military explain the actual plan and situation.
Leaders do not typically devise “the plan” they set “the goals”
“the goal” – determined by the 2016 (and 2012, and 2008) elections is to keep our soldiers safe and get out of these wars in the mid east.
And hear is Tulsi Gabbard again.
Gabbard is quite critical of Trump – for NOT GETTING US OUT SOONER.
And for being on the opposite side of Trump as Democrats – she is being rewarded by being called a russian operative by Hillary and other democrats.
Does this sound familiar ?
Is everyone the left does not like a “Russia Operative” ?
I thought Joe MacCarthy was a republican ?
Are you now or were you ever freindly with Putin ?
The Bard, anticipating idiots like you:
A shallow cowardly hind.
What a lack-brain is this!
A shotten herring…a counterfeit cowardly knave.
Ten thousand shames, on this yapping catastrophe!
YAPPING CATASTROPHE!
That says it all…
Insults still are not arguments.
Given that Tulsi Gabbard does not even want the US government to impose sanctions – are you saying that she is an idiot too ?
You know, God help me, I have had a realization, an epiphone. Trump actually has a sincere wish to end all the US conflicts by personal relationships with the other strong men leaders, Putin, Lil Kim, the foreign leaders we are at odds with. He actually believes that its simply a matter of making a deal with each involved leader and then getting out, Korea, the Middle east, North Africa, everywhere. He is actually sincere. He will bring Russia and the US into an era a friendship by giving Putin all that he wants relative to foreign policy. Etc. We fight over Syria, let Putin have it if he wants it. He will bring all the troops home. No wonder Dave loves him, he is the libertarian foreign policy equivalent of Moses.
Once I understand that trump is sincere, I have to respect him for that wish, the wish to be the miracle worker who shows that its all very simple: you just make the best arrangement and then pull out, everywhere. Trump is the exact mirror image of Lindsey Graham, who Does actually want us to be in the middle east for a thousand years.
But I don’t think its going to work that way. He is as foreign policy naive as Sanders is economically naive.
I am absolutely serious about every word I write here, nothing is facetious.
I hope that if I am still kicking in 20-30 years I will be able to say, damn if that idiot didn’t turn out to be a genius. Damn if it wasn’t simple and we all thought it was so complicated. Damn if he Didn’t win a Nobel Peace prize and deserve it.
I have, to make an understatement, doubts. I am pretty sure Gen. Mattis’s view of the world is much closer to the truth than trumps.
But, God help me, again, I mean it seriously, I respect Trump for wanting to to what he seems to be trying to do. Its the first time I ever really can see that he has a thought beyond his own self.
Humm…
Based on the letter to Erdrogen?
I think I agree.
He’s a sincere incompetent.
Tho I’m not convinced his sincerity can be equated to altruistic motives.
Those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder generally have grandiose plans to immortalize themselves, and not always for altruistic reasons – his previous efforts to glamorize his image don’t seem to have benefited anyone but himself and family.
Time will tell 😊
For whatever reason if he is sincere about trying to do that grandiose thing as a megalomaniac then I have to respect his intention if not his execution.
Now, I have not lost it, to say that his ideas seem simplistic and likely ill fated to me would be an understatement.
I suddenly realized the whole overarching theme of his relationships with Putin and Lil Kim and other authoritarian leaders and this week’s events suggest that he is truly sincere in believing that he can bring all the alpha males together and make a deal, split up the world into turfs and bring all the troops home, build a wall, arm the military to the teeth and let the world sort it all out without us.
It does not make me forgive him for all his other crap and Machiavellian behaviors, but it is mind blowing to realize that Trump is our first Hippy President, his policy is make love not war, and he has made the conservatives love him and the liberals hate him by that. Everything is backwards today. I am going to start drinking.
I am less certain of Trump’s “sincerity” than you.
I do not think we know what Trump actually beleives.
Given a long enough personal history, Trump has held public positions at odds to his positions as president.
What I am certain of is that Trump WILL do what he said he would in the campaign.
Or more accurately – he may not LITTERALLY do what he promised (make mexico pay for the wall), but he will move hell and high water to build the wall or as much of it as possible.
On this and myriads of other issues – he WILL do what he promised.
He gave “the generals”, and the rest of “the deep state” the opportunity to do as he promised in the mideast – but in their own way. He gave them all lots of rope and time.
And he is getting increasingly impatient.
We are getting out. He promised that. We – voters, want that. He is going to deliver that.
Does he personally beleive these things ?
I do not know.
What I know is that he runs a successful global chain of luruy hotels – and he has been successful and gotten fabulously wealthy by giving the customer what they want.
He decided to run for president.
He calcuated a winning coalition of voters,
He promised them what he needed to, to get their votes.
And he is going to deliver on those promises.
Because that is what successful businesses do.
And unfortunately I think this is how it turns out:
Jay,
Why is it that you presume that you are not merely entitled to absolute control of foreign policy, but also the motives, intentions and sincerity in which everything is accomplished ?
One of the huge conflicts between you and I is that you do not like Trump and therefore you do not like anything that he does.
I do not like Trump, but I actually do like some of what he does, and I am OK with dome of what he does, and even where I am at odds with what he does – It is rarely sufficiently wrong that I am frothing.
Both Parties and Trump are wrong about immigration.
But given that I can not get what I want – actual open boards and the changes necescary to make that possible. I can live with Trump’s approach.
I can not even figure out what your or democrats approach actually is.
Trump is wrong about Trade – but I have followed alot of the REAL market analysis of Trump’s trade war – and the people actually involved in those markets are claiming that the impact on the economy is small – something like 0.5%
If that is the largest mistake Trump makes – I am OK with that.
If that is the largest mistake ANY president makes – I am OK with that.
I do not like the “Your Evil”, “Your the greatest leader alive” version of Trump diplomacy.
All these people – Kim, Putin, Erodegan, MBS, …. are vile tyrants.
But even if I can not flatter them myself, I can turn a blind eye to Trump’s flattery and insults if he gets results – or atleast does not make things worse.
Thus far Trump is doing better in foreign affairs that any president since Reagan.
He may not be liked, but he gets his way – and our interests are served ALOT.
We are engaged in this Ukraine Phone call nonsense.
There was absolutely some games going on with aide to Ukraine.
But the evidence is the primary hold was exactly what Trump addressed in the phone call – getting more from the EU – and Trump has been incredibly successful in that.
The portion of the cost of there own defense that the EU, NATO, the western powers are covering has risen dramatically under Trump. I doubt they like that. I doubt it makes Trump popular among european leaders. Obama was incredibly popular with Europeans – he gave them whatever they wanted and then apologized for the US constantly.
Roby, I think that this is actually pretty insightful. I agree that Trump naively believes in his powers of personal negotiation, foolishly believing that, because he has successfully faced down the mafia and Big Labor bosses in NYC, he can do the same with guys like Putin and Erdogan, men who make mafiosos look like kids in a sandbox.
Wonder of wonders we have reached a common opinion on something. I am definitely going to have a drink.
Absolutely NOT!
Agreement is unacceptable.
I disagree.
I do not know what I disagree with, but something.
There can be no agreement.
Sheep can not lie with lions.
The seals of the appocolypse will be opened and the four horsemen will be released.
No Agreement!!
No!!
No!!
No!!
I don’t agree with you, Jay. He’s got a pretty big ego, which is not remotely the same as NPD. Most people who think they can be POTUS have pretty big egos.
I’ve long thought that it’s next to impossible to be a good foreign policy AND good domestic policy POTUS. But, that’s what presidents are expected to be.
I think Jay’s diagnosis of NPD – or some other cluster B disorder is likely correct.
Nor is it inconsistent with a big ego.
Nor is it unusual. Pretty much all politicians fall inside of cluster B – which includes sociopaths.
One of the things the left needs to figure out about government is that it will ALWAYS be run by the people we should LEAST want to govern us.
Government – even at the low levels attracts the worst possible people.
Roby, yes, I’ll have one too. It may be a long time until it happens again!
“Roby, I think that this is actually pretty insightful. I agree that Trump naively believes in his powers of personal negotiation, foolishly believing that, because he has successfully faced down the mafia and Big Labor bosses in NYC, he can do the same with guys like Putin and Erdogan, men who make mafiosos look like kids in a sandbox.”
I would agree but for one word – “Naive”.
There is no significant difference between Trump’s personal experience negotiating with all those you mention – and negotiating with these national bullies.
The techniques are the same.
Jay will be happy to point out to us – that Trump himself is one of them – he is another powerful national bully. – and that is atleast partly true.
Regardless Obama did horribly. While he kissed ass, and appoligized all over the place, he got bad deals if he got any at all, and he got us sucked into fights where we have no clue what we are doing.
Lest anyone forget – the US did NOT get into Syria to fight ISIS. Obama brought us into Syria to get rid of Assad. ISIS became a face saving exit plan.
Under Trump:
We are making progress with North Korea – slowly.
We have improved relations with Japan and vietnam – and much of the rest of asia.
Xi hasn’t a clue what has hit him – he is being pushed arround by Trump on Trade, in the south china sea. After Xi negotiated the TPP without the US, he thought he had established asian hedgemony, and suddenly China not only has no allies in Asia, but is facing internal stresses – and Still Trump has Xi doing his bidding mostly with North Korea.
Europe is taking responsibility for a greater part of its defense.
Venezuela is contained and collapsing .
We are (way too slowly) extricating ourselves from the mideast.
Irans rise in the mideast has been thwarted, the Saudi’s – the lessor evil in this case are ascendant.
Syria is a Mess – but ISIS is gone for the moment – and Syria is not OUR mess.
So is the above your idea of Naive ?
Every single american president has grasped that personal relationships between world leaders are incredibly important in acheiving US objectives.
That is not even slightly new.
I doubt that Trump beleives that he can accomplish this goal entirely through strength of personality.
But he does correctly beleive that the strength of his personality, and the credibility of his words and actions matters.
Credibility comes not just from Standing up to other strong leaders.
It also comes from backing down, when you have no real interest.
The difference between a leader and a bully, is that a leader stands up for what is right and what is important.
A bully is confrontational over everything. A bully thinks that might makes right.
Throughout the mideast there are lots of bad actors and not so many good actors.
Once in a while we can work with one bad actor to acheive a shared goal.
Such as working with the Kurds to defeat ISIS.
That should not require us to support them in everything.
or interveine when they and another bad actor are at loggerheads over an issue we have no interest in.
Priscilla’s Disgusting Embarrassment in action:
Trump, the dysfunctional scoop of poop, at a sit down congressional meeting, just referred to Pillosi as a 3rd rate politician
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland said he has never seen any president disrespect a member of Congress in a face to face meeting like this.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Priscilla, for continuing to defend this despicable undignified dunce. Why aren’t you calling for another Republican to replace him in 2020? Have you become so dazed and confused over the diminution of dignity in the office to continue to support this disrespectful doofus?
Just in case anyone is so caught up in politics that they think life is just a pile of crap here is this. This is why I spend my time playing music. (These guys have no relation to me other than the fact that they made me smile and pull out my fiddle, my sister sent me the link.)
Roby thanks for thd relief from politics.
Heres one from a group from rural N.C. Chathum County population 71,000+, largest town about 3,000. They tour eastern USA in small venues. Group is Chathum Rabbits, husband and wife.
Here is something I came across last night. Doc Watson starts to instruct at about 1:37 and play for real at 3:30. I am going to make a project of this one today and see how close I can get. Up your alley? Gonna buy me one of his albums its beautiful. I’m a bit fan of Chet Atkins so I already can play in this style but Doc definitely has something.
Thanks, 8 minutes of good music!!
I like those Rabbits. My band played the Orleans county fair a few years back, we followed a country band from I think maybe Kansas or Nebraska. Our Drummer Hates country music. But they were so good he had to admit it, Great harmonies between a male and female singer and all the musicians were first rate, two guitarists both crazy good. Oh, it hurt Sammy to admit it.
Washington Post:
“ President Trump has awarded the 2020 Group of Seven summit of world leaders to his private company, scheduling the summit for June at his Trump Doral golf resort outside Miami, the White House announced Thursday.
That decision is without precedent in modern American history: The president used his public office to direct a massive contract to himself. The G-7 summit draws hundreds of diplomats, journalists and security personnel and provides a worldwide spotlight.”
IMPEACHABLE!
https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/1184924588934942720?s=21
NEW: In a blistering speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Mitt Romney says Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds “will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.”
That should read A SHIT STAIN.
Will Republicans band together to demand Trump not be allowed to seek another term?
Does cement float?
Then if Romney believes what he say s, he should go on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and every other major news outlet and tell America he has sent a memo to Majority Leader Useless McConnell and Speaker Do Nothing Pelosi demanding a declaration of war be introduced into congress to protect the Kurds?
Why is it so f’in hard for you to understand our country was not created to have an all powerful king.
You think my Libertarianism is half witted and dingy, but look what is happening. Congress has relinquished responsibility to the office of President. That is not how government was designed.
HOW YOU ENJOYING IT NOW? You want it to continue if Trump is reeelected? Have I really lost all reality or is reality catching up to you?
I know I wont get an answer, never do when my Libertarian leaning thoughts hit on the truth.
Romney has run for President in the past.
If he is so certain he can do a batter job, he can do so in 2020.
It still remains possible for him to get on the ballot for a GOP primary.
Well if Romney wants to run, that is his choice to do. That WAS NOT the point of my comment.
My point was for him to stop whining, stand up to the position he is moaning about and go on record of officially demanding congress pass war a articles. Otherwise shut up!
Ron,
I agree with your point.
I made a different one.
I am strongly opposed to NeoCon’s
But SOME of the people that Jay finds that are anti-Trump, such as Romney, Napolitano, Will, Goldberg are NOT NeoCons.
Regardless, they are all free to say what they please.
On this issue Romney surprises me. Mormon’s are typically among the peace churches.
More Generally – Sure we would all want Republicans to put forth some candidate that was not so controversial in their speach.
At the same time – Democrats have driven us here.
Pretty much every republican is called a racist, nazi, hateful, hating hater.
Compared to the norm on the left – Jay and Robby are actually mellow – and yet I am shocked when either makes a post that is not full of slurs and insults – and not just of trump, but everyone who disagrees with them.
To SOME extent if you choose to become a politician you are going to be subject to attacks.
It comes with the territory – I understand that. Times V. Sullivan makes it nearly impossible to slander a public figure – and that is a good thing. Though I still think that purportedly objective sources like the media should both refrain from insults and stick to facts, and treat all politicians of all parties the same. Let the politicians responses convey the differences, not the medias questioning.
But both the media, politicians and everyone on the left have gone way over the edge in slurring everyone who disagrees with them.
Further, you keep trying to Sell Kaisich or Manchin.
Look at what is being done to Tulsi Gabbard.
She is a democrat running for president and shares most of the left social views of most of the democratic candidates. But she is more opposed to these stupid wars than even Trump is and she is being accused by the left of being a russian asset – and numerous other vile things.
Bush, Romney, McCain WERE painted as Nazi’s when running for president.
If Trump is somehow removed – the next republican could be a real nazi – and no one will listen to the slurs – because the left has cried wolf too many times.
I keep trying to tell Jay and Robby that you lose YOUR credibility and integrity when you make false allegations – and slurs and insults are false allegations.
Do you really belive that Kaisich or Manchin would not be insulted and slurred – by Jay, by Robby, by the press, by the left ? Do you really think they will be treated better than Romney or McCain or Bush ?
Dave, no I dont expect any politician to be treated different than Romney, McCain or even Gabbert. That comes with the territory. But lord knows they would not say the number of thing Trump says and a day or so later he says something 180% opposite. And I am not speaking of “bringing troops home” and then leaving them in Iraq.
This morning on one of the news talk programs, they were addressing Syria and one of the White House correspondents said something like ” no other president in my career has said things to the media on policy and had so many in the foreign country leading troops and policy say the exact opposite like we hear in Syria/Iraq. ” Is that Trump lying or the commanders ignoring his orders? They went on to discuss different issue concerning different policies. It’s like no one in his administration supports him or he has no sense of what he has said and just says whatever he thinks they want to hear that day.
Whatever it is, Trump creates much of the fodder to use to attack him. I just think about how any other president would be viewed having the same policies as Trump and the personality of 41 to keep out of the limelight.
The vicious slurs of Gabbard make it clear than I have over generalized.
While I have on occasions distinguished between the left and democrats.
And I have noted that sometimes those on the left are most vicious to their own apostates.
I have sometimes left the impression that there is a clear republican democrat divide.
There is not. the Alinskite fallacious but effective techniques used by the left, work even to try to keep their own in line.
No Ron “all” politiicians are not viciously attacked.
The attacks on Obama were relentless, but they were nearly entirely rooted in policies or meaningful actions.
That is legitimate – right or left, republican or democrat.
Lies, Slander, are not. all sides engage in those too much.
But the modern root of politics by slander and lie is the left.
I find it interesting that for 8 years of Obama we were all told that saying that his policies were socialistic was purportedly a slur. Now suddenly the entire democratic party is embracing the socialist label.
I do not expect ever to hear that republicans are embracing nazism – among other reasons because it is socialist.
Yet it is OK to call republicans racists, nazi’s while it was not ok to call democrats socialists, but now it is ?
The free speech movement was born in Berkeley in the 60’s on the left.
Now it is the left seeking to shutdown speech at college or anywhere.
The left in the 50’s and 60’s told us that red baiting and blacklists were wrong,
now the left is doing the red baiting and openly pushing blacklists.
Given the vicious attacks on Gabbard – do you really think that ANY republican is not going to be treated the the same hostility by the media as Trump ?
I am actually disappointed in Will and GoldBerg and Romney.
Not because they do not agree with all Trump’s policies,
But because like you they seem to beleive that if they are just nice and calm and reasonable, they will be treated respectfully by the left and the media – that is nonsense.
I would prefer a calm world. But the left will not allow that short of agreeing with whatever they say with every fiber of your being.
If the left will not give us peace then I would prefer Trump.
“But because like you they seem to beleive that if they are just nice and calm and reasonable, they will be treated respectfully by the left and the media – that is nonsense.”
I have never said I expected anyone to be treated respectfully. But I have said I expected those that we elect to lead by example and not be complete fart faces every time someone says something bad about them. I don’t want them sounding like a shit head when those they know are going to say something bad about them do. I don’t want them reacting like ghetto gang members just because they said something you did not like.
Trump is no better than some overpaid athlete that is constantly being penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct when the opposing player says something and they react in a way that is against the games rules. The only difference is the athlete can be benched, the president can not.
When someone is in politics the rules are different than if they are the owner of a company. They can say whatever they want about their competition and that is not going to impact the business going forward. In politics, when they react, the media jumps all over it. The more they react, the more they cover. The more they cover, the more people get tired of that shit and decide to vote for something different.
You and I have a completely different view on how leaders should act and what happens when they act differently.I would love to vote for a person, either democrat or republican that acted like a leader and had some sensible solutions as to how government should operate. Right now we have a couple mostly sensible candidates on the democrat side that have no chance in hell getting the nomination and someone in the GOP with ideas I support, but is a septic tank of personal obnoxious actions that should never have made it to the nomination process, let alone the presidency.
So until someone like 41, Reagan, or a Manchin/Warner type democrat comes along, I will just give my support to the Libertarians and hope that it will help them in future elections getting into debates.
We do not disagree over how things SHOULD be.
I do not disagree with Romney, or Will, or myriads of others not on the left who beleive that what we have with Trump, the media and the left is not how things SHOULD be.
But that is not how things are.
And a world in which it is acceptable for the media and the left to lie about those they disagree with without being called to task, and where the same standards do not apply to them when they are in power – is also not how things SHOULD be.
We are not going to get anywhere near how things SHOULD be through politeness to people who lie about us or others.
That is where you, I, Will, Romney, …. part company.
Carter was mostly a good person and mostly a good president.
Much of what Reagan gets credit for Carter started.
No president has deregulated the US government to the extent Carter did.
Carter scaled back the military and cut spending.
But he was unable to cope with the Iranian hostage crisis and that precluded his re-election.
Reagan was probably a good person, and definitely a good president.
I would note that Reagan’s only military adventure was Grenada – we rescued US students and left.
When the Marine baraks in lebanon was bombed – Reagan took responsibility and left.
He did not engage in all this nonsense that we have done since. Lebanon was a mess before and has been ever since. But it is NOT a mess of our making.
Reagan;s model for Lebanon is the right model for our relations in the Mid-East.
Bush I was probably a good person – he was not a very good president.
Clinton was not a good person – he was a pretty goof president.
Bush II was a good person – he was not a good president.
Obama – I am increasingly suspicious he is not the good person I thought he was,
He was a poor president.
Trump is a good president. Approaching Clinton, but not Reagan.
He does not appear to be a good person.
However he does appear to be a person who keeps his commitments.
That is something we have not seen in politicians – not even Reagan.
I would like to see a great president.
I would like to see a president that is also a good person.
I would also like to win the lottery.
I did not vote for Trump. I probably wont in 2020.
But I am not going nuts because I can not get my perfect president.
I would rather 8 years of Trump, that 8 years of:
Either Bush
McCain,
Kerry
Gore
Romney
Obama
Clinton
And current democrat
And even Kaisich or Manchin.
In 2016 I would have picked almost any other republican over Trump.
Today, though there are 2-3 I think would have been good presidents,
I doubt they would be as good as Trump has been.
I suspect the public jousting would be less with several other republicans.
But not much.
Do you really think the press would have been friendly to Cruz as an example ?
Or Romney if he was elected in 2012, or McCain in 2008 ?
I do not recall ever making a promise to the YPG.
Bush I left the Kurds in Iraq to be gassed by Sadam.
Ford left the Monanyards to be slaughtered by the north vietnamese.
The US allowed the poles to be slaughtered by the SS towards the end of WWII,
Because Joe Stalin wanted the polish leadership exterminated before he took Poland.
Do you understand that there are 3.6 m syrians in refugee camps in Turkey and that we actually PROMISED Turkey that when ISIS was defeated that Turkey could move them into this region ?
No one promised the YPG autonomy.
Nor control of the region the Turks are occupying.
Trump endorses Ethnic Cleansing:
“Referring to Kurds living along Turkish border in Syria, Trump says of Turkey, “they had to have it cleaned out.”
And now, after the damage has been done, thousands disposed, hundreds killed, with Russian and Syrian troops already swarming the area and stomping around abandoned US Military facilities, he’s claiming a ‘promised’ Turkish cease fire will stop any congressional American sanctions in the works from being enforced.
DESPICABLE!
Why is it so f’in hard for you to understand our country was not created to have an all powerful king.
You think my Libertarianism is half witted and dingy, but look what is happening. Congress has relinquished responsibility to the office of President. That is not how government was designed.
HOW YOU ENJOYING IT NOW? You want it to continue if Trump is reeelected? Have I really lost all reality or is reality catching up to you?
I know I wont get an answer, never do when my Libertarian leaning thoughts hit on the truth.
Ron: you’d vote for Pilosi if she runs against Trump, right?
She fits the description of the moderate Democrat you previously said you’d vote for, right?
President Pilosi has a nice alliterative sound, right?
😉
HELL NO I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HER! I would vote for Manchin, otherwise until someonevelse like him shows up, its third party for me.
Pelosi has a secure seat representing the peoples republic of Berkeley.
I would not vote for her to be dog catcher.
Pelosi as Dogcatcher: naturally, providently, you’d be the first rabid mad dog she’d round up
Jay PLEASE, she would not be rounding up any dogs as dog catcher. She would declare the 12th CA congressional district a sanctuary dog district and any stray dogs would be invited to come to her district and tun free.
😊☺️😊👌👌😇😆🤣
Not a good day for President Blob
NYT: “ WASHINGTON — Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said Thursday that the Trump administration withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate what the president has long insisted was Kiev’s assistance to Democrats during the 2016 election.
The declaration by Mr. Mulvaney undercut Mr. Trump’s repeated denials of a quid pro quo that linked security aid for Ukraine’s battle against Russian-backed separatists to Mr. Trump’s unsubstantiated theory that a server with missing Democratic emails was being held by a company based in Ukraine.”
“Gordon Sondland, E.U. Envoy, Testifies That Trump Delegated Ukraine Policy to Giuliani
Gordon D. Sondland said in his prepared statement to House impeachment investigators that he was disappointed the president involved his personal lawyer in diplomacy with Kiev.”
And the US Military isn’t too happy with the Blob either:
William H. McRaven, retired Navy admiral, iformer commander of the United States Special Operations Command;
“ As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, “I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!”
…it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it”
Lets just see if Queen Pelosi sends Articles of impeachment to the senate by Thanksgining as reported. Lets just see if Ass%&$# McConnell holds a trial. Lets just see if Romney, Graham and all these big mouthed G.O.P. senators accept the house finding and vote for impeachment.
We can discuss Jan 2, 2020.
This is why we do not trust the NYT
Because that is NOT what Mulvaney said.
Provide quotes of what Mulvaney said.
That said – lets assume NYT is correct – what exacly is wrong with witholding military aide to a foreign country until they investigate foreign election interference – which you keep telling me is a crime, in a prior election ?
Are you telling me that only the FBI director or a special counsel is allowed to investigate foreign interferance in a US election ?
Or are you saying that only fake allegations of collusion by republicans can be investigated – not real ones involving democrats ?
Flatulent Fool;
That’s your interpretation filtered thru your pathetic Trump ass kisseing.
Keep smooching that rump.
💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋
YOU provide proof that’s not what he said!
“That’s your interpretation”
Correct – I do not have Mulvaney’s exact words.
I have also learned that when the press does not cite someones exact words – but explains to you what they are saying – that they are lying.
You can disagree – regardless a quite still carries more authority than an opinion.
Particularly a quote in context.
NYT has provided snippets of what Mulvaney said – and it requires an industrial washing machine with an extensive spin cycle to get from those snippets to their “interpretation”
Regardess the burden of proof is not mine.
I am not the one accusing Mulvaney or others of lying, immorality or crime.
When you make a moral accusation the burden of proof is on you.
When you fail to substantiate that accusation – it is YOUR credibility and integrity that are diminished.
And you wonder why Trump’s aproval rate is higher at the moment than it was in mid august – before all this began ?
That is easily explained – the credibility of those attacking him has been destroyed.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/18/gop-house-intel-members-accuse-democrats-withholdi/
Any taxpayer money paid to H. Biden for that board membership?
Anything close to the $hundred-million Trump’s sons have received in real estate sales since Donnie was sworn in as president? Including property sold for profit in foreign nations?
Did H. Biden have his travel overseas for business trips paid by the US? The Trump family sure have been rolling up hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars paid for their overseas trips. And that only scratches the surface of taxpayer money Spent on Trump’s daughter and son-in-law during personal business travel.
Why aren’t you mentionIng any of that? I’ll take a guess: does perfidious yapping hypocrite ring a gong?
The Trumps sold property.
Did they sell it at above market prices ?
Is there evidence of some windfall ?
As you noted – did the moment come from tax payers ?
Did Trump fire a prosecutor who was looking into his sons ?
Did he threaten foreigners with the loss of billions in aide ?
What where the skills that Hunter Biden rbought to Burisima ?
His knowledge of business ?
Energy ?
The Ukraine ?
Would that be this Hunter Biden ?
All that is missing is wife beating.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4412890/Hunter-Biden-s-wife-sobs-court-judge-grants-divorce.html
I will be perfectly happy to change the law regarding the assorted perqs that presidents and vice presidents get.
I do not beleive Hunter Biden paid any – much less half the cost of taking Air Force 2 to Ukraine or China.
But I am not making an accusation there – because we have been flying politicians and their families arround for free forever.
Pelosi drags her family all over the place – including “fact finding” missions to the caribean.
This is wrong – whether it is Biden, Trump, Obama or Pelosi.
So lets agree to end it.
But in the meantime – lets quit this nonsense that what is legal for one is illegal for the other.
The Trump family would be doing the same things – probably more profitably whether Trump was president or not.
No one would pay Hunter anything but for his relationship to the vice president.
This non=sense has been going about the media – claiming there is a contradiction.
There is not – Mulvaney NEVER mentioned quid pro quo’s.
What he did say was that politics is a factor in everything that is done by government.
It is not unusual, it is the norm, and it is unavoidable, because every choice – including enforcing the law has political consequences.
There is through this moment – no evidence of a quid pro quo – even though if there was that would STILL be less problematic that VP Biden’s OPEN ADMISSION of blackmailing the Ukraine.
BTW also out this week – State department memo in 2015 to VP Biden’s office Warning that Hunter Biden was actively engaged in “selling influence”, VP’s response – “we are too busy”.
So much for the theory that Joe Biden was not aware – we now have Multiple confirmations that Joe KNEW Biden was engaged in business that had the appearance of influence peddling,. That he knew there was an investigation because the NYT reported it and that he KNEW the US State department had taken notice and was reporting a clear conflict of interests.
And you want to say Trump is barred from asking that be investigated ?
It is both legal and commonplace for US presidents to involve private citizens in US diplomacy. There are litterally thousands of instances starting right with the revolution.
We also have John Kerry conducting shadow diplomacy. Which clearly violates the law – though the law is unconstitutional (unless Gen. Flynn violates it).
Why Would Trump have Guiliani conducting diplomacy outside normal channels ?
Because Trump had very very good reasons not to trust the normal channels.
Another Revalation of the Week was that Former Ambassador Yovanovitch was actively undermining Trump policies in the Ukraine – both with the media and witht he Ukraine.
So why does it surprise you that Trump sent someone he could trust ?
Denis Rodman has been to NK 5 times unofficially representing the US.
Jimmy Carter negotiated a really good deal with NK that Obama rejected.
One of the reasons that US presidents send private emissaries is because they are NOT official. They can say anything, and the president can disown what they say.
As Obama did with Carter.
Why Else ? Because the state department leaks like a seive.
Should I remind you that the damage to Joe Biden was NOT done by Trump, but by the Whistle blower.
Before that no one was paying any attention to Biden’s corruption in Ukraine.
“ It is both legal and commonplace for US presidents to involve private citizens in US diplomacy.”
Not to dig up dirt on a likely POLITICAL CHALLENGER, you deceitful dunce.
Paraphrasing Joseph Welch to Joseph McCarthy in more current language; do you know what a Despicable lump of crap you have become?
“Not to dig up dirt on a likely POLITICAL CHALLENGER, you deceitful dunce.”
So we can not investigate the alleged crimes of anyone who is running for office ?
Or is that only democrats that can not be investigated ?
So you agree that Comey is a criminal ?
I guess by your argument Clinton is too ?
And wouldn’t actually using the federal government be worse – so that would make Obama a criminal ?
Is “digging up dirt” your synonym for “investigating alleged crimes” ?
So Long as Guiliani is NOT an official part of government – he is free to do as he pleases.
As a part of government – he can not start and investigation without reasonable suspicion.
Regardless, Guiliani is covered.
Let me ask you a different question – suppose that Joe Biden actually demanded the firing of Shokin to prevent the investigation of his son. Lets assume for a moment that is true.
Do you want Joe to become president ?
Can DOJ, FBI, Trump, Guiliani investigate an actual crime ? Or because Joe is a political candidate are his past crimes barred from investigation ?
It appears that Barr – completely independently of Trump and Guiliani has been quietly investigating the same things.
Has Barr committed a crime ?
Welch’s remark was “at long last have you no shame”.
And it was targeted at a person who repeatedly made FALSE accusations.
That fits you not me.
Do you Trump apologists understand the significance of a retired 4-star General publicly condemning a sitting president like this?
It’s the first time to happen in American civil-military relations.
Are you people too dense to realize what a Corrupting Divisive effect Trump has had on the nation? Why aren’t you SCREAMING to replace him?
“Do you Trump apologists understand the significance of a retired 4-star General publicly condemning a sitting president like this?”
Do you understand these are the successors to the generals who told us that we could win Vietnam ?
I understand that generals come in all kinds of flavors. too.
I understand that for 3 years Trump while fighting and fuming followed the generals advice and they DID NOT keep their promises to him.
I understand that these are the same generals that advised Bush and Obama and that theses are the same people who both told us they could get us out, but that we had to stay a little longer.
I fully expect that these generals when asked, will command out Troops and acheive the objectives we set for them. I expect that should we actually have to go back in later and Kill off ISIS AGAIN they will do so.
But I do not give a rats ass what they say about staying.
Patton wanted to take on Russia,
MacArthur wanted to take on China.
Both of these are leaders I have far more respect for than any of the assorted people you are propping up.
And yet they were wrong.
“It’s the first time to happen in American civil-military relations.”
No it is not – That is complete crap.
Presumably you heard that Harry Truman FIRED Douglas MacArthur.
Mac Arthur BTW was one of only five EVER US FIVE Star Generals.
“Are you people too dense to realize what a Corrupting Divisive effect Trump has had on the nation? Why aren’t you SCREAMING to replace him?”
Wrong,
The video below is by Johnathan Haidt. He is a social scientists. A small portion of this is about Trump towards the begining.
But the entire video is about the root of the corrupting divisive forces in our country today.
They PREDATE TRUMP.
They are all driven by changes in the LEFT.
A significant portion are the long term effects of the mistakes we have made that have produced “Generation Z”
Trump is a CONSEQUENCE, not a Cause.
I was wondering what had happened to good old Johah Goldberg so I looked his stuff in the Nat review up and came up with, oh, numerous recent articles that spell out his complete rebellion against the trump. Here is an excerpt from a piece I like on the subject of a cult of personality:
“Just this week, the same people who insisted that Trump would never collude with a foreign nation for his political interest are now defending collusion with a foreign nation for his political interest. The people who turn crimson with rage when you point out Trump’s decades of corrupt business practices now insist his only interest in the Bidens is his concern about corruption. They say it’s outrageous that Biden’s son sat on the board of a Ukrainian company when Biden was vice president, but they also say it’s fine to have a daughter and son-in-law duo running vast swaths of foreign and domestic policy while also making a fortune from their business interests around the world. Enemies are sinful or decadent when they lie or cheat on their wives, but who are you to judge Comrade Trump?
There’s no halfway defensible ideological, intellectual, or moral standard that Trump doesn’t violate, often routinely. A cult of personality that replies “Trump’s right” or “his enemies are worse” before the question is even asked is the only place to hide.
344
A doctrine of infallibility is the only defense of this deeply fallible man.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/trump-defenders-have-adopted-a-doctrine-of-infallibility/
For a year at least Jonah’s been vociferously anti Trump, as have MANY other conservative pundits, like Tom Nichols, Brett McGurk, George Conway, George Will, Bill Crystal, Rick Wilson (the most caustic Trump assissan), plus at least a dozen conservative woman (no time to list them;dinner buzzer ringing)
And here is Kimberly Strassel who is making an editorialist echo of the same things Prof. Haidt is saying.
Trump is not the problem – you are.
And what is it that Trump is doing with Ukraine ?
He is EXPOSING the collusion with a foreign government to influence the 2016 election of the people who said lied to us about Trump colluding with Russia.
I for one want to know what the hell was going on in 2015 and 2016 in the Ukraine.
Or are you claiming that only democrats are allowed to collude with foreign governments to influence elections ?
Or are you claiming that only republicans can be investigated for colluding with foreign governments to influence elections ?
Frankly I do not know what you are claiming.
And If Goldberg has bought this – he has been living too close to DC too long.
“There’s no halfway defensible ideological, intellectual, or moral standard that Trump doesn’t violate, often routinely. ”
When you or Goldberg can clearly articulate an actual standard that Trump is violating – I will reconsider my position.
Most of the “whataboutist” arguments that get made are for several critical moral and ethical reasons.
Some conduct that we do not like, is not unethical, illegal or immoral.
ONE means of testing conduct for moral ethical or legal violations is to invert that conduct.
When we can find exactly the same conduct by others – either our enemies or our hero’s and we did not speak up, that means either we are incredible hypocrits, or there is no actual moral ethical or legal violations.
There is really little doubt at this point that the Obama administration and Democrats were involved in many ways in improperly trying to influence the 016 election – both using foreign powers and using the US government.
Even if you are not fully convinced of that you are atleast aware that there is more than enough reasonable suspicion to investigate.
If you atleast grasp that there is reasonable suspicion – then this entire debate is over.
There is nothing Trump is doing that is a moral, ethical or legal violation.
Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard that must be met to investigate something.
If you do not grasp that standard has been met – you are blind to facts and I can not help you.
Insults are not arguments
Your arguments have degrade so badly that you are insulting 65 million american voters.
Why do you think that is a stratgey for success ?
I never like to stick my neck out but I am going to. It is my considered opinion that trump is toast. The republicans in the Senate have the choice of finding a behind the scenes way of persuading him to quit or a having to make a suicidal defense of him. They have the means to convince him that its over, they just need to quietly inform him after the trial begins that when push comes to shove they will not go down in history defending his actions and lose both the Senate and the presidency as well in November. Its a matter of months before trump is gone. I say that Pence may have competition from Lindsey Graham for the GOP nomination. Lindsey has been running for president for more than a year now.
Things like his incredible decision to host the G7 at his own place make me wonder if he does not actually want to be removed. He is slowly, well actually not so slowly, sawing off every leg of the stool he sits on. Even the supine GOP Senators have a breaking point.
Roby, I sure hope you are right! I dont want to see Sanders or Warren as President. I dont want to live through another 4 years of Trump. I REALLY have doubts Pelosi will send anything to the Senate.
Why?
Because Trump is the gift that keeps on giving through his actions ( as opposed to policies). Most any other G.O.P. candidate would be stronger than Trump as they could capture the swing votes in swing states. As much as I dislike Pelosi, I know she is as ruthless and underhanded as any of those long term house members, but she is also very intelligent. She knows a Warren/ Sanders would have a much harder time against most any other Republican than Trump. Her ultimate goal is a democrat president and impeaching Trump puts a detour in the direct route to that office, that being “Trump Way”.
Its gone way too far for him not to be impeached. He’ll be impeached. He utterly desrves impeachment he almost appears to be trying to be impeached, the people who believe like I do would not forgive Pelosi is he is not impeached. I am so certain I’d bet you a pizza he is impeached by the House. I’d bet you my house on it but my wife would kill me so I will bet you a pizza instead.
I say his position will continue to deteriorate and he will leave before he is convicted.
Well I would bet that, but since I am hoping the same,( but not for the same reasons), how do I bet against myself. Jeez, Pelosi getting rid of Trump to run against a stronger candidate, does make much sense to me.
But maybe she sees the GOP voters getting so discouraged about Trump not being the candidate they will just say, “piss off, you can elect Warren, we don’t care”
Whatever happens happens. What I care about ain’t never go’na happen in my lifetime, so I should just let the younger generation worry abut it. All I can do is try to enlighten my kids views on things and let them decide if those are good or bad thoughts.
I can see Trump being impeached because there are enough G>O>P senators against him that they could swing the vote. Then Warren gets elected and the left swing comes, everything is fine for 3-4 years, then reality of the spending hits, the rich have moved funds overseas to avoid the taxes, revenues fall and the economy declines.Along with the immigration issues without a strong border. After that, the election of 2028 brings back sanity with moderates in the mix once again.
OR A>O>C is old enough to run and she gets elected!!!!
“Its gone way too far for him not to be impeached. He’ll be impeached. He utterly desrves impeachment he almost appears to be trying to be impeached, the people who believe like I do would not forgive Pelosi is he is not impeached. I am so certain I’d bet you a pizza he is impeached by the House. I’d bet you my house on it but my wife would kill me so I will bet you a pizza instead.
I say his position will continue to deteriorate and he will leave before he is convicted.”
The only possibility that Trump is impeached is if we continue this star chamber and no one not even the democrats who must vote on it get to see the actual evidence.
You are on for a Pizza.
There is no republican today aside from Trump who is going to win in the rust belt.
Romney did not, neither did McCain.
The only democrat who stands a chance in the Rust belt is Biden and he is a “dead man walking”.
A state department memo from 2015 just came out warning Biden that Hunter was selling influence in foreign countries.
Trump’s numbers in the Rassmussen Presidential Tracking poll today are STILL above Obama’s at the same time. In fact they have been above Obama’s Since June.
“You don’t have to run faster than the bear to get away. You just have to run faster than the guy next to you.”
To whatever extent Trump has been harmed, democrats have harmed themselves more.
Not just Biden or the presidential candidates – but the whole party.
I told you back in March when the Mueller report came out – that you can not spin aware the damage this does to the TDS crowd.
When you make false accusations – you do so at a cost to your credibility and your integrity.
You have been caught in lies.
No one sane Trusts Schiff, or Pelosi.
There is not going to be a vote to start a real impeachment investigation,
There is not going to be real articles of impeachment drafted.
There is not going to be a vote in the house.
Worse still if you do all of those – democrats will harm themselves.
And you are now sufficiently committed – that if you do not
Democrats will have harmed themselves.
Since you are predicting – I will give you mine.
Trump wins every state he won in 2020 plus NH. MN, and possibly NM and NV.
Democrats either lose the house or end up with a majority so weak it is ineffectual.
In the latter case Pelosi resigns and democrats and republicans figure out how to come up with a working coalition in the house.
One of the differences between Democrat and Republicans compared to Libertarians is the approach to the constitution. That applies also to progressives and conservatives. While the party followers pick what they want to support, Libertarians, for the most part, support all included in the constitution.
For example, yesterday Mark Zuckerberg stated in response to controlling speech on social media “You can still say controversial things, but you have to stand behind them with your real identity and face accountability. This is a better solution than an ever-expanding definition of what speech is harmful.”
So speech inciting violence is fine as long as your name is behind it.
After the Las Vegas shooting, he stated “”It’s hard to imagine why we don’t make it much harder for anyone to do this” . He has gone on to address gun control issues since this comment.
Now before you jump all over posting illegal information, Facebook being private and can do what they want, dont write pages why that is wrong. This addresses two rights only and how Zuckerberg addresses them.
It looks to me that it is fine for anyone to post hate speech, incite violence and have that result in death because speech in protected by the 1st amendment. ( Yes social media is speech ).
But using that same theory it is not fine for the sale of a gun to an individual that ends in death without government interference.
The individual speaking = the gun seller
The individual listening = the gun buyer
The individual killing = the individual killing.
And look at conservatives and you will find many supporting gun rights and speech controls. 100% opposite Zuckerbergs.
Well I’ll bite. Where did Zuckenberg say that its OK to incite violence? He said controversial things. Its not the same at all. I am pretty sure that inciting violence gets you shut off on facebook.
I am also not sure what he has to do with gun violence. As I hardly have to tell you due to my many posts I do not believe that the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as broad as you most likely believe it to be as a libertarian. In general I do not believe that the Constitution is a often clear blueprint for specific situations, its a process to be followed with a court systems right up to the supreme court to determine what is legal for the government to do and what is legal for individuals or corporations etc. Their precedents now have given us some idea of what is now considered Constitutional
So, with all due respect, I am not going to be persuaded at my age to the philosophy where the Constitution often provides clear specific answers, although I am sure we can find examples where it is clear and specific to a certain issue.
I can add that to people such as myself, and you can call me a liberal if you want in this context, the arguments made by people who believe that the Constitution says very specific clear things (and again, no disrespect intended) and those things are usually very well aligned with the things that the person wants to believe are strictly defined and almost never saying something contrary to what the person, usually libertarian or conservative wants the world to look like, well this sentence got too long and I lost myself.
But I think you get my point. I am not a Constitutional lawyer but I watch people who Are famous Constitutional lawyers disagree right and left about the legality of certain acts, for the moment lets say the acts of trump since that is what the universe revolves around today. So this specificity of the Constitution with all its clarity seems to fly in the face of more than 200 years of history and the very existence of the court system. It seems to me to be a construct that conservatives and libertarians use to define the world as they wish it would be and say that when the world does not go that way its unConstitutional and that liberals don’t care about the Constitution. Ill defend liberals here, we care, we just don’t see the issue in the same light as conservatives and libertarians quite often.
So, call me a liberal but what I say is merely an objective statement of how the system has worked for a very long time. Would that the world really was so clear and simple.
Yes Roby, he never said it was ok to incite violence, but he has also not said that he would have facebook monitor speech and remove anything other than direct threats, and even then with billions of users, the few thousand of monitors will not catch anything but the worst.
Yes, you are also right that the constitution is interpreted in ways different by people of different political views. I view the constitution where each item in the bill of rights should be interpreted in the same way. If the courts hold that speech on social media is the same as speech of someone standing on the street corner or printed in a weekly town paper ( 1776 speech), then guns that are mechanically superior today to flint lock guns (1776 guns).should be interpreted that they are the same.
I only used Zuckerberg as an example because he was interviewed yesterday, so I researched some of his positions. There are many other differences not associated with the 1st or 2nd amendment such as government agencies making “laws” through regulations. For instance, a few years back a Montana farmer was fined $120,000 and spent 18 months in jail for creating two irrigation ponds by blocking rain runoff 40 miles from a river. The EPA determined his land was watershed property and regulated his activities. He spent his time in jail, his case made it through the court systems and he won. But he lost because the most of his last months of life were in jail. The constitution was never designed to allow government agencies making laws resulting in fines and jail from my perspective. I realize from a more progressive position, this is fine.
President Truman skirted Congress when he sent troops to Korea in 1950 without seeking a declaration of war, eventually numbering 1.8 million U.S. service members. In the early days, he referred to the troop introduction as a “police action.” This set a precedent for future conflicts such as Johnson with Viet Nam. I dont believe any American should die in combat without a declaration of war. ( Special ops are different). Others, including progressives and conservatives believe differently, as I pointed out.
” He spent his time in jail, his case made it through the court systems and he won. But he lost because the most of his last months of life were in jail. The constitution was never designed to allow government agencies making laws resulting in fines and jail from my perspective. I realize from a more progressive position, this is fine.”
Good lord No! At lest not from a moderate liberal perspective I can’t speak for progressives but I doubt if you describe this situation to most progressives they would agree that that travesty should have happened. Nor is what they have been doing in that Florida town Dunedin in the way of absurd fines. I wore out my phone calling in bomb threats to their Mayor ( a little humor, I didn’t actually.). Any decent human sees the human consequences of overreach and overkill no matter what persuasion they are of, but they might have to be led to seeing it, since the NYTimes and other progressive media are not about to dwell on it . Even progressives are human and most of them are just as oblivious to the human consequences of overreach and over kill in enforcing certain laws as conservatives are oblivious to, say, the realities of living in the inner cities or of the number of people who get accosted for the crime of walking while black.
Its not easy to find the happy medium. The judge who sent him to prison is the failure in this case most of all.
I certainly am not among those who want a president who has too much power because congress has refused to do their job. You probably remember that I was quite upset that Obama choose his famous go it alone policy when he could not work with Congress. As you say, the roots of this go far back. Perhaps trump has done enough harm to wake people up.
But Roby, that is the problem we have in this country today. We have no moderate positions.
This was an Obama EPA regulation and an Obama EPA court case. I believe their actions were upheld until it got to a higher court, not sure if it was SCOTUS or not and did not research that fact. Shortly after taking office this regulation was rescinded by the Trump EPA .
So our choices are Trump(right now) and progressive actions like this one. There is no “common sense” in government today, so that is the coices we have.
The Artlessness Of The Deal:
Prez Rump just announced he worked out cease-fire deal with Erdogan that’s the best fairest most wonderful negotiation ever made by a US leader!
Erdogan gets Syrian Kurd land he’s wanted for years.
Kurdish fighters have to disarm and get out.
Trump cancels all sanctions on Turkey.
Russian troops remain in the areas they’ve recently appropriated.
Same for Syrian troops
ISIS does what it wants.
Art of the deal, If you are Erdogan!
I do not trust you enough to believe that what you claim is the deal is correct.
But assuming it is:
If we are leaving Syria – it is a good deal.
If Kurds are not experiencing Genocide – all the better.
“Erdogan gets Syrian Kurd land he’s wanted for years.”
He is putting 3.6M Syrian refugees there.
The land is NOT being incorporated into Turkey, he will ultimately have to withdraw.
“Kurdish fighters have to disarm and get out.”
The west agree to allow Turkey to put the syrian refugees there BEFORE any purported deal with the YPG.
“Trump cancels all sanctions on Turkey.”
If the Turks are not killing people, I am fine with that.
“Russian troops remain in the areas they’ve recently appropriated.”
How well has that worked for Russia in the past ? Poor Russians.
“Same for Syrian troops”
Correct me if I am wrong but you are upset with Syria for Syrians ?
“ISIS does what it wants.”
ISIS will always be able to do what they want.
But they might die for it.
I do not beleive ISIS is part of the deal.
Did their representative sign off on it ?
Zuckerberg did not say “controversial” things.
He said stupid things – particularly for someone with his background.
If you want solid discussion of free speech – try the centuries old acknowledged authority on the subject.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/mill/
Zuckerberg is just full of shit.
His speach has been roundly shredded as nonsense.
SCOTUS long ago PROPERLY establed the right to anonymous speach.
The price for anonymity is credibility – not silence.
We would arguably be better off if ALL speach or atleast all debate was anonymous.
Then we could end these stupid fallacious appeals to authority.
You would not know whether some argument was by George Will or George Sorros and you would have to weigh it on its merits not the person offering it.
And that is how decisions should be made – on the merits of the arguments.
Walter Shaub – former Director of Government Ethics (387k Twitter followers)
“There is no level of corruption greater than a President participating in the award of a contract to himself. We have reached the bottom. If the Senate will not act to stop this, there is no government ethics program. It’s over.”
No matter your politics, if you don’t agree with that, you’re a despicable ass worthy of infinite middle-fingering.
And yet, awarding himself a contract was not even the most idiotic or impeachable thing he has done recently and so its hardly news. We are numb.
More slurs and insults as arguments.
Jut about the most immoral and unethical argument you can possibly make is
“You are vile if you do not agree with me”.
After that you who should listen to you discuss ethics ?
Biden takes the gloves off! 🥊!
“ It is not just that Donald Trump is a liar. It is not just that he is corrupt. It is that every day he finds new ways to lie in an attempt to cover up his own corruption.”
If this continues, watch his poll numbers rise steeply.
Biden is a dead man walking – he is irrelevant.
Speaking of “coverup”
Even John Kerry’s stepson cut ties with Hunter Biden after he cut the deal with Burisma.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/diplomat-tells-investigators-he-raised-alarms-in-2015-about-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-but-was-rebuffed/ar-AAIYP6Z
Just to make it perfectly clear, if Hillary Clinton, aka the deranged bitch, should happen to be hit with a meteor or something and perish I will not be attending her funeral or sending flowers. It would of course be a terrible tragedy but at least it would shut her the F up.
The 2016 election was a marvel, the two worst most repulsive candidates in history.
Gabbard’s position on Syria – which I FULLY support – is even Better than Trump’s – and more offensive to left wing nuts.
Democrats are making themselves the part of endless war.
We live in the internet era.
Jefferson called Adams “a blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphroditic character with neither the force and fitness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
Adams called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”
I think calling Pelosi a 3rd rate politician is pretty tame.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says Trump is “a 98 pound weakling.”
Bernie Sanders brands Trump a “pathological liar.”
U.S. Representative Ruben Gallego (R-AZ) tattoos Trump as “an abject Liar,”
“Some people talk of impeaching John Adams, but I am for softer measures. I would keep him to make fun of him.”
Thomas Paine
“A barbarian who could not write a sentence of grammar and hardly could spell his own name.”
Adams refering to president Jackson
“The Constitution provides for every contingency in the Executive, except a vacancy in the mind of the President.”
Rep. Sherman about President Buchannon.
“The cry was for no politicians, but the country did not mean no brains.”
President Grant being insulted by the leader of the GOP.
“He’s a nice guy, but he played too much football with his helmet off.”
President Johnson of Rep. Ford (later president ford)
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Trump has issued a Presidential Proclamation for National “Character Counts Week” urging Americans to “positively influence the next generation of our Nation’s leaders and inspire them to lead lives of virtue and integrity.”
Presidential Perceptions _1
Because it did not happen.
But thanks for the link.
I could not find the video – and now I have been able to watch it.
It is no more offensive than the Blockbuster movie that it came from.
And Trump had nothing to do with it.
Regardless, I have no problems with metaphorical fictional violence.
Didn’t Obama say bring a gun to a knife fight ?
Presidential Perceptions _2
We need a leader who cares “about lining his pockets”
Guess who suggested we use Trump”s Florida property for the G-7?
A one, and a two…
White House CoS just admitted that Doral wasn’t even on the list of possible #G7 locations until Trump suggested it
So is Schiff “pressuring a US ambassador” for political gain a crime ?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-pressed-volker-to-say-ukraine-felt-pressure-from-trump
It was suggested by Trump at the last G7.
That would be before there was a list.
Regardless, as with all use of Trump fascilities by foreign dignataries – it will be at cost.
Trump certainly will not make the $600K that Hunter made for what ?
Dhlii: WTF does Schiff have to do with Trump lining his own pockets by foisting his own property on us taxpayers?
Ah, fuck it… you’re hopeless.
🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐
You are making a claim of using political power and pressure for personal or political gain.
Yes, he is. But, true to form, he believes that no Democrat, ever has been corrupt, or used political power for personal gain. Hunter Biden, at 49, is a protected “child” of Uncle Joe, who never did nuthin’ to nobody! Just as Hillary was the most qualified person ever to run for president ~ no skeletons in HER closet!
The denial force is strong in politics. It affects both sides, but only one side has the media promoting its delusions.
Priscilla, how Trumpish of you to misrepresent (LIE) about my views.
There hasn’t been a Democratic president since JFK I haven’t vociferously criticized.
And the Despicable Media hasn’t covered the Biden charges at all, ignored them completely, the silence has been deafening… right?
I do not have the means to know whether you vociferously criticised JFK.
I have been HERE for a long time.
Your criticism of Obama was so “vociferous” that I can not remember it at all.
It is possible you criticized Obama. Vociferous means vehemently, loudly, clamourously, loudly, noisily.
It does not mean so tepidly it went unnoticed.
The media has actively silenced people who brought up the Biden allegation.
Cutting their mikes, ending segments, refusing to let them speak, giving them lectures on conspiracy theories,
All this about something sufficiently seriously that in 2015 the State Department felt it was necescary to warn VP Biden in writing that his son was trading on his fathers influence in several foreign countries.
And AFTER hearing that – VP Biden demands the prosecutor investigating his son be fired.
There has been a big stink in the media abotu the G7 being scheduled in Doral.
I have yet to find a single fact that indicates that was done improperly.
BUT is CLEARLY has the appearance of impropriety.
And Trump removed Doral from consideration.
That might be a technically bad choice.
But it was the right choice – just as VP Biden was required to remove himself from the appearance of impropriety with respect to the business activities of his son.
Trump did on a much less significant matter.
Biden did not.
My apologies if I misrepresented your views, Jay. I do not recall you vociferously criticizing Hillary…or Biden, for that matter. You have criticized Elizabeth Warren in recent weeks. Mostly for her appearance, if I recall.
Most of what I see and hear in the media on Biden has been something along the lines of “Trump accused Biden of corruption, with NO evidence.” Or “Trump tried to get the Ukrainians to manufacture “dirt” on Biden.”
I just assumed that you agreed with the narrative that Biden did nothing wrong, and that Trump should be impeached for mentioning his name in a phone call (I think that was a bad idea, btw, but Trump says what he says, and I don’t think it was an impeachable bad idea).
But, in any case, if I have not noted your criticism of Democrats, I will be more careful to note it in the future.
Jay has not “vociferosly” criticized ANYONE except Trump and me – and perhaps you and Ron, and anyone that did not want Trump impeached the day after the election.
Jay is by nature hyper critical. But casual jabs are not “vociefeous criticism”
“I think that was a bad idea”
This is where I part company with Will and Goldberg, and Romney, and Napalitano
I do not expect perfection out of others. Trump is doing quite well considering that his every word is microparsed and everything he does – even things that are nearly never public will get leaked and subject to public scrutiny. Considering that the press is out to get him – which is their job, and willing to lie or misrepresent if needed to cast him in a negative light – which is NOT their job. and that 90% of the permanent executive branch fails to grasp that their JOB is to execute the policies of the ELECTED president. and that if they can not do that, that RESISTANCE is done OUTSIDE of government.
Schiff is busy trying to “protect” the Whistle Blower” – forgetting that Obama JAILED whistleblowers.
Here is the story of the Fast and Furious Whistle Blower.
I would note that Sharyl Attkisson – the reporter for this story was spied on by the FBI for atleast 2 years
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/fast-and-furious-whistleblower-says-he-became-an-enemy-of-the-state/
Remember – this is a video from 2 years ago.
The events described are concurrent with the mess in Ukraine.
I would further note that the Burisima story first hit the news in 2015 – planted by Hillary to keep Biden out of the 2016 race.
An interesting view from the left.
`Yeah, Trump is bringing home the troops from Syria, right!
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper says that under current plans all U.S. troops leaving Syria will go to western Iraq and the American military will continue to conduct operations against the Islamic State group to prevent its resurgence.
And I oppose that.
How about you ?
Are you ready to bring US Troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq ?
Wait, Jay, now you WANT to pull all the troops out? But what about the Kurds??
Huh? What?
How did you escape the point of my post?
Hypocrite Prez Blob used the “Bring Home The Troops” rationale as excuse for abandoning the Kurds. What part of “home” has you confused?
Trump isn’t bringing home any troops; he’s increasing their numbers in the Middle East.
Cultism has you in its grip!
You still do not seem to get it.
False accusations of moral failure destroy YOUR integrity.
Only someone living under a rock would make such a nonsensical claim as Trump is not really serious about getting us out of endless wars.
It was a signifficant campaign promise.
He was elected with the expectation that he would do it.
YOU smeared us all with stories of his rants at the generals when he wanted to get out of Afghanistan. On multiple occasions YOU have shown that he demanded they extricate us only to back down and give them more time.
Hopefully we are done listening to the generals and other endless war crowd.
To any officer or politician or person who thinks we should fight for the Kurds.
Go ahead. Resign from the US forces and go join the Kurds.
You are always free to sacrifice your life for others.
But we should not be ORDERING our soldiers to die in foreign countries for reasons that have nothing to do with the US.
Regardless, being perfectly consistent from before the election to the present is about as unhypocritical as you can get.
My complaint with respect to Trump and extricating us from these endless wars, is that he has not gotten us out fast enough.
Which is much the same criticism Tulsi Gabbard levels at Trump.
There are hypocrits all over the place on this issue – but Trump is not one of them.
No, Jay, I did not misunderstand you.
Trump withdrew our troops from the northern Syria/Turkish border, because they were, as you so charmingly called them, “tripwires,” and would very likely be killed, if Turkey invaded the area to clear out the PKK from the border.
The troops were withdrawn from the Syrian WAR ZONE, to Iraq, which is not currently a war zone. Turkey did attack, and our troops were not there. Kurds and Turks were killed. It’s their fight.
Since then, Pence and Pompeo have secured a ceasefire, and the anti-Trump narrative has changed to “Oh, Trump lied, because he didn’t bring every soldier home yet!!”
But, special forces will remain for some time, to guard against the resurgence of ISIS.
I realize that many Democrats were hoping for genocide, so that Trump would look bad. But, it turns out that he made the right call ~ even Lindsey Graham says so.
You’re s full of crap as Trump, Priscilla.
THIS was Trump’s literal reason for pulling the troops from the border:
“I campaigned on the fact that I was going to bring our soldiers home as rapidly as possible.”
That was on Oct 8th.
Are you suggesting if Trump didn’t capitulate to Turkey and pull those US soldiers, Turkish forces would have mowed them down?
Trump apologists only recently in retrospect manufactured your nonsensical reason. Produce a quote from Trump in the week following his cowardly removal of those soldiers where he gave that explanation.. WAITING…..
Well, I don’t know that Turkey would have “mowed them down,” but generally speaking, being in the middle of a battle isn’t a safe place to be. I’m guessing we can at least agree on that, can’t we?
And, I’m curious…he announced the “withdrawal” of all American troops in Northern Syria, because Erdogan had told him that Turkey would invade. He made clear that the number of troops stationed there as “tripwires” (actually they were acting as guards for ISIS prisoners) was less than 100. How am I “manufacturing” a nonsensical reason?
Was he supposed to teleport them back to the US, leaving no US presence, even special forces? I think you’re just being needlessly argumentative here, because you can’t bring yourself to say that maybe, just maybe, it was a good idea to pull these soldiers out of a dangerous situation.
Yes, Jay is being “needlessly argumentative”.
That would be a good description of nearly all attacks on Trump.
Even on Issues I agree with Trump – he is not doing things exactly the way I would.
We should have left Afghanistan long ago.
We should leave Iraq and Syria sooner.
No I do not want US troops in Saudia Arabia.
Just to clarify for Jay – I specifically mean get US Troops out of harms way, out of fighting.
Out of commitments to fight.
Get them safe BUT available for use anywhere in the world should we need them.
This is where I would PARTIALLY part company with Gabbard.
I have no problems with US forces in safe bases throughout the world – available for repid deployment nearby. I do not need those troops to litterally “come home”
There are separate debates about reducing the extent of us global deployments.
I am NOT arguing to emasculate our military – in fact we would be BETTER able to project power throught the globe if we had a smaller portion of our troops COMMITTED to wars in the mideast.
Our military is ALWAYS supposed to be an IMPLIED threat. As Clauswitz said “War is politics by other means”.
I want North Korea to have in the back of their minds that if they go to far we are able to unleash massive for against them – and that threat is real – because we are not tied up elsewhere.
Trump has said many things about our soldiers.
You seem to want to make a bizarre legalistic distinction between
Not wasting the lives of US soldiers,
Getting our
Coming home.
While there are differences between these – they are small – and most Trump communications are from soundbites or twitter, where precision is not possible.
I think it is inarguable that Trump is fully prepared to order US soldiers to fight and die in foreign countries – WHEN A CLEAR US INTEREST is present.
His focus is not on litterally on getting troops “home”, but on getting them out of harms way when we have no national interest at stake.
“I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” he thundered. “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies.”
How bad has our “leader” made us look on Syria. Stay out of Syria, we don’t have the leadership to win wars or even strategize.
he said that the U.S. had “wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure” and “wasted lives” there, that the war was “nonsense,” and that instead we should “rebuild the USA.”
“Are they going to be there for the next 200 years? At some point, what’s going on?”
However, he did qualify his statement. “I would leave the troops there, begrudgingly,” he said. “You probably have to because that thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave.”
We should leave Afghanistan immediately. No more wasted lives. If we have to go back in, we go in hard & quick. Rebuild the US first.
I agree with Pres. Obama on Afghanistan. We should have a speedy withdrawal. Why should we keep wasting our money — rebuild the U.S.!
Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.
84% of US troops wounded & 70% of our brave men & women killed in Afghanistan have all come under Obama. Time to get out of there.
China is getting minerals from Afghanistan http://usat.ly/t69pc1 We are getting our troops killed by the Afghani govt’t. Time to get out.
Just to be clear you are saying that Trump – or any US president should have tested whther Erodigan was bluffing and allowed 30 US soldiers to attempt to face down the turkish army, risking death and war with a NATO country ?
That refusing to do so is cowardice ?
Well Jay – then I am a coward.
Because I would NEVER order others to risk their lives in the hope that Erodegan was bluffing – even if the odds of a bluff were high, if standing out qround was not in our national interest.
We had no national interest at stake.
Removing our soldiers from between the Turks and the Kurds was the RIGHT choice – it is irrelevant whether they move out of the way or home.
I expect those from different political parties to try to make insignificant differences significant or to conflate dissimilar things as the same.
I expect the media and the rest of use not to fall for that.
Removing soldiers from harms way when there is no US interest in their staying there is ALWAYS the roll of a leader. That would include “the generals”.
You can spin this anyway you want.
The core question is under the same circumstances:
Erodigan threatening to come in with superior forces,
no US interest at stake.
Would you have kept a US for ce that would have been masscred in place hoping that Erodegan was bluffing ?
I would add to this that people do not answer questions posed by a human – who at the very least knows their phone number as they do on an election ballot where they are presumably anonymous.
It is well documented – and a significant factor in Trump’s winning that the left has bullied much of the country into silence if they disagree.
But silencing someone is not converting them.
Call someone a racist – and they are not going to vote for you.
Wonder what Malcolm X would say 55 years later with news like ABC Syria coverage, MSNBC’s Trump meltdown and Jay’s Twitter coverage.
Dec 13, 1964:
“The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make the criminal look like he’s a the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. It will make the criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Unlike Dave that believes American’s are smart and cant be brainwashed into believing false facts to impact their votes, I believe, as did Malcom X, that the media “will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” This holds true for any controversial issue today.s
The difference today happens to be in 1964, far fewer people had instant access to propaganda than today.
Press coverage effects voters – but only at the margins and only when those voters view the press as credible.
I suspect the press had more influence on voters int he 60’s than today.
In the 60′ we talked about press bias, but most of us got our news from the same press and even if biased the biases were subtle not overt.
Undecided voters do not listen to Rachel Maddow or CNN.
Even pundits we thought were careful, measured and unbiased have outed themselves as heavily biased and prone to believe nonsense.
The media has destroyed its own credibility. I think they have less real influence on voters than ever – not more.
Absolutely – people who already agree with Rachel Maddow tune her in all the time.
And when something comes up that appears to confirm their beleives – her numbers increase. But she is not attracting undecided viewers.
Do I trust the voters ? NO! Nor did our founders – that is why the incredibly complex machinery they created to be able to use the power of the federal government.
They did not want a simple popular vote to result in rash decisions.
At thee same time I would have no problem saying that government can not act without the informed support of 2/3 of the people.
Next, I am far more concerned about Google than the media.
I search for things all the time.
I can search for something that I already know – just trying to get details right,
And the results constantly come back obviously politically skewed.
Try searching for the 2015 New York Times article that exposed the Hunter Biden involvement in the Ukraine. It should be trivial to construct a search that brings that story right up. But it is not. What you get is myriads of stories that Trump is engaged in an unfounded Hoax attack on the bidens.
If you can not easily find facts that you already know are true that disrupt some political narrative – can you expect google to tell you the truth about things you do not know.
And I do not find this same skewing of searches when the information I am searching for does not have a clearly understood political facet.
I am much less concerned about Social media – that is not really a world of inquiry.
Regardless, people are “influenced” by information that confirms what the already beleive.
Advertisers – who are by far the best at “influencing” people – can sometimes cause people to move more quickly on something they already want to do anyway.
They can sometimes expose you to something that appeals to you that you were unaware of.
But they can not get you to do something you do not want to do.
The fundimental effect of most political advertising – no matter where it is, is to get people to vote or get them to not vote. That is it. Republicans seek to get Republicans out to the polls and keep democrats from going to the polls and visa versa.
In 2016 about 65M people voted for Trump. There are about 330M people in the US,
That means a little more than 1 in three people with a favorable view of Trump voted for him.
Approx. the same is true of Clinton.
Further of those people – the overwhelming majority that had an unfavorable view of both Trump and Clinton – those who voted still voted for a candidate that they have said they did not like – because they disliked the other more.
Regardless, the goal of most political advertising is to either get your people to vote or get your opponents voters to stay home.
And that is not likely to change – because it is incredibly hard to move a person from one choice to another.
Help me out here. Jay, Roby, especially since you view Clinton very differently than others here, is the Washington Examiner a right wing nut publication or has Clinton finally gone off the deep end following Trump to the exhausted brain ward?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election
There are only two logical conclusions – one of which is highly unlikely.
Both Trump and Gabbard are russian assets and the russians have inflitrated US politics thoroughly.
Neither are russian assets and the left is bat shit crazy.
The irony is that Hillary is the one who has dubious ties to Russia. (Uranium One, the Steele Dossier)
Tulsi’s poll numbers have risen since Hillary’s comments.
Hillary is vile, and coniving, and in many ways brilliant but she is politically stupid.
Bill warned her she was in trouble in the rust belt, and she ignored him.
Trump’s strategy in 2016 was transparent.
But no one thought it would work.
Yet it did.
Clinton has just given Gabbard a huge shot in the arm
AND she has helped Trump.
Anyone here think that Clinton has gotten nuts ONLY in the past 3 years ?
“she is politically stupid.”
The pot calling a pot a pot.
I am not running for office,
Nor did I completely miss that Trump was targetting the rust belt.
To the extent I erred politically it was that I did not beleive Trump could pick up over 2m votes in the rust belt.
So many people keep saying Trump only won by XXX votes in 2 or 3 states.
True but Obama beat Romney in those states by over 2M votes.
Regardless, Clinton has not changed who she is.
Her bat shit crazy allegations are no less bat shit crazy when leveled at others than they are against Tulsi.
She is not suffering from demensia – though biden might be.
Yes, Ron, the bitch is nuts, which was the impetus behind my post above from a day or two ago in which I facetiously stated that it would be a tragedy if she would be hit by a meteor. I am an equal opportunity and non partisan hater, Clinton is now officially deranged and I only wish she would disappear somehow. The Jerry Springer show has nothing on some of our politicians. But trump is still the head clown, it would take any other of the dubious idiots nearly a lifetime to rack up the amount of drama and nonsense he can turn out in a few days time.
“The Jerry Springer show has nothing on some of our politicians. ”
😀😀
Yep, Washington D.C. is just one big Springer Show!
Gentleman, please! That is an insult to Jerry Springer.
Gentlemen**
Just so I am clear – when Clinton henchman Sidney Blumental originated the Obama Birth Certificate story – that was rational ?
When Clinton shared Classifed information with Blumenthal – to his personal profit – that was OK ?
When Clinton planted the Biden Ukraine Corruption story in the NYT and WaPo in 2015 to keep Biden out of the race – there was nothing wrong with that ?
When Clinton created from whole cloth the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense as well as the Trump is a russian asset (and Carter Page and George Papadoulis) that was based on facts ?
When told us all that She and Bill were the victims of a vast right wing conspiracy – that was sane ?
When Clinton pushed for and got the pion who produced the “innocense of the muslims” jailed – a video that she knowingly falsely blamed for Benghazi – that was wise ?
When Clinton set up her bathroom email server to hide her Clinton Foundation corruption from Government records requirement and FOIA scrutiny – that was proper ?
I can go on an on.
But when Hillary Clinton smears Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard – then and only then you think she is batshit ?
There ares some signs that Biden is slipping – I honestly hope not. My father died of complications of vascular dimensia, I would not wish dimensia of any form on anyone.
Clinton is not showing any signs of mental decline.
She is the same conniving manipulator that she always has been.
What is new – is that THIS TIME, you are not falling for it.
What you need to ask yourself is why you did all those other times, and think about the fact that Clinton has been at the root of pretty much all the most vile and wrong political attacks of decades.
And you have bought most of them.
You lob accusations of lying at others constantly.
Yet NOW ? You grasp that Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest and most successful liars in the world.
Hillary is what an actual liar looks like.
She often works through others and and behind the scenes – as Tulsi demanded – Hillary come out from behind the curtain.
Hillary invented the Bengahzi lie, but Rice and Powers were the ones who spread it.
Trump Smoochers:
In its political context define ‘asset.’
definition by example:
Hillary Clinton is a Russian “asset” her successful efforts to provoke a coup against the Ukrainians that were Russia aligned gave Russia and exceuse to invade Crimea.
Hillary Clinton and Obama also negotiated the Uranium One deal giving Russia control of a significant portion of US Urainium reserves.
I do not care how you define Asset – it will ALWAYS be easier to make Clinton and Obama fit that definition than Trump or Gabbard.
Most of us grasp that Clinton is flat out lying about Gabbard,
A few of us are wise enough to see this is not some momentary insanity on Clinton’s part.
It is who she has ALWAYS been. And that she is the architect of the faux Trump Russia Collusion nonsense.
But the real problem is with the left and the media – not Clinton.
There will ALWAYS be people like Clinton trying to persuade us to beleive insane things.
Nothing Clinton is doing is illegal.
The problem is with all of those who do nor quickly grasp – this is total BS.
If you EVER bought the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense – you are politically guilible.
The entire claim NEVER MADE ANY SENSE.
Given a choice between calling up Cambridge Analitica or some other similar US consulting firm and dropping a couple of million on a targeted social media campaign that would be professional and as effective as possible, why would Trump seek out a clandestine relationship with ANY foreign power to get a few really crappy social media adds that were worthless ? And to accomplish this stupid thing Trump had to use trade craft that no state intelligence service has ever equaled – you have to beleive that Manafort, and Cohen and Page, and Papadoulis and Stone are such incredible operatives that no one has been able to find evidence of contact with Russians AND that with threats of up to a lifetime in jail none of them would turn on Trump. Cohen has turned on Trump – and yet we must somehow beleive that despite pissing over Trump in every other way – Cohen is keeping the Russia secret ?
Trump/Russia Collusion NEVER made sense from the very start.
I have said over and over again that Trump or anyone in law enforcement CAN start an investigation with “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. Biden’s own remarks meet the legal definition of “probable cause” – that is sufficient not merely to investigate, but to conduce searches – to get warrants. Trump/Russia Collusion has NEVER been sufficiently credible an allegation to meet “reasonable suspicion”
Batshit crazy – or I want to beleive is NOT the same as “reasonable suspicion”
I do not give a crap what YOU think the “POLITICAL” definition of a “russian asset” is
YOU are prone to beleive nonsense.
“Hillary Clinton and Obama also negotiated the Uranium One deal giving Russia control of a significant portion of US Urainium reserves.“
Bullshit!
And you know it!
Neither Clinton nor Obama ‘negotiated’ that deal. And you know it!
And none of that uranium can be exported outside the USA, and you know it!
And that uranium can ONLY be sold internally to USA CUSTOMERS, and you know it!
And that Russian uranium for USA DOMESTIC use is an insignificant percent of uranium used here in the US. Are you too uninformed to know that?
(EIA):” The United States imports most of the uranium it uses as fuel. Uranium is the fuel most widely used by nuclear power plants for nuclear fission. … About 10% of uranium purchases in 2018 were from U.S. suppliers, and 90% came from other countries.“
Russia’s holdings produce about 2%of uranium used in the US.
How does it feel to have Hannity et-all’s fingers up your ASSet?
So magic fairies transfered control of 25% of US uranium to Russia ?
I did not assert that any Uranium left the US – though it did.
“NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.
NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.”
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/358339-uranium-one-deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show
I did not deliberately try to bate you into complete and total nonsense.
But you chose to do so anyone.
First, I raised U1 as evidence of “ties with Russia” – are you going to say that Rosatom is not a russian company ? Hell, Bill Clinton is personally indirectly connected to it.
I did not expect that you were going to whig out and start spewing irrelevant and false garbage from purported “fact checkers” that just goes to prove how full of schiff fact checkers are.
If I accept your hypothetical – that Obama and Clinton had absolutley nothing to do with this – then how did it happen ?
Are you saying that major US deals effecting national security and international relations take place without the knowledge or consent of the secretary of state and the president ?
Are you saying that neither Clinton nor Obama had the power ever to “say no” ?
With respect to exports – what is true is that Rosatom never received an export license.
Uranium was exported other ways.
Aside from the risk of nuclear proliferation, I do not care much about Urainum exports – the US has enormous uranium reserves – I beleive the total energy is several orders of magnitude larger than US Fossil Fuel reserves and our Coal energy reserves dwarf Uranium and or Thorium energy reserves dwarf coal.
My point is this happened, and it is a real example of a tie to russia.
There are also other issues with U1 – there was significant evidence of real corruption and the Obama administration covered that up – and Guess who (robert Mueller) was FBI director) during the coverup.
Also to be clear – though some of your assertions are false – Rosatom was able to export Uranium, for the most part true or false they also do not contradict what I asserted.
The US has substantial Uranium reserves – and that is what Rosatom bought – control of some of those reserves.
If as you seem to claim, CURRENT US Uranium fuel is produced outside the US – how does that have any meaning ?
If Trump sold China control of 20% of US Iron mining, would you be upset ?
Nearly all US steel today is produced from recycling – we import scrap to recycle and we import steel. We mine very very little Iron.
Should we then give Trump a pass on selling US Iron mining control ?
And to be further clear – I do not care if China buys US iron mines or Russia buys US uranium reserves – though I do nto think that government should have anything to do with that.
My point was about scandal, corruption and actual as opposed to magical ties to russia.
“Hillary Clinton and Obama also negotiated the Uranium One deal giving Russia control of a significant portion of US Urainium reserves.”
Last info I can find on this was September 2018, Chuck Grassley wanting to investigate. Do you have any links that further define the outcome of that?
Thanks
I have nothing further, and I do not expect much further.
Normally new administrations do not investigate old ones – atleast not over policy or small crimes.
What benefit is it to Grassley or anyone to discover that Obama did not follow the rules ?
Obama never followed the rules.
Unless we are looking to change the Rules or to undo the deal,
Grassley has no reason to dig further – and a criminal investigation would be Barr’s job
Of Course normally old administrations – even where the party changes cooperate with the new administration – rather than starting investigations and sabotage.
Most people do not grasp how highly unusual and highly improper and offensive all the crap done between the election and the inauguration was.
Either Obama or Trump should have pardoned Clinton and cronies.
Any investigation that continued should have been purely to throw up red flags for those who handled classified information improperly so that they would not be cleared in the future.
There should have been an actual real investigation of foreign interference – not restricted to Russia, and absent something far more credible than the Steele Dossier there should have been no investigation of the Trump campaign
Strzok, McCabe and Comey should have been fired for spying on a political campaign without reasonable suspicion. and there never should have been a special prosecutor.
Leakers should have been found and jailed.
As we are finding – there is a real whistleblower process.
That is the legitimate way to Resist.
My problem with the current whistleblower is that he alleges a policy difference.
That is all.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of what Trump asked Zelensky – even if it was a quid pro quo – though it was not.
The only “iffy” area is Biden – and the answer there is simple – probable cause exists.
End of discussion.
So far the “damaging” revelations in the impeachment investigation are:
Trump and carreer state department officials are at odds over foreign policy – and Trump fired Yavonavitch over trying to impliment her own foreign policy in ukraine,
And Trump have Guiliani doing something similar to what Steele was doing.
Which is perfectly legal even if less than paletteable.
As best as I can tell Gulliani was mostly building on or duplicating work done by John Solomon – are we saying that reporters are not allowed to dig for dirt on political candidates ?
And that aparently unbeknownced to Trump Barr has been very actively engaged in the investigations that Trump asked Guiliani and Zelensky for.
Politically Trump would have been better off leaving Barr to do his own thing.
But Trump knew what Solomon was doing, and he knew what Guliani was doing.
He did not know what Barr was doing – and Trump’s impeachment circus has interfered with Barrs investigations which is why DOJ is pissed at Trump.
At the same time Trump is betrayed at every step by “the deep state” – so yes, he is going outside normal channels to deal with people he can trust – like Gulliani or even Zelensky to do things he should be able to ask DOJ FBI, CIA, State …. to do.
Regardless, we have beautifil examples of why we need to slash and burn as much of federal government as possible – it is unneeded, too powerful and works against us.
It MIGHT be possible that republicans are starting to learn that a powerful CIA, NSA, FBI in the hands of a political enemy is just too dangerous.
Among other things the partiot act needs repealed.
Good article on polls.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_brian_joondeph/pollsters_push_sketchy_polls_again?fbclid=IwAR3LgFP30IfhpCvmNqLKyADzQITyG1u0kAc598FLx0EW6LRXn5oIE_wFmd0
Right on cue apparently trump has now called the emoluments clause of the Constitution phony. Just whow much more off the rails does he have to get before GOP voters and politicians stop the So What routine? Am I wrong that he swore to uphold the Constitution, or does his affluenza exempt him from that too?
History will not be kind.
I watched that press conference and this was an example of Trump’s inarticulate way of expressing his thoughts. I’m not saying that it’s a good thing that he is inarticulate, just that he didn’t mean that the emoluments clause itself is phony, but that the argument that his idea of having the G7 at Doral violated the clause is phony. He very accurately argued that progressives, (who are more than willing to violate the 1st, 2nd, 4th,10th etc amendments) are claiming that he would get publicity for his brand if he donated the venue for the gathering, and that that is ridiculous, because his “brand,” which is the Trump name, is already about as well known as any brand could possibly be. So, his position is simply that he would not be getting any value by making the venue available at cost, so the emoluments argument is phony, which it is, of course, in this case.
I might add, that he gave this impromtu conference in the West Wing, at the conclusion of a cabinet meeting, which he has done on several occasions, just as he always stops and answers unlimited questions on his way to Marine One, on the WH lawn, at least 2-3 times a week. He is, at least in our lifetime, the most transparent and accessible president that we’ve had, despite the fact that the press is all too willing to cherry pick and distort his words, and accuse him of being a tyrant. Some tyrant.
All that said, I cringed when he said, “the phony emoluments clause” when he clearly meant “the phony emoluments argument” because it was an unforced error, which was bound to become the latest outrage. His idea to have the G7 at Doral was an unforced error, as well. He makes many.
The reason that 90% of GOP voters support him, is because the recognize that his clumsy verbiage is not the issue. Rather it’s his policies and actions in office, and his willingness to stand up for constitutional freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion and the right to bear arms…as well as his unfettered willingness to speak his mind, even when his comments may be poorly articulated or politically incorrect.
I don’t know how his presidency will end, and I don’t know how historians will ultimately judge him. You may well be correct that history will be unkind. But I am certain that his willingness to defend the Constitution is his strength, not his weakness, and that, should progressives succeed in gaining the power that they seek, the Constitution will be effectively, if not actually, over.
George Will, Never Trumper extraordinaire, says very much the same about progressives and the Constitution:
https://www.theindependent.com/opinion/columnists/progressives-are-all-too-willing-to-cut-constitutional-corners/article_3397d076-f1e8-11e9-a1d6-8b7aaf894c92.html
Priscilla, I don’t know how my dislike, anger, and horror at progressive ideas and the progressive movement could be any clearer, I don’t know what words I could say to do that.
But the progressives have not won the presidency. A fully out of control trump holds the office, that is the issue today. If you are actually defending trumps decision to hold the G7 at his own business as moral, sound and legal, well, sometime you can still surprise me.
Things the progressives Might do if they get elected do not somehow excuse what is happening now with trump today, that is not going to work. History is going to be extremely unkind to trump and his supporters, there is zero doubt about that in my mind, although I am open to the idea that certain of his policies have some chance to turn out well over time and be seen as having some merit in spite of the fact that trump was behind them (but those same policies also have as good a chance of being full blown disasters over the course of time).
History is not only going to be ferociously unkind to trump, its going to be unkind to the GOP of this era. In fact, its not going to be good to this era period, the democrats will get their due beating in the history books as well, trump could not have happened without the democratic fiasco, but the story that will tower over the others is the insane presidency of donald trump and the blind loyalty of the GOP support for his actions and behaviors.
The progressives will have to do a lot, if they even somehow get in power, to trump trump. They most likely will simply fail in their goals, they will be incredibly naive but not likely malignant and insane on nearly the same scale as trump and his GOP.
If progressive get elected and DO become malignant and willfully destructive I WILL SAY SO, I will not play the So What game, I will be outraged and not just here. I’ll loudly publicly complain, I ‘ll write letters, as I have in the past, I’ll do everything to say NO to their actions that you and your fellows Won’t do about trump.
Someday the democrats will be in power again and the GOP will have lost a very large part of its ability to summon outrage, other than among its own voters, after the incredible performance of trump and the blind eye, in fact that support and defense the GOP has turned to almost every bit of it. When GOP figures complain about a future democrat it will not have much force, they will be properly called incredible hypocrites with no right to be taken seriously outside their own tribe.
As well, I can promise the trump-rotted GOP Will complain just as bitterly about a more moderate democrat POTUS, if one gets in, as they will about a progressive. The right wing TV personalities and politicians will gin up fake controversies and expect people to listen and believe them. A lot of people, and many more people than prior to trump, are going to just tune anything the GOP complains about in the future out, they have lost their dignity, sincerity, respectability. That is one of the many costs of trump. If you think the GOP had trouble previously in selling their criticisms of democrats, you ain’t seen nothing compared to what will be post-trump. No, I am not gleeful about that, I am just telling you what is very likely to be true.
There is not a single viable democratic candidate that is not promissing and agenda that is chock full of those “progressive ideas” that you claim to loath.
Though my guess is your idea of a loathsome progressive idea and mine is likely quite different – again a reason for speaking with FACTS. Making clear arguments.
It is as an example perfectly clear from your first paragraph that you claim to hate progressism. But completely ambigious as to what progressivism is.
Nor is this unique to “progressivism” – terms like racism, mysogyny, homophobia are lobbed in the same fashion.
Regardless, if either Biden, Warren, Sanders were elected and kept their campaign promisses to the extent that Donald Trump has – this country would likely end up in a depression inside of 5 months.
To vote for any current democrat you either MUST buy progressivism, or you must be praying that the candidates are lying. That is probably a reasonable assumption.
But it certainly does not make any of them morally superior to Trump.
You are correct – Progressives have not won the presidency.
But they have control of the house, and the choice in 2020 is between Trump and progressives – or between Trump and liars.
So tell me – which are you claiming:
That the promises of Warren, Biden, and Sanders are not progressive and disasterous ?
Or that they are lying about what they will doe as president ?
Your upset with Progressive Democrats running for president can be easily remedied.
Dump Trump and run a reasonable Republican for the office. All the Never-Trumper republicans and all the Anti-PC DEMS will rush to vote GOP.
Your silence on that has been deafening.
Can you quit pretending you know what I think and feel ?
Frankly I think it is pretty obvious what I think – and still you and robby get it horribly wrong all the time. Why would you beleive you can guess how I feel ?
I am not “upset” over the democratic candidates – they are just evidence that democrats have not learned why they lost 2020.
Nor am I going to get “upset” as you demand over whatever tiny utterance or action on Trump’s part has you whigged out today.
I am pretty mellow overall.
Why should the GOP Dump Trump ?
He is going to win – probably significantly
He has done reasonably well with the economy.
I can understand why NeoCons would want to dump him – and the bulk of rabid #nevertrumpers are neocons.
Why the democrats would welcome the support of the Cheney crowd I do not understand ?
How is it that with the election of Trump the democrats have gone from the party of peace to the endless war party ?
Why is it that despite his attacks on Democrats – Sen. Graham shares more in terms of foreign policy with Dems than Republicans ?
To the neocons I say good ridance.
Both parties should eschew them.
Please show me an anti-pc dem ?
All I see is whacko progressives and tepid progressives.
Even you and Robby get sucked into PC nonsense quite frequently.
So lets try to make things clear Trump is the epitome of Anti-PC.
Your outrage at Trump is BECAUSE he is anti-pc.
If as you say anti-pc dems would flock to the GOP without Trump – are there two of them ?
Where where these ant-pc dems in 2008 and 2012 ?
Why didn’t McCain and Romney win ?
The GOP is not winning elections without people who stand up to the PC crowd.
Maybe it is in theory possible to do so with more eloquence than Trump
Though I do not think blue collar voters in WI, OH,. MN. and PA are looking for eloquence.
G7 decision:
By all the evidence I have seen, it appears to be perfectly Sound. There is nothing wrong with Doral as a location. There are only a small number of fascilities in the world that meet the qualifications and Doral does. There is some debate about whether it is the best US choice – there is a claim that it is clearly. but inarguably it meets all the criteria and therefore is a sound choice.
Legal – it is obviously a legal choice.
Moral. Positive morality is NOT the scope of government or law. Judgement as to whether Doral is a Moral choice for Trump rests with the people not the government or the law.
Certainly the choice of Doral has the “appearance of impropriety” – though not nearly as bad as Biden blackmailing the ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating his son.
I do not think it is Morally wrong for Trump to propose a choice that appears to benefit him – if that choice is actually a good choice. At the same time I think it was a wise decision to withdraw Doral as a choice. Trump is in the midst of a moral battle with democrats – one that he is mostly winning, and to continue to do so he can not afford matters like Doral to even appear to pose a conflict.
But I will close by noting that any potential president who has ever said or expeically done anything of consequence will have instances where their choices will appear to benefit them personally and ALL choices of a president either benefit them politically or harm them politically. That is unavoidable.
I can explain CLEARLY why Biden’s actions in Ukraine were unethical – the benefit is CLEAR, and PERSONAL, and there is a trivial resolution – VP Biden needed to remove himself from involvement in anything that his son was involved in.
The VP is not required to participate in almost anything.
Conversely all actions of the federal government are ultimately the presidents.
Trump can try to extricate himself from decisions where he has some interest.
But it is not possible for him to do so actually, and it is also not possible for him to do so to your satisfaction.
Put simply – I am glad Trump has chosen to kill Doral as an issue.
But it NEVER rose to the level of consequence of Biden’s actions or Schiff’s or the lunatic star chamber Pelosi and Schiff are running.
“The progressives will have to do a lot, if they even somehow get in power, to trump trump”.
All they will have to do is return to the Obama status quo and drag growth down by 25-50% and that alone will do it.
Standard of living – which rises and falls based on growth, IS very close to the ultimate aggregate measure.
You rant Trump this and Trump that. Well the NET effect of Trump – all the good and all the bad – is a 25-50% increase in the rate of growth in standard of living.
We can discuss individual harms of Trump – and there are some, possibly that we would agree on.
We can even agree that they are bad and something should be done.
But where we part company is when you jump from Trump has done some things that are bad or unwise to Trump is inarguably a destructive force.
Our rising standard of living nor only argues otherwise, it ENDS the argument.
You want to replace Trump with someone better – tell me how any other choice we actually have will get us above 3% growth ? Above 5% ?
Just so we are clear – this is about the real lives of real people.
I read an interesting article recently – a tech worker in Austin TX who is paid 20% LESS than the same person in NYC, has 38% MORE disposable income.
The point is the daily lives of ordinary people that matter.
The next positive benefit of 3 years of 1% greater economic growth DWARFS the hypothetical benefit of “Medicare for all” – if there was an actual benefit, without even considering the tact that M4A has a huge cost.
The ultimate judgement of Trump (thus far) has been cast – by the economy.
That judgement is not stellar. It is just better than the prior 16 years.
If a Biden, Warren, or Sanders were elected and unable to impliment a single consequential campaign promise. Do you beleive that the economy would not revert back to sub 2% growth as they returned to Obama administrative approaches ?
Your entire claim regarding Trump’s harm is emotional.
If as you say Warren, Biden, or Sanders is elected and as is likely growth reverts to sub 2%
are you going to be foaming and frothing as you have over Trump ?
Are you going to be bemoaning ACTUAL destruction ?4
The point is – you tell me that Trump has been willfully harmful.
HOW SO ? Facts, not feelings.
You say that if Progressives are ACTUALLY harmful – you will vigorously opose them.
Why is it that I am certain that what you mean is that you are opposed to Trump because you deem him EMOTIONALLY harmful, and you you will have no problem with a progressive president that you deem not emotionally harmful.
But you will ignore actual harm of progressives or actual benefit of Trump ?
Real meaningful discussion REQUIRES FACTS.
“Someday the democrats will be in power again and the GOP will have lost a very large part of its ability to summon outrage”
Of course democrats will be in power again.
But 2016 should have been a wake up call. A “your are out of touch” message, a slap on the head to change directions.
Instead it was a call to double down on faux outrage.
As to democrats return to power – I do not care about the GOP ability to summon Faux Outrage.
If the next democrat improves standard of living, it will be very hard to attack them.
If they fail to do so they deserve the outrage they get.
Regardless, are you saying that Fast & Furious – the US government selling arms to illegal aliens and drug cartels does not demand outrage ?
Are you saying that the IRS targetting political groups based on their viewpoint rather than their actual conduct does nto demand outrage ?
Are you saying that leaving a US ambassador and about 100 CIA officers without assistance when attacked by terrorists is not something that demands outrage ?
Are you saying that lying about it does not demand outrage ?
Are you saying that spying on the press, congress and political candidates does not demand outrage ?
Republicans do not need to foment outrage – progressives will do that own their own – it is baked into their ideology.
“As well, I can promise the trump-rotted GOP Will complain just as bitterly about a more moderate democrat POTUS, if one gets in,”
I am sure they will – that is the nature of politics.
But that is NOT the choice we are facing.
The choice we have is between Trump and 3 people falling all over each other to prove they are really really progressive. The only way we get a moderate democrat POTUS is if they are lying.
“The right wing TV personalities and politicians will gin up fake controversies and expect people to listen and believe them”
I am sure they will. But you are created a bizzare false equivalence.
VP Biden claimed he was proud of a scandal free administration.
I listed several major scandals – all of which were worse than anything I can think of since Watergate. And there were many of them.
Bush did not have consequential scandals, he made bad policy decisions.
Clinton’s actual scandals were personal, not governmental.
Bush I and Reagan were embroiled in relatively minor policy conflicts conflated into scandals.
The Obama administration was Scandalous.
Todate – what actual scandal do you have involving Trump ?
You do not like his policies – fine, but that is not a scandal.
Trump/Russia collusion was not merely a fraud – a “witch hunt” – but it was OBVIOUSLY a fraud from the start – and it was a fraud started by Obama. To the extent is ti s a scandal, it is an Obama administration scandal that has bled into Trump.
What actual Scandal do have ?
Further I am not interested in What Rush Limbaugh says.
The problem at the moment is not that the far right or the far left is selling false narratives.
It is that the flagships of journalism are bat shit crazy.
Roby, you have said a number of times that we are much different in our beliefs in political issues. But the more you comment and I catch small things you say, I think we are much closer in what we think government should do than we are different. The major difference in our thinking, in my estimation, is the way the government goes about achieving an end to a means. Where I think interpretation of the constitution is literally based on the words, you are much more open to interpretation. But the goals we want seem to be much closer than one would think from many comments that have been made. To bad there is not an open forum someplace where that kind of discussion could take place.
The major difference between you and I seems to be the way we approach Trump. Where you are much more vocal (and finger dexterous here) than i am, we also have a total dislike for his personal actions and speech. Mine comes from just a total dislike for any obnoxious, overbearing, rude, crude individual, no matter what their position.
In this matter as well as others that have their roots in the constitution where specific words are used to define a restriction or other matter, the attention should now be on congress defining, thru legislation, what is and is not an emolument. Just as they are going to force the NCAA to define exactly what universities can and can not do with a person face and name. Why is that more important than defining what an emolument is today given the completely different business environment than in 1788, Unlike today, If George Washington owned hotels in England, France and Germany in 1776 ,.there was no way having a meeting in a hotel in Washington D.C. that he might have owned was going to help those in Europe. Clarification, and future court cases upholding or opposing that clarification should happen with this and any future issue that comes up such as “speech” on the internet.
Roby, first of all, I greatly appreciate your civil response. While I don’t really care that much if I am insulted and called names, it is all Jay ever does, and, after a certain point, it becomes pointless to engage.
Secondly, I do note that you have always been anti- progressive and anti-socialist. I have no doubt of that.
But it brings up a point that I often try to make, perhaps without success, and that is that many Trump supporters believe that the Democrat Party has been taken over by the progressive left, and that Trump is the only person who has stood between the left and the founding principles of our country. Moderates have not done so…they have talked the talk, but not walked the walk. Many have actively joined the progressive left in trying to remove Trump by means other than the electoral process.
To be clear, I said in my previous comment that I thought the idea to hold the G7 at Doral was an unforced error. It was a stupid idea that provided ammunition for his political enemies and the media (same thing) to bring up the phony emolument argument.
The clause in question reads: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
The meaning of “emolument” here is basically a bribe. I don’t see how Trump, a billionaire who owns multiple resorts and golf courses, offering to host an international conference at cost to his own property, qulaifies as a bribe.
Nevertheless, it was still stupid. I have no doubt that his better advisors tried unsuccessfully to dissuade him from the idea.
How history will judge him, I don’t know. But, given a choice between Trump and any of the Democrats running against him, including Biden, who is more moderate that the others, but corrupt and weak, I will support Trump. Unlike Ron and Dave, both of whom I admire and respect, I beleive that presidential elections in the US (up to this point, at least) present a binary choice. If I have to pick, I will pick the most viable candidate who will most closely adhere to the Constitution.
What is the difference between Obama and Sanders (or Warren) and why is former VP Biden indistinguishable from Warren and Sanders.
Because the democratic party has been taken over since Bill Clinton by progressives who are inherently socialists.
The other difference is that Obama imposed as much socialism as was politically possible in 2009.
Can we dispense with the word games – the democratic party is owned by socialists and has been for some time. They are not even hiding it any more.
Can we move on to examining how well socialism has done historically.
I.E. Badly and bloodily.
To be clear, I realize that Ron and Dave know that presidential elections are a binary choice, but if they cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate, they will vote for a 3rd party candidate, and maybe the message will get through.
I’m generally a lesser of two evils voter. We all make our choices.
Well, I am certainly not always civil, I get really mad at times about certain things and when I am uncivil I am, in my opinion, far more uncivil than Jay.
I do wonder what the level of trump support would be if the candidates on the Dem side this time were all of the say, Kerry, Biden, Obama, part of the left spectrum? I have the idea that if a good chunk of the democratic voters had not followed Bernie off to the land of make believe, trump might have approval in the mid 30s instead of very low 40s and be 25 points underwater instead of half that. A POTUS who is as bad as trump really ought to be 25 points underwater at least. The threat of the loony left getting into power does give cohesion to the right, and even people in the center do not want the loony left at all.
However, I cannot see how having Pence as POTUS would undermine the defense against the loony left, in fact I see him as a stronger defence. Trump could actually lose to Warren and probably would. That is incredible! She is much further to the left than all the democrats from McGovern on who have been soundly beaten and she has a better than even chance of beating trump! That does not scare the right? They are just in denial, they think the polls are meaningless. In my opinion the best chance for the right to defend its ground is to accept Pence and stop defending the indefensible with trump. I simply cannot understand why they are still defending trump, other than to avoid admitting they have been wrong, wrong, wrong about trump from day 1. Well, pride cometh before a fall.
I don’t mind if republicans defend the part of trumps policies that are simply in line with previous GOP/ conservative ideas. I do mind when they choose trumps character as the hill they are willing to die on. That is going to cost them dearly in time. I mind (more than mind I am enraged and wildly disappointed) when they refuse to concede the reality that they would never defend all the loony things trump does on a nearly daily basis if any kind of democrat did them. “Falling in love” with Lil Kim? His relationship with Putin? Never in a million years would the GOP in all of its parts not be enraged and on the total warpath if a Dem POTUS did that and many other things. Pressing Ukraine to dig up dirt on his most likely opponent from 2015 and withholding military aid as pressure? Never in a billion years would conservatives not believe that was impeachable if a Democrat did it.
I want the extremes of both parties to get their asses kicked in 2020, unfortunately only one side can be humiliated. I am still hoping that a relative moderate comes out of the Dem primary. Biden is not dead and Buttigieg sounds quite sensible a lot of the time and is apparently gaining. I like Amy Klobuchar, she represents my wing of the spectrum. Not a vote has been cast yet and the spotlight now really is beginning to shine on Warren’s goofy ideas. The Democrats REALLY want to win, to choose the most electable candidate this thing could turn around. As well, I do not see trump surviving his latest round of self inflicted damage and if he does he is badly damaged in the election.
So, how about Pence vs. Buttegieg, that would be a return to sanity. Its not impossible that we return to sanity. Most people I meet seem sane, are we really just permanently insane as a political culture? I’ll be an optimist for once and say no.
trump vs. Warren or trump vs. Sanders is a disastrous choice for our culture no matter who would win. if trump should win that would really Not be a good thing for the GOP long term. They would be better off having Warren win and fail than to get the blame for 4 more toxic years of trump.
So a Pence/ Buttegieg ticket might be interesting, but Buttegieg would not have a snowballs chance in hell.given his sexuality. for one, the black community is far less open to acceptance of the LGBTQ community and he would not pull well with the minorities for that reason.
I don’t find his positions to be that negative except for healthcare, but I wonder if that is really something he would risk his administration on should he get elected. I am just very negative to any government run healthcare system knowing what I know about Medicare and especially Medicaid. But as I just said in another message, this is also a topic for discussion in a different forum.
The only constituentcies that give two shits whether someone is gay anymore are all democrats – blacks and muslims.
Yet, not a day passes when all republicans are called homophobic.
Again where I part ways with Will.
At some point when your oponents lie repeatedly about you and worse everyone who supports you, you must fight fire with fire.
I hear absolutely no cry to bring Obama back as president.
The left has rejected him, most of the rest of us are tired of the economic doldrums.
Next please do not try to sell Obama as some centrist democrat – he is not.
PPACA was a disaster – if it had actually been implimented as past our healthcare would have been destroyed.
It is purportedly popular now – bunk, because it has been almost completely eviscerated.
There is next to nothing left of it.
Regardless PPACA was destructively bad policy – and it was fairly socialist.
And it has had horrible effects.
Prior to PPACA 30% of the hospitals in the US were catholic. I do not know the exact statistics, but myriads of these have closed or been sold to private parties.
PPACA was openly hostile to charity and religion and has had a massively destrcutive influence on charity.
PPACA has also fostered massive consolidation in healthcare – In 2008 there were 5 independent local hospitals – there are now only two chains – neither is local.
Further in 2008 most doctors were in private practice – now just about every doctor I know or have is part of some statewide system.
We have thoroughly destroyed a massive area of the economy in which talented people had the opportunity to start small and successful businesses.
We have dramatically moved medicine from being a part of the private economy to being a public utility.
You seem to think that Socialism is about government ownership – it is not,
it is about govenrment control.
As someone noted – after you have paid off your mortgage if you must continue to pay property taxes that are almost as high as a mortgage – do you ever truly own your house ?
Regardless, government control of the economy expands all the time.
And economy growth slowly edges downward as that happens.
And PPACA is only one example that Obama was a disasterous left wing nut president.
Do we have to go through the entire list ?
Though the real bottom line is that – the economy is growing 25-50% faster under Trump than Obama.
I do not really care whether your prefered president is eloquent and inoffensive, if he screws up our standard of living.
“ I hear absolutely no cry to bring Obama back as president.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…..
Do I have to explain why that statement is laughably moronic?
Jay,
You can not explain why that statement is “moronic” because it is not.
After Obama was elected – there were billboards put up with President Bush saying “to you miss me now ?”
Not a big bush fan, but they were funny and poignant.
No one – not even democrats wants Obama back even if they could have him.
Quite often the democrats debates are an anti-obama cheering session.
Regardless no one wants to go back to 1.8% average increases in standard of living.
Excellent article by Will – except that it does not go far enough.
We have EXISTING laws that are a problem – either because they are unconstitutional, or because they do not work or BOTH.
I am very very tired of this nonsense that any action that has a political benefit is somehow an illegal campaign contribution.
So let me be clear – ALL laws that in anyway prohibit political contributions AND/OR political expression – and the purpose of ALL political contributions is poltiical expression are
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
They are also going to fail.
It is NEVER going to be possible to draw a enforceable line between any concept of legitimate poltiical expression or contribution and that which is illegitimate.
It is also stupid – no matter how reprehensible, to pass laws that we can not enforce.
I have addressed Russian political interference before – the actual evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election turns out to be MINISCULE and ineffective – in the sense that it did not alter the outcome one iota. It was however very effective in disrupting the US political system.
Regardless, WE – both americans and our govenrment constantly interfere in elections arround the world. And other nations interfere in ours. SOME foreign leaders are cautions about expressing public oppinions in US elections – because supporting the wrong guy would be very bad for their country if they lose. But there is still plenty of foreigners voicing their views in US elections – John Oliver, and Christopher Steele as an example.
We can not enforce laws barring foreigners from expressing an oppinion in US elections.
We can not prevent Russian Oligarchs from engaging in social media campaigns
NOR SHOULD WE – while the constituution does not apply globally, and Russians in foreign countries are not entitled to US government protections of US constitutional rights.
The fact is that even if the US government is not required to protect the rights of individuals throughout the globe a RIGHT is by defintion something every human is entitled to.
Free speech – including political speech, including political speech in US elections included.
If Putin personally started posting on TNM tomorow – would you ban him by law ?
You do not convert people by silencing them.
I always have trouble with those who tell me in their own words what someone else said – like Adam Schiff reading his version of the Trump phone call transcript.
But I especially have problems when those people have a record of making false allegations of lying in the past and therefore have no credibility.
If you want me to take your allegations regarding Trump seriously, you are going to need something beyond your own assertions.
Because you have lost my trust. When you say Trump said something – I no longer beleive you. It is near certain that whatever you claim Trump “said” is either false or spun sufficiently that is is grossly misrepresentative.
There is a reason that despite the fevered pitch of impeachment in the past few weeks that Trump’s approval rating has been barely touched.
Very few people beleive those making this fevered allegations.
That should give you pause.
That should portend badly for the left in 2020.
dhlii “ Washington sold land to the federal government – and no one said a thing.”
Read the relative amendment, dummy.
Congress has authority to wave those restrictions on a case by case basis if it deems them proper.
Did your brain go into free fall on that?
A2.S1.7
7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
There is no congressional “waiver” language in their at all.
The president may not receive any emolument from the united states during his term of office outside of his PAY.
If Washington received payment for land – either that is not an emolument or he violated the constitution.
What does it take before you grasp that to get where you want to go,
You must both add words to the constitution, remove others, and change the meaning of what is left ?
There is a reason this nonsense has lots in the courts.
Section, not amendment…
Ok I’ll bite. And not supporting Trump……. questioning actions of others.
Constitution states “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
So if one group can “interpret” the constitution to mean something others interpret 180% different, why cant Trump interpret the word ” emolument ” to mean “profit” and not “cash flow or items of value”.
This is where interpretation gets into the political division and should not end up that way. When the constitution was written, it was clear what words meant and they have not changed.
One of the problems with the emoluments clause – beyond your examination is that it has never been used before.
Generally we have accepted – especially in modern times that it means presidents can not accept gifts for themselves.
Washington sold land to the federal government – and no one said a thing.
We also presume that the emoluments clause means that the president can not be employed by others.
The broad interpretation of the emoluments clause that the left wishes – would require anyone elected to give away everything they owned.
There could be no possibility of “profiting” from a decision as president.
A blind trust would not be sufficient.
Regardless not only do we have the requirement that any clause in the constitution (or law) be interpretted as it meant at the time it was ratified, but also that all law must be interpretted narrowly.
There is a really good reason for that. All law is near certain to conflict with other law and the constitution if interpretted broadly.
We can fix flawed narrow interpretations by changing the law.
We can not fix broad interpretations.
The word “emolument” has a broad meaning. At the time of the Founding, it meant “to profit or benefit,” or receive ‘advantage” of any kind from any “foreign State” unless Congress consents. (U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 8).
The Founders would have torn a new asshole for any president in their time who tried to get away with this Trump-like disregard for the Constitution, as President Self-Indulgent has done. He called it “the phony Emoluments Clause” the other day. You think the Conservative members of SCOTUS will agree with him?
I just looked that up as I did previously with another section.
U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 8 states “Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
You have added “to profit or benefit,” or receive ‘advantage” of any kind from any “foreign State”. Please provide link to this interpretation from the founding fathers, the Federalist Papers or some other document at the time the constitution was written. As I said earlier, what does the word mean in today’s environment? What does it mean to “profit” from some action?
congress needs to define that term now that it has become an issue. They should have defined it before it became an issue, but when do they ever act instead of react?
Ron I used the meanings of the word as understood by the Founders.
See “Emolument” in Blackstone’s Commentaries, here:
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/05/emolument-in-blackstones-commentaries.html
Please read the actual language int he constitution.
This is not really that hard.
To get where you want you not only have to interpret emoluments broadly – you have to eliminate words from the constitution.
The link you provide is NOT Blackstone but ONE analysis of blackstone, and not a very good one.
The author essentially argues that Blackstone used Emoluments as an adjective of sorts applying it to many things.
If that is so then contrary to the argument of the author – emoluments does not broadly mean anything emolument was used coincident with. Just as saying “red” does not specifically mean everything in the universe that is red.
Regardless the constitution bars the president from receiving emoluments from the United States – other than his salary, from the states separately.
That is why political parties must pay for AF1 when the president takes it to a political event.
It does not preclude the president from receiving a salary from a private company, from buying or selling anything.
The Foreign emoluments clause – is specific to congressmen and officiers of the United States – which the courts have in other contexts found does NOT mean the president or the vice president. But even if it does – it would preclude the president from personally recieving gifts from foreign governments.
Even Blackstones use of Emoluments – is always qualified – i.e. limited.
Jay, thanks, good info. I will keep link and do some deeper research!
If you want to know what Blackstone says – read Blackstone, not what someone says blackstone says.
Jay’s source is selling an agenda – badly.
Blackstone is the originator of the concept of original intent.
I would further note that Jay’s source cites Blackstone’s use of emoluments – and every instance is a use in a complex construction. In each example the meaning is narrow – because jointly only a narrow meaning is possible.
The sources is argument is that because Emoluments is used in so many different places in Blackstone it must have a broad meaning – but that does not follow.
From the provided examples Blackstone almost uses Emoluments as an adjective.
The paper’s other is trying to conflate the broad number of things and adjective can be used to describe with broad meaning for the adjective.
That is like saying because many different things are red, red means many things.
And that is false.
This argument is not quite perfect – because emolument is not an adjective.
But it is correct in the sense that Jay’s source concludes that emoluments most have a broad meaning because Blackstone uses it to modify many other nouns.
You can not conflate the breadth of the nouns into breadth on the part of the modifer.
What is actually clear is that the founders never raised an eyebrow at actions by early presidents that by Jay’s argument would have violated the clause much more than Trump.
Congress can not alter the meaning of a term in the constitution without amending the constitution.
emoluments means what it meant when the constitution was ratified – if you want it to mean something different change the constitution.
From the constitution
Please note A1.6.2 applies to Congress.
A1.9.8 applies to congress but the courts have concluded that an office of Trust includes appointed members of the executive branch. The President and Vice President are NOT considered by the courts to be officers in the executive – they are elected. Their powers and responsibilities are dictated by the constitution. They are specifically exempted from nearly all federal ethics laws – probably because the courts will not allow congress to impose constraints on the president not in the constitution.
A2.1.7 is the only clause that clearly applies to the president.
And it merely says the president can not be paid by a State or by the federal government outside of the compensation set for the president before the election.
Emoluments
Article 1 – Legislature
Ssection 6
2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section 9
8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article II – executive.
7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
The moment you said “broad” you lost the debate.
When a term in law or constitution can be understood broadly it MUST be understood narrowly or it is unconsitutional.
Broad and unconstitutional are synonyms in SCOTUS.
“Broad Interpretation” is a legal term, you horse’s ass, frequently used in discussing SCOTUS constitutional judicial decisions. It means they DECIDED a case on a broad as opposed to narrow reading of the Constitution.
Ask your wife. Maybe she’ll pat you on the head and patiently explain it to you.
And I’m not debating with you- I’m trying to explain obvious conclusions to a feckless fool, in your case a waste of time, like explaining philosophy to a giraffe 🦒
BZZT, wrong.
SCOTUS occasionally does stupid things.
And there is limited oversight of SCOTUS.
But the actual convention – nearly always followed is that powers of government and restrictions on rights must be understood int eh narrowest sense,
While actual rights and language about rights must be understood in the broadest sense.
This is not merely a requirement of law – it is a requirement of logic.
Further – do you know where the first exposition that laws must be interpreted based on original intent comes from … Blackstone.
Blackstone advocated that law should be taught as science, and that it should be developed using the scientific method. Which BTW means NARROW defintions.
I would suggest that you might want to read Blackstone – as it is another of the classical liberal milestones of the era.
Put simply you will not like it.
“The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature, but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.”
Blackstone
Sounds an awful lot like
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
“I am not debating with you”
Correct – debate requires adherance to facts, logic, reason.
You keep offering up things that do not support your arguments.
With the advent of Trump many of the left have started to pay some attention to actual legal philosophy and principles.
And that is a good thing. It is things like federalism that are important constraints on executives that claim to much power for themselves.
But get a clue – if you wish to broadly interpret one part of the constitution – you are required to broadly interpret all of it.
You are used to trying to impute broad executive powers into the constitution – because that is what is necescary to allow most everything that democrats have done over the past 100+ years.
But now you want to constrain Trump – and that requires NARROWLY interpretting the same powers you sought to interpret broadly over the past century – or just a few years ago with Obama in power.
It does not matter – interpretting the law or constitution broadly – just results in dueling clauses. If you broadly interpret one clause – I or Trump’s lawyers will broadly interpret another, and the results will be conflict – all over the place all the time and no accepted means to resolve the conflict.
Rights are interpreted broadly, powers of government and provisions of law narrowly, that is the means to law that does not abridge the purpose of the social contract and results in minimal unresolveable conflicts.
The assorted emoluments clauses are special restrictions on the rights of individuals who engage in different forms of public service – such as congressmen and presidents.
As restrictions on rights they must be interpreted narrowly.
There is not a debate here – you do not have the skills necescary to debate.
If you are going to make assertions regarding the founders understanding of the term emoluments – you must support those.
You can not even support your argument with MODERN defintions of emolument.
As has been noted before – George Washington sold alot of land to the federal government while president.
No one raised the emoluments clause, no one sought to impeach him.
That pretty much destroys any claim that our founders would have had any problems with Trump with respect to emoluments.
Regardless this entire line of argument is crap.
As I noted before – unless you come into office a pauper, anything a president does can arguably harm them or benefit them financially (or politically)
Using a broad definition as you insist means that even blind trusts would not protect you.
Further – as several courts have already held – there are no requirements to be president except those specified in the constitution.
For emolument to mean as you assert – that would mean the emoluments clause requires every president to possess nothing that could in any possible way have its value increased by their actions as president.
That would mean even blind trusts would not work, and no one owning a business of invested in anything would be allowed to be president.
Even if you do not understand why every restriction of people or power of govenrment must be intereted narrowly and every liberty broadly. you still have a basis for understanding the emoluments clause narrowly.
Because otherwise it creates a new apriori restriction on who can be president that does not exist elsewhere in the constitution and is not framed as a qualification to become president in the emoluments clause.
In 1810 congress overwhelmingly passed and the states very nearly ratified an amendment to the constitution that would have applied the foreign emoluments clause to every citizen in the US.
No One at the time though that would preclude people from doing business with foreigners.
Or even profiting from doing business with foreigners.
If you want to tell us what the founders thought – find THEIR WORDS and ACTIONS
The Emoluments clause is discussed in the federalist papers.
Even the courts – which have used a pretty broad defintion – emoluments appears 3 times in the constitution including restricting members of congress. 2 of which have nothing to do with foreign entities.
No one has ever claimed a congressmen can not own a business or profit.
In fact no one has suggested that it barred congressmen from having a job other than congressmen.
And for most of US history congressmen have worked outside of congress.
This is what frustrates Ron and I and Priscilla about you Robby and leftists.
You just plain make shit up.
If we say you have to look at what the founders intended – you make up with the founders beleived. You rarely if ever cite them.
You really do not seem to get this.
When you make arguments – you do not get to make up the facts supporting them.
You do not get to make up accusations against others.
When you do these things everyone else decides you have no credibility or integrity.
Respect, Credibility and integrity are NOT rights.
They are earned.
Nor are they binary – we do not start assuming people are liars. We also do not start assuming they tell the truth.
They earn our respect or disrepect based on their actions and speach.
I 2017 various left groups filed emoluments lawsuits against Trump.
Only one of those has survived and that has only one weak claim left.
I do not think SCOTUS is going to get to decide because the issue will be dead.
But if they do, they are not going for a broad definition of emoluments.
So many ironies in our current situation. THe Clinton Foundation was basically an “emolument facilitating” organization for both Bill and Hillary. If you want to understand emoluments, all you have to do is look at the way the CF welcomed billions in foreign cash, while Hillary was SecState.
“Violating the emoluments clause is a serious offense, punishable by impeachment. But Trump’s the wrong target. When Hillary Clinton routinely violated the clause, Democrats were silent. Their sudden interest is obvious hypocrisy.”
More problems for Lying President Scurvy:
“ The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain.” Washington Post.
Jay, we have been through this all before.
When you can actually present an identifiable person to testify to this – i.e. that they were directed as reported – not merely hearsay. Then this might prove interesting.
In the meantime it is merely another of the anomymous leaks cited by WaPo or NYT that have proven false
I am highly dubious this is true.
Myriads of people HAVE testified that Ukraine was unaware their was a hold, that there was no quid pro quo, that Ukraine was already investigating Biden and democratic election interference in 2016 since atleast February 2019, and Zelensky and his subordinates have publicly stated – they were unaware of any delay in aide.
Given that – your leak is extremely dubious.
But lets presume it is correct.
Lets edit the crap out of the phone call Between Trump and Zelensky as follos – not Adam Schiff version – but close.
Trump:
Ukraine will not see a dollar of US Aide until it open’s an investigation of Former VP Biden’s successful blackmail of the Ukraine to halt and investigation into his son.
That is the worst possible thing that I have heard credibly alleged regarding Trump.
And it is LEGAL, It is MORE legal than Biden demanding Shokin get fired.
But to finish the Transcript
Zelensky:
We Opened a new investigation into Burisima and the Bidens before I was elected,
when can we expect to receive aide ?
There is a reaon that Adam Schiff massively exagerated Trump’s phone call – because anything less would not have been a crime.
“It was just the most damning testimony I’ve heard,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in an interview partway into Taylor’s testimony.
“He drew a very specific direct line from President Trump to the withholding of foreign aid and the refusal of a meeting,” between Trump and the new Ukrainian leader, Wasserman Schultz said.
The problem is that he did not do that.
Nothing I have seen has Williams testifying to first hand knowledge regarding Trump.
What you have is hearsay coming from someone who Williams is claiming to be getting direction from who is not Williams superior, who denies what Williams is claiming and where we have Texts between Williams and Sonderland that tell something different.
And ultimately even if you did have what your claim you have – you still do not have anything.
We went through lots of this with Trump/Russia
1). Trump did not do pretty much any of what was alleged by leaks.
2). Had Trump actually done what was alleged it would not be illegal.
I do not beleive that Trump tied aide to Ukraine to investigating Biden.
There is very little that supports that, and alot that contradicts it.
But if he actually did – there is probable cause that Biden committed a crime.
That is sufficient justification.
You constantly want to skip that. As if it is OK for Obama to investigate, to spy, to wire tap, to seek help on all of the above from foreign countries when Trump is the target, but not acceptable when Biden is the target ?
There remains to this day insuficient basis for “reasonable suspicion” much less probable cause, which is what is required for an investigation of Trump,
while Biden’s own statement is probable cause – and there is plenty to add to that.
Is this the house investigation into Trump pressuring Ukrainian president?
Are the GOP members still blocked from asking questions or limited in anyway as reported they would be 7 days ago?
My understanding of the current state of Adam Schiff’s “Star Chamber” is
This is all being done via the house intelligence committee.
That allows greater freedom for Schiff to lock down the investigation.
He has chosen to hold closed hearings – despite the fact that there are no national security issues.
Initially they were transcribed hearings, but he shifted to deposed hearings.
I am not exactly sure what the rational difference is but the critical factor is that leaks from a deposed hearing can result in ethics complaints that would bar the alleged leaker from participation until the ethics committee ruled.
This essentially allows democrats to leak as they wish – because neither Schiff nor the house ethics committee will even take up an allegation of leaking made by republicans, but means that republicans are essentially gagged from talking about the hearings.
Next unlike all other house hearing that do not involve matters of national security – Schiff has barred republican members of congress from sitting in on the hearings – not to ask questions but just to hear testimony. There are claims that some democrats and democratic staff have been allowed to participate.
There is also a claim that Democrats lawyers have been allowed to question witnesses.
Regardless, all of this is highly unusual – i.e. has never happened before in any context impeachment or otherwise.
There are some stories that the goal of this is NOT to impeach. Pelosi has no intention of ever having democrats vote on impeachment – not to start it not to approve articles of impeachment. That the goal here is to essentially empower Schiff to function as a Special Counsel and to run the intell committee much like a grand jury and to seek as much damaging information using enhanced subpeona power – hoping that the courts will accept that faux impeachment is the same as an action impeachment proceeding and therefore to breach executive priviledge.
Even the witnesses that are testify are problematic – anyone currently an employee of the executive can not testify in a house hearing until cleared by their department absent a court order, and must be provided with a department lawyer.
A private person can testify voluntarily or under subpeona.
But there is no personal liability for breaching a house subpeona if directed to by your department. Part of this is to allow for examination of potential claims of executive priviledge.
Part of it is to allow clarifying national security issues.
The executive can not ultimately prevent government employees from testifying.
But they can both make sure the process is difficult and that they are well prepared before testifying. This is not new, it is executive strategy for dealing with congress for much of my life. Barr has as example refused to testify when subpeoned to cover ground he had already testified to.
Regardless, both sides are playing games and seeking to manipulate this to their advantage.
But Trump is not doing anything that pretty much every prior president has done tactically.
Schiff and Pelosi are making up new rules as they go.
I would have thought that as each of the prior democratic efforts to gain advantage by changing the rules has bitten them in the ass, that they might have learned – what goes arround comes arround.
Trump has the Horowitz report coming out soon. It is highly unlikely that will be favorable for democrats – even if horowitz pulls his punches all over.
Given that he has already refered Comey for prosecution – even though Barr refused. Horowitz is pretty clearly signaling a really bad report for Dems.
Durham and hunter will be following. I did not realize this until recently – but though they are US attorneys conducting investigations – they do not have subpeona power either,
so except for government employees who must testify or be fired they are limited in what they can get.
Purportedly Barr now has two Cell Phones from Mifsud
And there is some claim that Mifsud might have actually talked to Barr/Durham.
But overall there are far fewer leaks regarding Durham and Hunter than Mueller.
Most of what is know is the result of people who were questioned talking – because that can not be stopped.
There is also a very credible claim that the entire whistleblower nonsense is a last ditch effort by the “deep state” to thwart the Durham investigation.
There are already possibly 90 people in the state department who have been formally censured over Clinton’s email.
These people will have trouble getting promoted or getting security clearances in the future.
Even if Durham/Hunter/Barr’s investigations result in no prosecutions they could very seriously impact hundreds of people in “the deep state” effectively dead ending their careers.
So it is very reasonable to beleive there is a very active effort inside the “deep state” to thwart Trump.
Remember Government is both a prosecutor and an employer of these people.
While firing most of them is damn near impossible, and prosecuting them might be very difficult. There are many other employer related disciplinary measures possible.
No federal employee has the right to participate in the #resistance.
They can follow the policies handed down from the president – or they can resign.
There is no “do your own thing” inside the federal government.
The other thing going forward is that both Barr and some others in the IC have been given broad declassification authority by Trump.
This is proceeding incredibly slowly – some because heels are dug in, but also possibly because Barr is looking to not undercut his own investigations.
Regardless, there is likely to be alot of bad news for democrats between now and next november.
I do not personally care about most of this Star Chamber – though I have fun dismembering Jay’s half baked breathless claims.
This nonsense is going nowhere – I doubt that if you had Trump saying very nearly what Schiff claims he said to Zelensky you could get a majority of the house to vote to impeach.
Investigating Biden is legally justifiable. No matter how hard the press has tried to claim there is nothing there – there is way more than enough to justify investigating Biden.
Biden is not what this is about. Stopping Trump’s war on the deep state is.
A re-elected Trump with a compelling claim that the deep state tried to take him out and failed. will at the very least allow side stepping much of the permanent executive aparatus.
Trump is already heavily conducting foreign policy outside of normal channels and was doing so BEFORE Guliani.
Trump is perfectly capable of running the critical parts of the federal government with a fairly small number of people and completely isolating the rest from real knowledge of anything.
That is likely Trump’s goal and that is likely what democrats and the permanent executive is trying to thwart.
Further Democrats have little time here. The election cycle is already started and house elections will heat up soon. There will be no time to “impeach” Trump or even continue investigations very soon. But Trump will have plenty of opportunity to campaign and the barr, durham. hunter investigations stories and opposible prosecutions will continue regardless of the campaign.
If you think Trump has his “back against the wall” you should look at some of his rallies.
Or even full clips of him talking to the press.
He is having fun. You do not see that when you look at soundbites from the media.
“There are some stories that the goal of this is NOT to impeach. Pelosi has no intention of ever having democrats vote on impeachment –”
If that is just now coming out, I should become a political reporter. I said that many times, even here that Pelosi does not want to impeach, just drag it out to weaken Trump in the election.
Whats good for the party is all they are interested in . To hell with whats good for the country. can’t make money off that!
Drawing this out does not weaken Trump – not in the long run.
Starting down this road in any form was a mistake.
What is the line from Emerson “If you strike the King, you must kill the King”.
Anything short of Trump’s removal – requiring almost half of Senate Republicans will be a loss for democrats.
At this moment there is not even a potential charge that will truly hold up.
So long as there is reasonable suspicion of corruption on Biden’s part, Trump’s actions are justified.
If you say that there can be no investigation of a political candidate – then you completely destroy any hope that anything that the Obama administration did in 2015 and 2016 is legitimate.
One option that McConnel has in the unlikely event this is dropped on his door is to have a procedural vote on just that. Without presenting evidence or anything.
Just asking the Senate as a whole to determine if the charge made by the house constitutes an impeachable offense if proven. And likely this dies there.
Such a vote would set a permanent standard for conduct in the executive branch.
It would be impossible to even investigate any political candidate.
But I do not think Pelosi will ever let the house vote on anything.
It was a huge political mistake to start this.
Merely starting makes you look really foolish if you fall short.
Any damage to Trump is short term – absent a clear smoking gun – something that people accept AFTER really thinking about. AFTER public scrutiny.
And Schiff is not going to come up with that.
Schiff’s best hope is that he gets something like Watergate.
That in the course of chasing one thing he trips over another – something actually damning.
But he is stuck in what is essentially a foreign policy impeachment and that is the worst arena for him – as the president has nearly infinite foreign policy powers.
I watched Gingrich in an interview recently – and I think he is happy as a clam.
He has had an asterisk beside him over the Clinton impeachment.
Though he found a real crime and delivered an impeachment.
He did not meet the standard the public wanted, and it cost him and republicans.
Now he is watching as Pelosi makes his own mistake look small.
This will be what Pelosi and Schiff will be remembered for forever,
Just as Mueller’s failure to get the big game and his bumbling performance in front of nadler will be Mueller’s legacy.
Gingrich is watching his biggest mistake get erased by Pelosi.
I can not open the NYT story in April of 2019 – because of the NYT paywall.
Regardless, it is an announcement by the Ukrainian PG that they were investigating Biden
Now why exactly would Trump have been pressuring the Ukraine to Investigate Biden – if they were already doing that ? And why would he be threatening them if they did not publicly announce they were doing so – when they were already doing so ?
http://themillenniumreport.com/2019/05/candidate-biden-has-a-huge-ukraine-corruption-scandal/
I would offer a different explanation – what is going on – via democrats and “the deep state” is an effort to STOP an investigation into Biden and Ukrainian malfeasance in 2016 involving democrats.
Holy EXTORTION!
From Bill Taylor’s testimony:
“Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”
Trump wanted to use taxpayer money, to get Ukraine to pay up with political dirt on Biden, before signing off on promised aid. President Mafiosi was making the Ukraine an offer they couldn’t refuse.
You have not provided a transcript – and to my knowledge Adam Schiff has not released any.
Taylor is not Sonderland – i.e. the purported testimony is hearsay.
Sonderland is not Trump,
Sonderland’s analogy is interesting, and if you could actually make it fit, which I do not think you can, would be proof Trump did nothing wrong.
If the Ukraine actually Owed the US something asking for it before delivering payment would be perfectly legal.
I would suggest looking up the law on extortion or blackmail.
It is not extortion or blackmail to demand something the other party is obligated to provide.
Lastly – your jump from what Taylor says Sonderland says to what you concoct is a flight of fancy.
I want to return to “overly broad” interpretations again.
It is important – because whether we are talking about the constittuion or your interpretation of what someone else has said.
Overly broad is a synonym for LIE.
You, Schiff, the media, assorted democrats keep using the word “dirt”.
Trump did not ask for dirt – not on Biden, not on democrats.
He asked for specific things – investigations – specific investigations.
He did not as an example ask Zelensky to check on whether Biden was cheating on his wife in Ukraine – or exploring “greek” sexual fantasies.
That would have been Clinton.
He did not ask for just anything about Biden.
Nor did he ask for specific results.
He asked for specific investigations.
He did not ask for specific outcomes.
When you use overly broad words or interpretations you misrepresent words and actions – you lie about them.
We have Trump’s words – we do not need to substitute your interpretations.
All of this testimony – though frankly not damaging and not able to stretch as far as you are trying is mostly meaningless.
It is not relevant what Sonderland told Taylor – unless we are trying to impeach Sonderland.
To get Trump – you need something he has said – and it would have to be something that was communicated to Ukraine to meet your claims,
You would need Trump to have actually said what Schiff said he said.
This is purportedly Williams testimony.
Again if actually true – please tell me why asking from the Ukraine to investigate something where there is more than reasonable suspicion constitutes a crime ?
there is no quid pro quo here. We still have no actual evidence that the Ukrainians were aware of any of this – which they continue to deny.
You have an awful lot of people contradicting Taylor, and you have taylor’s version of events falling far short of what you need.
There also appears to be an effort to conflate Guliani’s efforts with official actions.
Taylor – and many others were clearly pissed about Guliani meddling in their domain.
I can understand that they are pissed. But that is still life.
It has been quite common in US history for US presidents to use private parties to conduct diplomacy outside of normal channels.
It is an extremely useful device specifically because that person DOES NOT represent the US officially. They are free from ordinary constraints. Technically the speak for themselves and have broad scope for independent action. but any deal you reach with them can easily be repudiated – as happened with Carter and North Korea.
Put More Simply – Guliani could have delivered exactly the message that Adam Schiff spewed as Trump’s phone call to Zelensky and it would not be illegal.
Because Gulliani does not speak for the United States – not even actually the president.
“During that phone call, Amb. Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Taylor testified.
BTW this still remains HEARSAY.
This is important – you want to “get Trump” you have to actually get Trump.
We already know that numerous members of the state department – specifically Yavonovich were acting entirely on their own in defiance of Trump’s stated policies.
Why is it hard to beleive that others such as Sonderland might have been acting on their own trying to accomplish something they THOUGHT Trump wanted ?
Trump’s D.C. hotel abruptly cancels Christian aid group’s Kurdish solidarity event.
“ A Christian aid group that planned a gathering to honor and pray for the Kurdish people at President Trump’s hotel in Washington were told by hotel staff this week that the event was canceled, according to two members of the aid group.
The event, called “A Night of Prayer for the Kurds,” was to be hosted by Frontier Alliance International (FAI), a religious nonprofit group that provides medical help in the Middle East, including to the Kurds, according to its website.” Washington Post.
The Christian Group was told Trump ordered the cancelation because he didn’t give a crap about the Kurds, and didn’t want to further rile Erdogan…
(OK that’s invented faux news… but it has a Ring of truth)
The FAI held their night of prayer at the Hyatt – it should be over by now.
If you go to the FB page you can watch the top clip by Dalton Thomas, who does not sound very much like a Christian Missionary but alot like a YPG appologist.
Regardless, he is free to follow god as he pleases – including lamenting that the retreating YPG had to leave behind tanks and heavy weapons – not a very christian sentiment.
Conservative attack President Lying Penis:
Bill Taylor, a known lefty socialist progressive, right dhlii…
While Taylor appears to have significant past Ukrainian history – he was not in Ukraine until very recently – I am trying to determine when he arrived – but it was After Yavonovitch was fired, and possibly after the Zelensky phone call.
His testimony is quite Odd.
Taylor is the Ukrainian Ambassador.
Sonderland is the US ambassador to the EU.
IS it hard for you to understand why that inverted relationship runs at odds with the spin you are selling.
If Trump was coercing the Ukraine – Williams should know DIRECTLY FROM TRUMP hot as hearsay from some other source.
Ambassadors receive direction from the Sec, State usually, maybe rarely from the president.
Not from ambassadors to other places.
Regardless exchanges between ambassadors about third parties are their own thoughts and impressions not facts or direction.
I do not care what Taylor’s impressions were.
I beleive his texts have been released before.
As have Sonderland’s to him.
And Sonderland explicitly texted Taylor that aide to Ukraine was NOT tied to anything.
From the texts and the transcript Taylor appears to have developed his own personal impressions – much like the whistlerblower.
I would further note that Clinton works through multiple layers of cutouts.
Look at the Steele Dossier – Clinton to HFA, to Perkins Coi to Fusion GPS to Steele to assorted unidentified russian sources.
Trump deals with few people and he deals DIRECTLY.
That is actually a halmark of a very successful business person.
He uses a very small number of people who he trusts for everything.
This is also why the backlash from “the deep state”.
Trump is more likely to trust what he hears about foreign countries from Fox News that from the CIA Presidential Daily Briefing.
And Tom Clancy now dead noted in his books that the press is as likely to get the information right as the CIA and less likely to tell the president only what they want him to hear.
Regardless the danger of a small circle is that the trust worthiness of those in the circle is absolutely critical.
But conversely if these are trustworthy people – you get the actual truth, not people pushing agenda’s – and if you have not figured it out everyone has an agenda with respect to Trump
As best as I can tell William Taylor has a record much like Carter Page – West Point vs. Anapolis – and you have no problem claiming that Page was a russian spy and an idiot.
Taylor also appears to be a bushie and a carreer diplomat – after military service.
But in this case he appears to have first hand knowledge of nothing.
His impressions and beleifs are not facts.
I know you do not grasp that.
You see to think that feelings, impressions and beleifs are facts.
We bumped into a version of this with the IC IG who transformed credible from a well defined legal term into something subjective.
Regardless – I am not sure what the theory of the left is hear, but you have serious problems with reality.
Either Trump did whatever bad thing you think he did with very few people – in which case – the impressions of all these tangential people are irrelevant.
Or he involved a large number of people – in which case you should not have impressions and hearsay but direct testimony.
You are once again in the bind you were with the SC.
You beleive every hint that might suggest misconduct from any source you can get it but reject facts or the direct statements from those with actual knowledge – because they are affiliated with trump and therefore you presume they are lying.
You keep making this mafiosa analogy – so are Sonderland, Zelensky etc. all lying and all Trump’s capo’s ? All going to fall on their swords ?
If not, ultimately you can not get where you hope to.
Why BTW is the person cited as the source only providing information anonymously ?
The source appears to be someone in the House.
They certainly have no retaliation to fear from Trump.
I would further note that the Ukraine PUBLICLY re-opened the Burisima and the investigation of the Biden’s in 2019
Still pandering to neocons I see.
Regardless, lets just release the transcripts of the testimony not this nonsense of leaks etc.
In fact lets have these people testify in public.
Lets have a real proceding with actual subpeona power and actual cross examination.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Biden, is toast? So quite a few on the right would like to believe. They hate the progs and yet they hate any sign that the progs have not yet won in the Dem party. Hating the progs makes sense to me, but wishing for it to be true that the progs now own the Dem party makes no sense. The Democrats get treated like a monolithic unit by the careless, as if the Dems are a single block or the “left” is a single block. Perhaps these right wingers are going to be disappointed that this is not so. In fact most dems want a candidate whose policies, not necessarily big changes, can be put into law. The moderate Joe Biden is decidedly not toast and is leading the Dem pack by a good margin. He is also leading in Iowa, albeit by one point. I just sent him money. Anyhow, here is this:
“Former Vice President Joe Biden’s lead in the race for the Democratic nomination for president has rebounded, and now stands at its widest margin since April, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
Biden has the support of 34% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters, his best showing in CNN polling since just after his campaign’s formal launch on April 25.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont are about even for second, with 19% and 16%, respectively. Behind them, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris of California each have 6% support, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke each at 3%.
Biden’s rise comes largely from a consolidation of support among his core backers, and doesn’t appear to harm any individual opponent. Warren and Sanders hold about even with their standing in the last CNN poll in September, and no other candidate has seen a shift of more than 2 points in that time.
But Biden has seen big spikes in support among moderate and conservative Democrats (43% support him now, up from 29% in the September poll), racial and ethnic minorities (from 28% among all nonwhites in September to 42% now) and older voters (up 13 points since September among those 45 and older) that outpace those among younger potential Democratic voters (up 5 points among those younger than 45).
The gains come as Biden’s time as vice president is put under the spotlight by President Donald Trump and his allies. Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives over allegations that he pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, as well as the 2016 US election in return for releasing hundreds of millions in congressionally mandated defense funding meant for Ukraine. Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company while Biden was vice president. There is no evidence that either Biden did anything wrong in Ukraine…
…Asked which candidate would best handle a range of top issues, Biden leads the way on four of the six issues tested in the poll. He holds a massive edge over the field on foreign policy (56% say he would handle it best, well ahead of Sanders at 13% and Warren at 11%), and tops the next closest candidate by nearly 20 points on the economy (38% Biden, 19% Sanders, 16% Warren). Biden also outpaces the rest of the field as most trusted on immigration (29% Biden, 16% each Warren and Sanders) and gun policy (27% vs. 13% Sanders and 11% Warren, with O’Rourke close at 9%).
Biden doesn’t hold a significant edge on the critical issue of health care (31% Biden, 28% Sanders, 17% Warren) but he’s surged 13 points on the issue since June, when he lagged behind Sanders. Neither Sanders’ nor Warren’s numbers on the issue have moved significantly in that time.
And Biden now runs even with Sanders at 26% as best able to handle the climate crisis. Warren is at 18% on that issue. The results mark increases for Biden and Sanders, who were each at 19% on handling the climate in June.
The former vice president’s advantages on the issues come as he emphasizes an approach that appears to align with the preferences of most potential Democratic voters. A 53% majority say they want the nominee to advocate policies that have a good chance of becoming law, even if the changes aren’t as big, vs. 42% who prefer advocating big changes even if they have less of a chance of becoming law.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/cnn-poll-biden-lead-increases/index.html
What is all this “hate hate hate” nonsense ?
As politicians go Biden is relatively innocuous.
He is not a progressive, he is just playing one in the debates – badly.
No one hates him.
That does not mean he does not have problems.
There is lots of news that Dems are scrambling – the KNOW that Sanders and Warren and the rest of the field can not beat Trump, Biden is their only hope of beating Trump and as I said – he is toast. You don’t agree ? Fine, I do not care, nominate him and run him and see the results.
Biden is certainly the least offensive democrat with a chance to be president.
He is the least likely to screw things up. He probably will not do worse than Obama.
If I really thought Trump was going to loose Biden would be the least worst next choice.
Regardless, no one hates Biden.
As to progressives – they hate everyone who is not progressive, and most of them hate atleast half of all progressives. Progressivism is just one giant hate fest.
That is not surprising its ideological roots insure that.
As to my and others “hating” progressives – Nope, All that we care is that they never get real power. They are innocuous as long as they are screwing their own lives up.
But they are dangerous with power.
The greatest danger of progressivism is that it is such self contradictory nonsense that it will result in near pure chaos – and that is the conditions that result in totalitarians rising to power.
Nixon was elected as a response to the chaos of the late 60’s the riots and lawlessness.
He promissed law and order, and he was elected – and re-elected in the midst of watergate by a landslide.
Trump is a similar response to the Obama Era. Until Democrats figure that out, they are in trouble. Romney was a lousy republican candidate – and nearly beat Obama.
I think Trump decided to run in 2016 because he realized he could have beat Romney in 2012.
Biden’s toast huh?
Another of your ignorant observations deflating like a punctured balloon:
‘ Former Vice President Joe Biden’s lead in the race for the Democratic nomination for president has rebounded, and now stands at its widest margin since April, according to a new CNN poll.
Biden: 34%
Warren: 19%
Sanders: 16%
Buttigieg: 6%
Harris: 6%
And if you don’t trust the CNN poll, Nate Silver today says “ This poll is perhaps a mild outlier in Biden’s direction, but in the averages, there’s been no sign of a Biden decline in recent polls, and only scant evidence for a Buttigieg surge.‘
Your brain is toasted…
Jay, you can bevel what you want.
Though I can not beleive you are using Silver as a source.
Regardless, I will agree that Biden has somewhat recovered in the Polls.
Alot of this is because all of this has democrats in chaos,
There is a realization that Neither Warren nor Sanders stands a snowballs chance in hell of winning. And please do not cite national polls more than a year out.
Tell me how Warren or Sanders are going to win MN, PA, WI, OH, NH. NV. NM ?
Or Frankly flip any of the pink states ?
We here all these loud rumors of Clinton getting in, or Bloomberg or Michelle Obama.
Why ? Because the people in the Democratic power with money know damn well that of the assorted current candidates the only one that can actually beat Trump – is Biden.
And you can pretty much bet That Trump has allready made the political Add with Biden saying “I told the bastards, Fire Shokin or you do not get the Billion Dollars”, Followed by Shokin saying “I was fired for investigating Hunter Biden”.
At some point – maybe soon – or maybe in Late October 2020 that add runs CONSTANTLY.
And what are you going to counter that with ? Faux impeachment ? Taylor saying people told me that if the Ukraine did not investigate Biden they would not get $300m in aide ?
Trump has Biden – in his own words, and he will have Shokin or someone else saying clearly they were fired for investigating Hunter.
The Add will be short and damning, it will not need explanation, it will be Biden damning himself.
I would note – that add not only takes out Biden, but it wreaks havoc on the entire democratic party for defending him and makes this faux impeachment look really bad.
“ Though I can not beleive you are using Silver as a source.”
Why not? I’ve used him before to confute one of your fallacious statistical arguments; you admitted you respected him as a pollster, but – as you do with everyone you claim to have respected – you said he’d got it wrong; you in your Trumplike genius knew better.
If you had an ounce of moral bearing left, an iota of rectitude, you’d be SCREAMING for a GOP replacement for Schlump.
He just tweeted this now.
The POTUS writing this about opposition Republicans?
Or about ANY opposition Americans?
Shame on those who remain silent!
Trump: “The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!
“I have used him before”
Yes, and Hillary won in 2016 – with a 95% probability right ?
I like Nate Sliver. His approach is interesting.
But he has CLEARLY allowed personal biases to color his weighting.
Politics is not baseball.
`You just described your own failing – rigid subjectivity.
.
Trump is crap.
You keep embracing him.
That contagion now defines you.
I am not “saying” he got it wrong in 2016.
He did – BADLY, this is a fact. He still had Clinton at something like a 75% probability of winning even after the first of the rust belt states fell.
He was still predicting a clinton win – when almost everyone else had called the election.
I do not think that NYT did as badly as he did.
This is not my oppinion.
It is the facts.
It is my opinion that because he did very poorly in 2016 I am not ready to place alot of faith in him today.
You can beleive he has fixed his problems – maybe you are right.
We will know in a year.
But he has two fundimental problems.
First – his weighting of individual polls is highly subjective.
If you look at his own ratings – he thinks EVERY poll skews Republican and adds atleast D+1pct
Of course in 2016 every single poll except Rassmussen skewed Democrat – so how did that work out for him ?
He skews Rassmussen D+3.6
Then recalculates every month – based on WHAT ? What monthly check does he have on the various polls except for the polls themselves ?
No amount of math can create a fixed reference when there is none.
It is trivial to confuse mathematics with meaning – Economist Paul Romer did an excellent paper on that. If you have enough coeficients in your equations – no matter how well you regress them (and you can not do a regression without some factual reference to regress against), and no matter how well they hind cast, you can still be wildly off in forecasting.
Ultimately he came to the same conclusion Hayek did in his Nobel Valedictory – “The pretense of knowledge”.
You can not reason, predict or model from numbers to valid results on process that involve humans. You MUST start with human behavior. Models and data can only be used to falsify your reasoning not to create it.
More simply the process MUST be subjective because humans are involved, and the best results will be from those who best understand the particular type of human behavior being modeled.
The next problem Nate has – though late in the process he tries to adjust for it,
is that he works from national polls.
Those are very poor predictor of presidential elections
To predict presidential elections you must use individual state polls.
The political parties have those. But they are not made public.
And state polls when we do get them are far less well done than national polls.
You have repeatedly made false moral accusations of both me and others.
I have absolutely zero interest in your moral judgement of ANYONE.
Nor based on your behavior should anyone else.
But they get to make their own choices.
Regardless, read “the little boy who cried wolf” for a lesson in morality.
Do not make moral accusations of others unless you are prepared to prove them.
Because if you are wrong, you lose not just your credibility but your integrity too.
Whatever my views of Trump – they are higher than of you.
I am no more happy with Trump calling people “human scum” than I am with you atleast equally offensive insults.
Trump has atleast presided over a growing economy, decreasing US foreign military interventions, and several trade deals that are atleast not awful.
How about you ? What do you have to your credit to make up for constant slurs and insults ?
I would further note that Trump insults those who insult him first.
Has Trump insulted you ?
Has everyone that does not hate Trump the way you do insulted you ?
I have responded to too many of your insults in kind. Well not really in kind.
You are the king of vile insults.
To the rest here I will apologize for that.
But I owe you nothing.
And you owe far more apologies than I ever will.
“ I am no more happy with Trump calling people “human scum” than I am with you atleast equally offensive insults.”
But I’m not THE PRESIDENT OF THE US, you idiot.
Those holding that office are of necessity held to a higher degree of propriety.
That you’re not shouting for a President who broadcasts language like that be removed from office further confirms what a contemptuous joke you are.
How is your personal life going?
I put a hex on you last month, the results should be trickling in by now.
Old friends ignoring you?
Wife or kids treating you coolly?
Machines or devices you use regularly breaking down?
It’s going to get worse.
Your fate and Trump’s are now inextricably tied in tandem.
Your only shot at redemption is to tattoo Fuck Trump on your forehead.
Otherwise you will swirl downward in a vortex of despair with him.
degenen die de waarheid trotseren zal retrobutie lijden
“But I’m not THE PRESIDENT OF THE US, you idiot.”
If your conduct is not wrong – Trump’s is not wrong.
“Those holding that office are of necessity held to a higher degree of propriety.”
No The standard is the same – the consequences are not.
Were you arguing higher standards of conduct regaring HRC emailing classified documents of the interent – that was an actual crime.
Can you name an actual crime that Trump has committed ?
Apparently you are as bad with hexes as everything else – my life is going better than ever.
My relationships are better, my business is better,
Sorry to break it to you Jay, but I am happy.
What is real troubling about your post is that if it really was in your power to F’up the lives of people whose speach offends you – you would.
I trust that polls show trends – pretty much all polls. I think each specific polls has their own flaws or biases.
We also know historically that polls a year ahead of the election are nearly useless at prediction the election.
The current IOWA RCP has Biden at 21%, Warren at 20.7% Buttigieg and Sanders tied at 14.3
We are still 3+ months from Iowa.
There are changes that will start to be reflected in the polls.
Soon it will be near impossible for anyone to enter the race.
Slowly we are shifting from the race reflecting pollitical activists and junkies to ordinary voters taking an increased interest. We will see more and more people dropping out.
Some of these things favor Biden. While I do not think he will win the democratic nomination.
That does not matter and that is not what I meant by “he is toast”.
He no longer stands a chance of beating Trump.
As I said in a post to robby – the Biden attack adds have likely already been filmed. they are short and damning.
It is irrelevant how Biden does in Delaware, or California, or New York.
What matters is whether The Democrats that Trump got to vote for him in OH, PA, MN and WI vote for Biden. He probably was not going to get them before.
He is not now.
I would also ask you – if you think Trump is “desparate” why isn’t that Add running NOW ?
It would likely end the faux impeachment.
It is going to be really really hard to impeach Trump for asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden who openly admitted to blackmailing Ukraine. Add Shokin saying he was fired because he was investigating Hunter and impeachment is over.
Or do you think that politicians are immunde from investigation if they are running for election ?
You read the tea leaves your way, I have mine.
How well did your read of the Mueller investigation go ?
Why do you think this is going to go better ?
Read my comment under Roby’s CNN poll remarks
Ah…Roby, you beat me to that polling info.
I should have scanned the posts before rushing to deflate the pompous balloon.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/joe-biden-fundraising-debate/index.html
This is also not helping Biden.
Regardless, there will be alot of focus on Age with Trump, Biden, Sanders and Warren.
Sanders heart attack brought home the reality that these candidates are all OLD.
Trump could have a stroke, or heart attack or ….
But for now among the 4 he looks like the energizer Bunny.
The Biden rumours of sundowning will bring extra attention to his physical ability – and there is already plenty of evidence that he does not have Trump or Warren’s stamina.
Bernie is never a serious contender, but a heart attack in the middle of an election is just not good for the future. There is a LONG road to Nov 2020 Will Bernies heart last ?
As I said at the start – Trump could drop dead tomorow.
Every one of these candidates is old enough that there is a much higher than normal risk of something bad happening to each of them.
But the Stories are mostly focussed on Sanders and Biden
I do not know if they are true – and it does not matter – these put extra pressure on Sanders and Biden.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-15/biden-backers-want-prevent-sundowning-gaffes-senior-moments-threaten-2020-run
Jeez guys, before trying to deflate anything, look at what you are doing. You could be making an ass of yourself. CNN is a national poll. National polls mean absolutely NOTHING!! Zero, Zilch.
Look at New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada. Once those happen, money shifts. No one cares who leads in California because once money shifts and dries up,those with the money get the nomination. Once the money dries up, candidates drop out. The progressives are splitting their support, the moderates are behind Biden.
What’s going to happen with about 40-45% of the progressive vote once all but three are left?
Ron, I think polls – even national polls are useful information.
But they are not determinative.
With few exceptions Republicans poll numbers rise as the election gets closer – obviously with bumps along the way.
Most of the election models predict a Trump victory.
Being about 40% in approval at this point usually means an incumbent wins.
I also find the fact that both WaPo and NYT are running stories that Democratic leadership is desparately searching for someone of stature to enter the race is significant.
Jay and Robby can pretend that “faux impeachment” is going well for them.
I think Trump and Republicans are having fun.
Regardless, If you want Democrats to get thoroughly crushed in 2020 – keep going as they are.
Trump, Representatives, are complaining about the secrecy about the star chamber. about the lack of transparency, about the failure to follow existing process.
Gingrich claimed we outlawed this in 1641.
But even the outrage on the part of the GOP is a charade or pantomime of sorts.
Schiff either capitulates – and we get more of the public hearings on the Mueller report which went horribly for democrats – or he doesn’t.
If he does not absent a REAL smoking gun – and that is impossible, because though exposing a real quid p
ro quo would be seriously damaging, it still does not undermine that there is nothing wrong with asking for an investigation of corruption where there is evidence of corruption. The video of Biden admitting he threatened the Ukraine to get Shokin fired is the end of this – it is much more than reasonable suspicion.
If smoking gun evidence showed up that Trump had absolutely demanded an investigation of Biden in return for the aide – the biggest damage to Trump and Republicans would be that they have publicly lied about a quid pro quo.
That will not get him removed, though it might get him impeached.
And it might make the election closer.
But I do not expect that to happen. If there was a “quid pro quo” there would be LOTS of information – not just “I heard” but documentation.
It would be on the Transcripts – I know that Jay and Robby beleive the transcripts are heavily edited. but I doubt it, there are atleast a dozen people who heard the call, there are probably another dozen who got to read the transcripts. If the WH published transcript was substantially different someone would come forward.
This was also true of Trump/Russia – conspiracies grow exponentially more difficult with the number of participants – the only exception being where it is literally in the participants individual interests, where the risk of exposure is low, where the cost of exposure is low, and where you feel morally right. Those conditions are met within the “deep state” efforts to get Trump. For one thing that is NOT a formally organized conspiracy. Just individuals talking with each other and acting as individuals in a shared interest.
To keep alterations in the published transcript secret requires probably 2 dozen people to keep secret something that will harm them personally if exposed, for a secret that they do not personally benefit from.
Regardless, when you want to beleive that what you have seen is just the tip of an ice berg, you should evaluate the probability that what you see is all there is vs. that there is a real conspiracy to hide something – understanding that real successful large conspiracies are very rare.
Anyway, to my other point – it does not matter whether Schiff holds hearing in public or not.
This will all get out eventually – and likely soon.
Absent a smoking gun that actually holds up under public scrutiny – which is damn near impossible, because Trump was justified in doing much more than he did, based on what we already publicly know. Absent that smoking gun that survives public scrutiny this ultimately bite democrats in the ass.
And I do not think Pelosi will ever make the house vote on this.
Regardless, this will end. When it does, or more importantly sometime a month or so after it ends, people will evaluate.
The more egregiously and secretively democrats act the more critical it is that they come up with something really really damning.
Media and careful narratives can push things your way for a time.
But not long.
And democrats and the media start with a very low credibility.
No Dems are not monolithic – though they are far less politically diverse than Republicans.
The problem the Dems have is that the progressives control the party today.
Republicans had a similar problem from 1980 through 2000 in that the “moral majority” controlled the GOP. But that broke down. Post Moral Majority the NeoCons and Establishment republicans – the Romney and McCain types thought they were in the cat bird seat – but they were not. I thought that the TP and fiscal conservatives were going to control the party, but Trump has created a new GOP powerbase by Cobbling other groups and adding Blue Collar Dem’s.
This is very bad news for Dems – because Trump has found a base closer to the center of the political spectrum AND he has fervent support from a group closer to the center.
That puts Dems at a distinct political disadvantage. When Republicans had to KowTow to the Religious right to win the GOP nomination, that meant the Dems could afford to have to placate their far left to get nominated. That is not true today.
I watched a recent David Rubin on the Clinton attacks on Tulsi Gabbard and he closed by noting that Democrats need to be very concerned about their right flank. Gabbard, Buttigieg, most of the moderate Dems that won in the House in 2018 could very easily find a home in the GOP. Democrats have Treated Gabbard horribly. In fact they treat their right flank – or actually anyone not towing the Progressive ever changing line horribly. Look at how monolithic the positions of the democratic candidates are ?
All the pundit talk of any party gaining a permanent advantage is NONSENSE.
Parties adapt to shifts in demographics and values.
I am not going to change my values much over time – but the Republican and Democratic Parties will. Just look at history. In the 19th century the republican party was progressive.
It was Wilson and FDR that brought Progressivism to the Democratic Party.
And FDR actually accused Hoover of being a Socialist in 1932.
What is wrong right now is that 2016 should have been a loud wakeup call to democrats that they had gone too far left – and that they were too corrupt.
I would note that Gabbard is STILL vocally challenging the corruption in the democratic party
You think my predictions that Trump will win by a landslide are wrong ? So what ?
A Trump loss has a high probability of bringing about actual chaos – not the manufactered crap that the media is pushing. And the backlash against that will make Trump look like a progressive. Real Chaos nearly always ends very badly for all of us.
You can engage in whatever wishful thinking you want regarding Biden.
And maybe I hope you are right, because Biden is the least horrible democratic choice.
He is also the best hope against Trump.
But he was never likely to beat Trump, and is far less likely now.
You are citing some polls. Biden and Trump have been bouncing in the polls.
There are a couple of things happening on the Democratic side. The election is getting closer and more democrats are starting to pay attention – and Sanders and Warren are not palletable to an awful lot of Democrats.
We are fast approaching the last moment for major new players to get into the race.
In a few weeks it will be too late to get onto the ballot for most democratic primaries.
With Biden weakened we are hearing lots of talk about Clinton, Bloomberg, Michelle Obama.
This is all desparation. This is the understanding that Biden is toast and no other Democrat can win.
Democrats are having a horrible problem with fund raising this election – While Trump is burried in cash. This early lead will be a huge deal. Remember Trump won spending 1/2 what Clinton spent. Trump is expanding the number of states in play. That is what drowning in cash allows. That requires Democrats to spend cash in those states Trump has targeted.
Democrats talk about flipping some red states – Texas is a pipe dream. But others are possible. But to win they must HOLD NV, NM, NH, MN and win 2 of OH. PA, WI,
FL is purportedly out of play for Democrats – if they could not win the governors and Senate races in 2018 they stand no chance in the presidential race.
Trump is not going to win the jewish vote or the black vote, or the hispanic vote – but he is near certain to do better on all of those than any republican in a long long time.
It is being reported that Biden’s cash is drying up. that is one of the problems with the kind of corruption alleged – no one wants their money somewhere it could draw attention to them.
The democratic polls are in serious flux at the moment. Partly realizing Biden is toast, partly because Warren and Sanders can not win.
Do you really see Warren winning ALL of NV, NM. NH, MN AND two of OH. PA and WI ?
Frankly Warren could loose every Blue state except MA. NY and CA.
The good news is that we can debate election predictions until the cows come home.
They are predictions, not facts.
Reality will prove each of us wrong about something.
I do not think I am particularly good at election predictions.
But even the experts appear to suck at it.
I will be happy to agree with you that Biden is the democrat with the best chance of beating Trump.
With respect to your polls – it is polls of democrats who vote in the primaries that matter right now, not the general population. And Democrats – like Republicans in the late 20th century have a serious problem – if they move to the center – voters on the left do not vote. If they move left, voters at the center do not vote or vote republican.
And every democratic candidate must hew left to survive the primaries and then shift back to center to win the general.
I would further note that we have had a slew of really badly done polls lately.
I believe Ron, linked to an article on that.
I would further note that for a FEW voters specific issues are important – that varies by issue and voter.
But you can not predict most peoples votes based on their positions on issues – otherwise Gary Johnson would be president.
Voter actually vote on pocketbook issues, the economy. Not passing this law or that.
Congress is thoroughly bogged down right now. Nothing is passing.
I think that is wonderful.
The economy is pretty damn happy with it too.
Voters say they want this law or that. but what they care about is their wallets.
On every issue progressives think they dominate – healthcare, etc. the moment you add a cost – even a small cost, support for all those policies and issues tanks.
As to Biden – go listen to the piece by the Intercept – that is a pretty left leaning source on the Biden family history of corruption. biden is very weak here.
There is a reason that Democrats are trying so very hard to totally completely lock down their faux impeachment. They know damn well that in public setting Biden’s corruption will come up over and over.
Everybody is debating “quid pro Quo” right now – because Democrats doing this in a star chamber makes that the only publicly visible issue.
But I keep trying to remind people that is NOT the issue.
The ONLY issue is whether there is “reasonable suspicion” that Biden’s activities were criminal. If that is true Trump can use all the powers of the presidency to get an investigation.
The moment this comes out from Schiff’s star chamber there will be public discussions of Biden’s actions, of the actual facts here, and the left media and democrats will not be able to supress them.
And you continue to forget that Democrats and the media have already destroyed their credibility and integrity over Trump/Russia.
I doubt Pelosi will ever have a house vote on this.
I doubt we will see anything but more of Schiff leading witness that are favorable to him, and leaking the results and daring republicans to leak what actually happened.
But if this goes to the floor – one of the big things you will start hearing is lots more facts about Biden.
You can not try to impeach Trump over this and not discuss Biden.
Trump’s actions regarding Biden are legitimate if there is a reasonable suspicion regarding Biden.
Roby, CNN polls probably are national polls. Remember Trump never had more than 30-35% of the poll results during his run against the gaggle of candidates, but he took the nomination over traditional republicans.
Look at the latest polls for Iowa and New Hampshire taken at the same time as the CNN polls. Biden and Warren are tied. Once that happens the money for the rest begins to dry up. That leaves all those other candidates that total about 40% of the voters to move somewhere else (as they did with Trump) during the march primaries. Most of those voters are progressives, so the expectation would be that Warren would benefit. Once she gets one or two wins in March, she’s in, Bidens money runs out.
And you stated ” In fact most dems want a candidate whose policies, not necessarily big changes, can be put into law.” Here is one HUGE problem with that statement. Only about 40% of the democrat/leans democrat voter goes to the primary elections, so you are most likely going to get stuck with a much lessor desirable candidate, much like many GOP voters in 2016.
You are not going to get a Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter moderate just as the GOP will take years to ever give the GOP a John Kasich type moderate.
I do not agree with you Ron that national polls have no meaning. It may not be the supreme infallible meaning but its meaning. Its how people feel today as a national rather than regional or state snapshot. Given that everyone who cares at all about politics knows who trump is, who Biden is, and who Sanders is from 2016 and before I would say its significant that trump loses so many head to head matchups, he is not in a good place. Its not the place a POTUS would want to be in as the election year kicks off.
Plus, consider this, I looked at the polls before I sent Biden money. The polls made it clear that it was a worthwhile thing for me to do and not just a waste. I am not alone in that.
There is that phrase that people use when they discuss the stock market: “factored in” as In, people have already factored some economic event or indicator into today’s stock prices. In the case of politics people have already factored in all the news about trump and Biden and Sanders and Warren and as of today trump stock is is losing by a margin outside of even the fact that winning the popular vote by 3% may not work for the Dem party. Dem stock is as of today winning, even after everything has been factored in by any sentient person.
But to some extent my post was facetious, I was deliberately pulling a Dave, I was cherry picking the results that are most favorable to my hopes and that most agree with my prognosis. I was spinning. I was being a super Biden optimist. I left out the other stuff; for the sake of my odd sense of humor I was doing a little caricature of the “wishful thinking using polling results” behavior that I actually find rather lazy and foolish. In other words, I was doing the thing that I do not in general do, I was disregarding all the other information that does not match my hopes or beliefs for the sake of my own good mood and to stick a pin in a certain bag of air as well. In fact I am a realist. Things are not totally rosy with Biden. trump is not completely toast, although his situation is certainly deteriorating and it already was not good. Anything can still happen. I know that.
But even in my facetious form my support in the way of respectable polling for my message beats the crap our of using Rasmussen polls to support the trump side. The takeaway message that I can 100% seriously defend is: Biden is distinctly NOT toast as of today and trump is definitely in a deep pile of trouble of his own making. As well, the moderates and conservatives and traditional liberals in the Dem party have not yet been routed into irrelevance by the progressives, there is life in them. I would say more about the chances of the moderate wing of the dem party in the long run than the progressives chances.
Its all important.
Roby, thank for the clarification. Hope you are right about Biden.
But think back to 2016. I was writing scripts for the “Trump Producer Play” for Broadway because I did not think he was really viable and that clear thinking, intelligent traditional G.O.P. voters would come together behind someone else. How’ed that work out. ( The same as those guys in the real The Producers play, thats how).
So next April we will know.
National polls do not predict elections this far out.
Truman was at 39% in 48
Carter at 47% in 76
Reagan at 33% in 80
Reagan at 48% in 84
Clinton at 25% in 92
Clinton at 43% in 96
Bush at 44% in 2004
Obama at 46% in 2008
Obama at 44% in 2012
Trump at 35% in 2016
I beleive in every case above the loser in Polls about 1yr out won the election – in some instances handily.
In every case about the ultimate winner was polling at or below Trump’s current approval.
This information is not destiny. But it is good reason to expect that polls even 6 months ahead of the election do not predict winners.
No People have not “factored in” everything yet.
That happens slowly over time.
The goal of democrats since they lost the election has been to hang a millstone arround Trump’s neck.
But the allegations democrats have used have a fatal flaw, They have to hold up.
The full impact of the failure of the Trump/Russia probe has NOT yet hit.
This faux impeachment has temporarily arrested it.
The fact that it is so hard to drag Trump’s numbers down should be a serious red flag to you.
It means you are not trusted.
It means that absent Schiff pulling a rabbit out of the hat, there is likely to be hell to pay.
I would further note that Democrats have made this a bet about more than Trump.
They have bet the entire party on this.
Republicans in the house are nearly all in on Trump – this is their oportunity to retake the house in 2020. Unless you are not paying attention – these guys are happy.
You can practically hear their thoughts – while Saying “Schiff make this process transparent” they are thinking – “no, no, make yourselfIand the whole democratic party) look as irrational and nuts as possible.”
So what happens Robby, if Schiff does not come up with something Pelosi is willing to bring to a vote on the house floor ? Or if there is a vote and the house does not vote to impeach ?
Those are the most damning for house democrats.
The next alternative is that McConnel has an early procedural vote on whether the house charge constitutes an impeachable offense – sort of a move for summary judgment.
And dismisses impeachment without a hearing on the facts.
The last and least likely possibility is there is an actual senate Trial.
That WILL be open and in public.
Schiff and Nadler will near certain be lead prosecutors.
Trump will have REAL lawyers representing him.
Schiff could be called as a witness.
Shokin could be called as a witness.
The Biden’s could be called as witnesses.
There will be real cross examination of Schiff’s witnesses.
I am not sure what the latitude of the Senates rules would be.
It is probable that hearsay testimony would not be permitted.
It is near certain that Trump’s “defense” will be there is sufficient evidence of Biden’s corruption to justify an investigation. And that is an easy defense to make.
No one is going to be saying “no, no, you can’t talk about Biden”, we all know there is nothing there.
I do not understand why it is so hard for you to grasp that
“I have reasonable suspicion that Biden acted corruptly” is a really really good defense.
It will be bought by more than enough senators and more than enough of the public
Even many democrats are likely to grasp they can not preclude a president from investigating possible corruption involving opposing party candidates.
Dave, you must be reading comments like Ron P. Read the first paragraph, regardless of length, respond or move on.
Had you read my comment completely, you would have realized in this regard, I was addressing national polls for state primary elections. A pollster can ask 500 democrats which candidate they support and they could give one of them 40%, but if 25% of those polled came from California, it would not be a reliable poll, even though statistically it might be for national support.
Just look at Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and others that had a comparable polling number to Trump nationally and where were they after the first 3-4 primaries. Losing donations, losing support, eventually dropping out before 1/2 of the states voted. Ted Cruz and John Kasich stuck around, but without money, they were ineffective.
So my view ( nothing scientific). Biden, Sanders, Warren basically tie in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada with each within a few percentage points when those states are combined. Everyone else then has little money and support. Butt may stick around for a couple more, but that 40% without a progressive candidate they supported mostly move to Warren because she is closer in policy that Sanders. She is very tax and spend, but not as socialist in her positions as Sanders. So when that happens, she immediately jumps 10-15% ahead of Biden in the March primaries.
Polls can say anything at a snapshot in time, hut money speaks.
Am I allowed to agree with you and either make slightly different points, use slightly different logic or slightly different data to make the same point ?
There are not many issues that you and I are at odds on.
Even those are distance is small,
and or differences are well defined.
You need not presume I am disagreeing with you, unless I actually say so.
I guess you can if you want. but I am not.
I probably am farther from Trump ideologically than you are.
But I am happier with him that you are.
I do not need a president to be perfect,
And though I am offended by alot of his speach – and the rare occasions he insults someone first. Mostly, I am NOT with Will, Romney, Goldberg and alot of other republicans.
Trump without his punch back twice as hard style – would not have gotten elected,
I would like a political environment were the candidates from both parties were the perfect gentleman that George Will is.
But that is not the real world. And any candidate not on the far left with the grace and forebearance of George Will will be obliterated by Alinskites.
Look at what is being done to Tulsi Gabbard – and she is far from a conservative or even a moderate democrat. Once upon a time when the left was opposed to endless war,
she would have just been an ordinary left fringe democrat.
Somehow today she is on the far right of the democratic party ?
That alone should inspire questions about the future and intergrity of the democratic party.
In other polling news, trump is decidedly sinking in the polls. Is it dramatic? Depends on what dramatic means. With the remarkable stability of trumps underwater polling there is not a lot of distance left to go down for him unless GOP voters leave him en masse. In this situation swings of a few points tell a real story. trump has lost 9 points in a few days according to Rasmussen *a C+ rating from Silver) , he is down by 20 points according to Quinnipiac (A- according to SIlver) , a 7 point negative shift in less than a week, and down by 15 according to Morning consult. His approval has dipped into the high 30s in numerous recent polls. Does this mean anything?
Worse for trump he loses to nearly all the Dem candidates in head to heads in most of the polls on Silvers poll site, He loses by 10 to Biden and Sanders by 9 and Warren by 8. According to the University of North Florida (A- by Silver) Trump loses to Biden by 11 and Warren by 6 in Florida.
trump is not in a good place. In fact, I suspect he is toast. He has brought it all on himself, if he has been lynched, its been at his own hands, his own words his own actions.
Democrats have had a good week. They have been able to spin copious piles of hearsay that never would get into a real courtroom as shocking evidence, but even the hearsay does not hold up under inspection.
And even with all of this – Trump is STILL above Obama at this date in his presidency.
So this entire Ukraine nonsense – of which Dems and the media have very successfully prevented much of the country from hearing anything but their side has driven Trump down to almost Obama approval levels – and you think that you stand a chance ?
Sorry Robby, this is likely the best you can do.
Taylor is likely your strongest witness – but not only does he have no direct knowledge of anything, all of the people who he purportedly got his information from are telling a completely different story AND the Texts and documents confirm that.
The entire nonsense that Ukrainian aide was being held hostage to leverage a biden investigation is based on HIS evidence ONLY IN HIS HEAD.
Sonderland repeatedly texts him – this is not so, and he keeps talking about it as if Trump has personally told him otherwise – but that is not the case.
I do not think that even an the absence of actual quid pro quo is a the real firewall against impeachment. The most fundimental issue is whether there is a basis to investigate Biden.
If a credible witness said Joe Biden murdered someone – we would not be debating whether Trump can ask for an investigation, We would not be debating whether Trump can blackmail Ukraine to get an investigation.
There is a credible witness that VP Biden blackmailed the Ukarine to stop an investigation into his son. That witness is Joe Biden.
That should be the end of this.
Need I remind you how horribly badly Silver did with the 2016 election ?
There is some valueable information in polls – trends are relevant.
You do not have to like Rassmussen – they have had bad years to – though never so bad as Silver in 2016, but they have an overall exceelent track record.
But if you think that they run high a couple of points – so what ? They still show Trends.
Despite the strongest full court press by the media and democrats that has ever existed Trump is still polling above Obama and has been for most of his presidency.
The Schiff Star Chamber is working – temporarily.
But you can not keep all of this in secret forever.
I would further note – you are writing Trump’s campaign adds for him.
Trump is going to spend the next year attacking the deep state, attacking Democrats.
Pointing out that they tried to impeach him for trying to investigate Biden’s corruption.
And he is going to be saying – and look what I have manage to do anyway.
I am surprised that Republicans have not already started running adds just with Biden talking about Blackmailing the Ukraine.
Maybe including Shokin saying he was fired for investigating Hunter Biden.
So what are Democrats going to run against that ?
Thus far Schiff has done an excellent job of controlling the narative. He paid attention to the total disaster that was Nadler’s hearings and has avoided Nadler’s mistakes.
But he has a huge problem. At some point to go forward his must leave the shadows and proceed in the open. And the media is going to have to cover everything – BOTH Sides.
I personally think that republicans have made a mistake fixating on “quid pro quo”.
While the argument that there was none appears strong – it is an irrelevant tangent.
All that matters is whether there is a solid justification to ask for an investigation.
If there is the Ukrainians are required by treaty to honor Trump’s request.
And Trump is justified in blackmailing them to get that investigation.
You should not too strongly defend a point you can afford to lose, when you have a better defense elsewhere.
Now as a result of Trump’s divisive administration, everything is going to shit, from the top down:
“The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has a unique role in safeguarding the rule of law under the Constitution. By failing to recuse himself from DOJ’s review of the Ukraine Matter, Attorney General William P. Barr has undermined that role. To help remedy that failure, the New York City Bar Association urges that Mr. Barr recuse himself from any ongoing or future review by DOJ of Ukraine-related issues in which Mr. Barr is allegedly involved. If he fails to do so, he should resign or, failing that, be subject to sanctions, including possible removal, by Congress.”
https://www.nycbar.org/media-listing/media/detail/attorney-general-barr-should-recuse-himself-from-department-of-justice-review-of-ukraine-matter
Jay,
There is nothing to recuse from – trump did not commit a crime.
There is not a credible allegation of a crime.
Barr refered the WB complaint to 8 deparate offices within DOJ for review – Barr himself participated in NONE of those reviews, ALL came back with the conclusion there was nothing to investigate. This is part of why the WB complaint was not forwarded officially to congress,
While the GOP has fixated on the absence of a quid pro quo – and the absence of one would end this, the existance of a quid pro quo would not make this a crime or even an ethical problem.
The president has the power to ask for or initiate investigations.
President Jefferson – you know THAT GUY, not only demanded an investigation of a political rival – Aaron Burr, but got him charged and tried for Treason, and directly the AG in the prosecution on a daily basis.
Burr was subsequently found not guilty.
But there existed reasonable suspicion regarding Burr’s actions – though Jefferson’s targeting of Burr was pure political venom.
No one even suggested impeaching Jefferson.
While we would expect the executive of the United states to excercise more care and discretion regarding political rivals, the constitutional requirements that must be met for an investigation are “reasonable suspicion” that a crime was committed.
That CLEARLY exists regarding Biden.
Not only does it clearly exist, but ultimately this will come out of the star chamber and you will have real public consideration of the actual facts.
This will be compared to what was done to Trump in 2016.
I do not have Mulvaney’s quote – but as I recall it, it was correct.
Everything the president does is political.
That is not the standard for anything.
Shortly the Horowitz report will come out.
That essentially deals with exactly the issue the House is dealing with.
The difference is that absent verification a triple hearsay document from a political rival does not reach probable cause – the standard required for a warrant.
While Biden’s public remarks exceed reasonable suspicion, the standard needed to open an investigation.
It might be arguable that even reasonable suspicion is not needed to ask for a foreign investigation.
Why should Barr recuse himself from an investigation that he has been part of from the start ?
Frankly the request points out the ludicrous nature of the claim against Trump.
Barr has been working independently of and without the knowledge of Trump on investigating the origens of the Trump/Russia investigation – which very definitely include both democratic and obama administration meddling in the Ukraine. Which independent of Biden’s efforts to protect his son, Biden was also a part of.
It is near certain that Barr was and may still be investigating Biden.
Properly and quietly.
It is Barr’s job to investigate the misconduct of those in government.
While the specifics of Barr’s investigation are still not mostly public – there are some leaks – though less than Mueller, and some things that can not be hidden – flights to Australia and Italy, the fact of a broad ranging investigation has been known since Barr was appointed.
So what is it that you think is a conflict ?
Barr did not participate in the original efforts to use the Ukraine to interfere with a US election.
You seem to continue to be selling this nonsensical standard that because there is an election going on democrats who may have committed crimes can not be investigated ?
I do not personally think that the purpose of the Schiff Star Chamber is to impeach Trump.
I highly doubt that Pelosi will allow anything to come to the floor of the house.
Sen. Graham has already stated that if the house forwards articles of impeachment that he does not see as “high crimes or misdemeanors” that he will move to dismiss those articles without hearing – according to the Senate Rules any Senate may ask for what is roughly the equivalent of summary judgement. And as I have said – even if absolutely everything democrats beleive to be true was true – which it isn’t, there is
Not crime,
Conduct that presidents from atleast Jefferson have engaged in with no consequence.
While I am not a fan of Graham’s position on endless war, he is correct here.
I have said here repeatedly that the house can conclude that anything they wish is an impeachable offense. Conversely the Senate can conclude that anything – including actual crimes and obstruction of justices is NOT – which is what they did with Clinton.
With Trump the stupidity of this is even clearer
The consequences of actually defining what Trump has done as impeachable would leave future presidents unable to do their job, and would make criminal conduct by political candidates impossible to prosecute.
This entire mess is idiocy. I am not happy that democrats are pushing forward with it – because I do not actually want the destruction of the democratic party.
Hummm …. human scum ties itself to Trump:
“ One of the two indicted associates of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, on Wednesday tied the case to the president himself, saying that some of the evidence gathered in the campaign-finance investigation could be subject to executive privilege.” NYT
I see that the concept of a presumption of innocence is completely lost on you.
We are still extremely short on details regarding the allegations here.
As best as I can tell there is a campaign finance claim of the sort that occurs routinely and has only been prosecuted once before EVER – and that is against Dinesch D’Sousa.
Rosie O’Donnel commited the same offense at the same time as D’Sousa and was never prosecuted. Only SD NYC has ever tried to prosecute this.
Assuming this is another of these contributions above the limit cases – which appears to be the case if the media is to be trusted – this is going nowhere.
These two “scum” are being represented by Dowd – and this is likely to die quickly and quietly. But you go on thinking you are getting somewhere.
Fundimentally – as with D’Sousa the prosecution is purely political.
While these two guys are not “really nice people”, they did provide Guiliani with some of the information he has received regarding misconduct in the Ukraine.
And that is all perfectly legal. Sometimes the people that you get information about crimes from are themselves criminals.
Last. You are again repeated anonymous leaks that the media is reporting.
Thus far – How many of those regarding Trump have proven True ?
ZERO.
Yet, you continue to beleive.
Executive privilege is a privilege of the president.
NOT a defendant.
Until you hear the whitehouse talking about asserting executive privilege you are just making things up.
Further it only applies to the communications of advisors to the president with the president.
So as an example Trump’s exchanges with Lewendowski were subject to priviledge – which Trump did not assert. But Lewendowski’s communications with others are NOT subject to priviledge.
Unless you have evidence that these two people were direct presidential advisors there is not going to be a priviledge claim.
It is just another stupid press story based on an anonymous leak.
I would note this reaks of the stuff that Hillary Clinton does all the time – like with Tulsi Gabbard.
Plant a bogus story in the news to create a false narative and suspicion of someone else.
Like that Trump is a Russian Asset or that Tulsi Gabbard is a russian asset.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/why-its-not-surprising-voters-dont-think-trumps-rhetoric-is-disqualifying/
dhlii your boy thinks he’s building a wall in Colorado…
Those faulty cranial connections keep unraveling…
“your boy” ? Really. That must be racist or some other ism.
“That you’re not shouting for a President who broadcasts language like that be removed from office further confirms what a contemptuous joke you are.”
There is nothing wrong with Trump’s language – it is all G rated.
The “issue” is that he insults people who insult him.
You do not want insulted by Trump – do not insult him.
No one would be angry with you for insulting me, If I was constantly calling you a hog, or any of the other slurs you use all the time.
If I can get a president who will put federalists on the courts, grow the economy by 50%, get us out of messy foreign entanglements and endless wars, I can tolerate the fact that he insults people who insult him.
Conversely give me a well spoken president who packs the courts with judges who think feelings are a legal foundation, who leaves the economy in the doldrums, who cant seem to find a conflict that he does not need to join, and that is the president that should be impeached.
Yes Presidents should be held accountable – for things that matter.
Dave, is disagreeing with someone ideas an insult?
Is disagreeing with someones positions an insult?
If not, then Trump insults people that question his policies and positions. He is a man who can not accept anyone thinking they may have a better idea than himself. He is not insulting people that insult him only.
I find anyone insulting others personally ( as opposed to policy) unacceptable anywhere, anytime. That does not mean it wont happen and I might be guilty myself, but to the extent Trump does it means someone like him should not be president! That is the reason I did not support him in the primaries and did not vote for him in 2016. Nor will I vote for him in 2020 just for that one reason!
I am not going to defend every work Trump has ever tweeted.
I am not going to defend every word I have ever posted.
The standard is NOT perfection, it is especially NOT perfection when those doing the bullying do not adhere to the same standard.
That is where I part company with Will and Romney and Goldberg.
I am sure there are instances when Trump attacks people who did not attack him first, or when he insults people over differences in ideas.
One rare occasion Jay or someone else here has provoked me into responding in anger without sufficient thought.
Nor do I microparse every argument that I make such that every single contingency or exception is covered – I am not writing a legal text, and you are already offended by the length of my posts.
Inarguably the left as a whole – to a large extent the democrats, and the media do very little more than Slur Trump.
I do not as an example think Trump should have called neverTrumpers Human Scum.
Nor Should Hillary have called Gabard a Russian Asset.
I have been completely shocked because some members of the democratic media have actually defended Hillary spewing nonsense like – “well maybe Hillary knows something I don’t”, or “We do not know that Gabbard is not a russian asset”.
Please find me a single tweet of Trump’s as reprehnsible as Clinton’s attack on Stein and Gabbard as Russia Assets.
And some in the media bought this ?
Need I remind you that for 3 years the media has been telling us that Trump is a Russian Asset or atleast that he might be, or that we do not know that he is not.
Sorry if Trump wants to call people who will spew that kind of nonsense “human scum” I am with him on that.
I will happily admit that the moment that debate degenerates to slurrs and insults that everything goes off the rails. And that Trump is not doing anything to make that better.
But it is not going to get better. We have had plenty of time for the left to grasp that the alynsky method might be fun – but it is also evil.
We have had decades of the left – sometimes even the moderate left calling everyone to the right of Gabbard a Nazi, a homophobe, a hateful hating hater.
We have half of the country calling the other half racists, homophobes, hateful hating haters.
I am not appologizing because the victims of this slander are fighting fire with fire and have picked Trump as their leader specifically because he does not let himself be a punching bag.
Ron,
This is pretty simple.
Once you make FALSE moral claims against another – you are no longer credible,
you no longer have integrity, and if someone calls you “human scum” – tough.
Trump might be painting with a bit too broad a brush. He might be showing a bit more temper than he should, but we can debate about perfection when the left is ready to have rational discussions and stick to facts, logic, reason.
I have as of yet not seen Trump attack Taylor personally. That does not mean he was not critical of his testimony or that he did not directly assert that what he was told was said was wrong.
I have read the purported money line in Taylor statement – we only whispers about his testimony. There is nothing in Taylor’s testimony that demonstrates anything beyond that he was not the right person to be Ukrainian ambassador.
I have no doubt carreer diplomats are unhappy with “back channels”.
SO WHAT?
Even though the issue is not “quid pro quo”,
everything related to Taylor is him saying “you can’t do this” and others tweeting back to him – “we aren’t, quit talking as if we are”. That is not proof of anything.
We do however know that Yavonovitch was actively trying to kill ukrainian efforts to investigate anything involving past misconduct of either ukrainians or americans.
We do know that she was trying to kill press stories.
And that she was fired for good cause.
And that it appears that Taylor came in beleiving otherwise,
“but to the extent Trump does it means someone like him should not be president! ”
We decide that with our vote in elections.
1,000 times a day Jay tells us that some thing Trump tweeted or someone else tweeted about Trump means Trump should not be president.
That is why we have elections.
“We decide that with our vote in elections.”
And that is why I never supported 18 year old voters. And I now think anyone registering to vote should have to pass the same citizenship test as immigrants, at least the government regulation/constitution portion.
People ignorant of our constitution and government should NEVER be voting in federal elections. But that was not an issue back in 1776.
Lowering the voting age was a mistake. Another of the bad consequences of Vietnam.
We know that manly cognative skills are not fulling developed until late 20’s.
I fully support making voting HARD. I want the lowest possible voter participation.
I do not want people to vote unless they really really really care.
If I could I would require that all voting must occur only during torrential rains, blinding snow storms of blistering heat.
If you do not care enough to overcome obstacles to vote – you should not be voting.
We know from studies that people make really crappy choices – when there are no personal costs if that decision is bad. Nassim Taleeb calls is having “skin in the game”.
It is why polls on things like M4A or PPACA flip radically when there is even a small cost associated with a choice.
There is almost no government program that is not overwhelmingly opposed if it costs the average family $150/year
It is the cost of our choices that makes us make better choices.
I want a deep and thorough investigation of all that occurred in the 2016 election.
Schiff and the entire left want to continue this faux impeachment nonsense, go ahead.
If they actually thought they had anything – they would be parading witnesses out in public.
Nothing that has happened thus far has legs. It is like the Mueller investigation – myriads of phoney leaks, misprepresentations, and ultimately nothing.
If there is really something there – go find it.
I do not think there is a quid pro quo – but I do not care. Frankly I think the entire fixation on this phone call is obviously stupid.
Trump did not ask Zelensky to find something that was not there.
He did not ask Zelensky to manufacture anything. he asked him to investigate.
And I want that investigation and More. I do not really trust the ukrainians to do it, but I do not have much choice. We are not going to take over the ukrainian government to do it right.
What Trump was after was not merely legitimate – it was necscary.
If we do not get to the bottom of the mess that happened in 2016 – we will repeat it, and the next time will be much worse.
I do not give a shit about this fax impeachment. Absent some unthoughout out knee jerk emotional reacton I do not think house democrats are going to vote to impeach.
While the house is free to impeach for any reason. they have never tried this particular nonsense – both in terms of substance and in terms of process before – because it is a very bad idea. There are two possible outcomes – they fail, in which case they look REALLY REALLY bad. Or they succeed – in which case this process becomes the new norm.
Neither outcome is good.
There will be a republican house again in the future – as things go – probably in 2020.
There will be a democrat president in the future.
Had the GOP been dominated by Schiff’s Pelosi’s and Nalder’s – Obama would have been impeached many times over.
Most of the comments here – even my own are somehow tied to the Faux impeachment.
I honestly find that uninteresting.
I have nearly completely lost faith in the media.
I think the picture we get of this is flawed and false.
I do not think it stands a chance of going anywhere,
and if it does it is a self punishing act.
I think that democrats and the media are just begging Republicans to behave in the same way.
There is less “investigation” in the senate – because the minority currently still has more power in the senate. Subpeona’s require the chair and minority leader to sign off.
But that is a convention – and just as the House is going rogue – so can the senate.
In theory Lindsey Graham could open a paralellel investigation and make all the same people testify in public. And if the house votes for impeachment – this will go to the senate and we will see testimony in public.
I keep looping back to impeachment – because that has sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
But I do not really care about it.
Several things do concern me:
The first is there was and hopefully still is a thorough investigation of the 2016 election mess.
THAT is what is really important. That must not be derailed.
The other is that it is clear from Trump’s presidency thus far that significant portions of the federal government need FIRED.
You can feel however you wish about Trump and his policies.
But the foundation of our faith in govenrment is the beleif that if we win an election only the constitution is an impediment to accomplishing our political goals.
If Trump can not do what he was elected to do – so long as it is consistent with the constitution, then should Gary Johnson or Gertrude Stein ever get elected, they too will face an unelected federal bureacracy that is on autopilot forcing this bizarre collection of neocon and progressive policies down our throats no matter what the results of the election.
That must end.
It is time to fire alot of people.
Well, never cross a megalomaniac billionaire. Here is today’s self inflicted wound and self impeachment and self lynching drama from the great orange one. And this too will be no big deal to the vast majority of conservative and will get no more than a mild scolding from any of them, ah well he has bad manners, no big deal. The President of the United States calls republicans who don’t support him human scum, its another one for the history books. And the GOP will swallow it meekly, and go down in history as well. There are going to be a Large number of younger Americans whose impression of the GOP is going to be so strongly negative that they will be as likely to ever vote republican even as they grow older, as southern voters were likely to vote democrat after Kennedy and Johnson. By thinking only of today the GOP is creating a huge problem for itself in the future. People like trump and gaetz are now the face of the GOP and with once sane people lindsey graham now going full hannity, the decency of the party is all but invisible, its those same never trumpers.
”
President Trump on Wednesday excoriated so-called Never Trump Republicans as “human scum” as he seeks to solidify Republican support of him amid an ongoing impeachment inquiry.
He singled out his administration’s special envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor, who a day earlier sat for closed door testimony with those lawmakers the impeachment inquiry and delivered damaging testimony about the White House’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes.
“The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats,” Trump tweeted. “Watch out for them, they are human scum!”
“Never Trumper Republican John Bellinger, represents Never Trumper Diplomat Bill Taylor (who I don’t know), in testimony before Congress!” Trump tweeted about 45 minutes later, bemoaning the lack of transparency in the impeachment proceedings thus far.
“It would be really great if the people within the Trump Administration, all well-meaning and good (I hope!), could stop hiring Never Trumpers, who are worse than the Do Nothing Democrats,” Trump added. “Nothing good will ever come from them!””
Now let the miniscule response and even defence of this lowering of the office of the OTUS begin from his enablers.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/467131-trump-blasts-never-trump-republicans-as-human-scum
Roby , one can be an egotistical, obnoxious, insulting asshole and get elected. But, stupidity will lead to a defeat every time.
Clinton found that out when she decided to call Trump supporters a basket of deplorables or something like that.
Insult another person, for voters most dont care. Insult a group of voters and you can generate an enthusiasm in voters that policy and agenda will never create.
So now Trump has his “basket of deplorables” by calling democrats ” human scum”.
The democrats can make good use of this comment, just as the GOP did with BoD’s.
Those Never Trumpers are Republicans, Ron.
He also said they should be removed from office if serving, and not allowed to run. Has that sunk in the addled brains of his supporters – An American President claiming his critics shouldn’t be allowed to hold congressional office ?
And did I not say Trump insults those that disagree with him? n
I dont disagree with his policies, hut I am a never Trump voter. And I know there are many like me.
I would use “Human scum” comments in the coming election more than the GOP used deplorables. Dont care if it was directed at republicans or whoever, this statement is gold for soundbites.
If it is “gold” it will be used alot.
I doubt it. Insulting never Trumpers might be immoral.
It is not politically damaging to insult people who are never going to vote for you.
What next? Great sound and visual bytes If he drops his trousers and yanks his flaccid penis as an insult to critics, like Mafia guys clutching their crotch in disdain at rivals?
And if Buttigieg is his opponent and he starts making snide Butt jokes, insinuating homosexual slurs based on Buttigieg’s name, will his base eat up those sound bytes too?And yes, Republicans will shrug it off – that’s become reflexive for them. This is our nation now, bastardized bullshit for the multitudes from a president who has assimilated his World Wrestling personae into daily White House pronouncements.
Makes me sorry I’ve lived to see this obscene deterioration of national rectitude.
Trump does not fly an LGBTQ flag from the whitehouse.
OR wear a BLM armband,
OR ….
Actually sometimes he does inarticulately bellow support for various different minorities – but you pay no attention.
There are more openly gay people in the Trump administration than any prior.
We have hard two female press secretaries, the first female campaign manager to ever win a presidential election. Actual presidential support for Jews, the strongest minority support for a republican since the 50’s.
Yet you can not help but presume that Trump is a homophobe, and that anyone who is not pissing all over him is too.
I lived through Johnson, Nixon and Clinton – those were actual deterioration in “national rectitude”.
If I want to know what Trump said – I will read his tweets or find video of his comments.
to repeat – I am long past trusting your or the media’s trump splaining.
Anyone in the executive who can not follow the policies of the president, should resign of be fired.
If they beleive those policies are illegal or unconstitutional – that is what congress and the courts are actually their for.
I do not care what label is put on you – the above is true.
From what I can tell Amb. Taylor is a good man.
And he should be fired for cause.
He was both actively trying to thwart the foriegn policy of the president
and independently actively trying to thwart a faux version of US policy despite being told repeatedly to stop because that is NOT what Trump’s policy was.
Taylor is the ambassador. His immediate superiors are Pompeo and Trump.
Nothing he has said indicates that either Trump or Pompeo told him any of the things he was complaining about. I do not care what Taylor thinks people who did not have the authority to set policy or direct him might have thought or said.
My read of the tweet is that Trump called never trumpers human scum.
A mistake, but not nearly the same as Clinton’s deplorables remark.
All Billionaires are meglomaniacs.
All Politicians are even more so.
Probably all or nearly all of them are sociopaths.
I can not find the quote but I think someone poignantly noted that anyone who wants to be president should not be president.
None of that is new.
You do not like Trump’s style. Mostly neither do I.
That is a reason to vote for or against someone – that is all.
There are many reasons Trump won. Neither you nor the democrats nor the left, nor the media seem even slightly interested in trying to figure out why Trump won, and Clinton and democrats lost.
Some of the GOP “trying to reverse the outcome of an election” complaints are posturing – but NOT ALL.
The Fact is that You, the Media, The left, and the democrats and the permanent state have since BEFORE the election doing your damnedest – BY ANY MEANS NECESCARY trying to hold power. The part of that that is wrong is “BY ANY MEANS NECESCARY”.
That is part and parcel of the philosophical error of all leftist politics.
The Ends do not justify the means.
The problem with political correctness is that it is immoral.
It is a form of faux virtue signalling and moral preening to justify slurring and insulting others.
ONE of the many reasons Trump won, was that he is the kryptonite for Political Correctness.
One of the reasons Trump’s “style” does not bother many of us – is because it is just YOUR style turned against you.
It is OK with you to call others racist, mysoginist, homophobes, or hateful, hating haters, absent evidence, or more accurately absent any real distinction between yourself and those you slander.
We are all racist, mysoginist homophobic, or in otherways discriminatory.
One of the most fundimental aspects of human nature is that we are tribal.
If we do not get divided by familiy, by clan, by literal tribe, we will divide ourselves automatically into other tribes – gender, race, sexual preference, …..
That is inherent part of human nature and it is never going away.
HOWEVER, over the course of 150K years we have radically mitigated some forms of those preferences. They are not and never will be completely gone.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
My point is that you will ALWAYS be able to call others discriminatory – because we will always discriminate – Another name for discriminate is “chose”.
We MUST always make choices.
I chose a person as a spouse. Am I a homophobe because I picked a woman ?
I adopted children – that process required me to pick the nationality, ethnicity and gender of my children. Does that make my a racist, sexist ?
Choices – even choices that have gender, race, sexual preference as their root are not inherently immoral.
All of us make those choices.
When one political group PRETENDS that it is possible not to make choices on those basis,
it is lying to itself and the world.
When it defames others for the slightest evidence of a race, gender or sexual preference based choice – that defamation is itself immoral.
It is not possible for humans to conduct their lives such that they can not be accused of violating the precepts of PC/Intersectional culture.
This is what happens when the philosophical core of your ideology is rotten.
All Trump does is expose the rot.
You call everyone – Whether Romney. McCain, Bush, Nazi’s, deplorables, hateful, hating haters, homophobes, racists, sexists.
Read your own and Jay’s posts.
You barely know how to make an argument anymore without jumping to slurrs and insults.
Why are you surprised that tens of millions of americans are actually happy that Trump is insulting and slurring you – or more accurately your immoral leaders.
Trump is not dividing america – YOU have already done that.
The people who supported Trump – and many who do not, nonetheless DO NOT share your values. But we do not for the most part slur and insult you merely because we disagree.
But YOU do.
Your entire “argument” is agree with me or I will slander and malign you.
Look at Jay’s posts – that is quite litterally exactly what he posts nearly 100% of the time
I keep telling you that if you actually manage to somehow terminate Trump – what follows will be worse.
If Trump is not powerful enough to stand up to and thwart your bullying, eventually the people you are bullying will find someone who is. Keep things up and they will tolerate attilla the Hun to punish your bullying.
Further you are pushing further and further into chaos.
When the balance shifts to far towards chaos we naturally over compensate towards order.
That is why FDR was elected, why Nixon was elected, why Reagan was elected, and actually a part of why Trump was elected.
That swing back to order almost always goes way too far. Regardless, it occurs whenever the forces of chaos become too strong.
Robby,
Trump behaves like YOU, Like Jay, Like Democrats, Like Progressives, Like the left.
Why should we get upset over Trump – when we have been subject to that kind of abuse from YOU constantly ?
You are making a big deal of impeachment.
I am having fun poking holes in this nonsense.
Wow, you have moved the needle a few points.
The fact is THERE IS NOTHING THERE.
You want to impeach Trump for behavior far tamer than Thomas Jefferson, or Joe Biden – go ahead.
But do not expect the rest of us to share your outrage.
The most egregious possible verions of Trump’s alleged conduct here is not a crime, and aside from style not even morally wrong.
Vice President Biden’s use of US government power for personal benefit absolutely positively should be investigated.
The conduct of the Obama administration with respect to the 2016 election absolutely positively MUST be investigated.
Every single thing that Barr, Durham, Hunter, Horowitz, Trump, Gulliani are looking into Should be looked into.
The efforts of the “permanent state” to thwart the policies of a president elected based on those policies should have consequences – firing if necessary.
Whether the president is Trump or Obama, progressive or conservative – if you can not impliment their policies – resign. Resistance is done from the outside.
It is the role of congress to thwart the politics of the president where there is disagreement.
It is the role of the courts to thwart the policies of the president if they are illegal or unconstitutional.
It is not the role of any government employee.
Jay calls anyone who does not loath Trump human scum – or worse ten times a day.
So does the press, so do democrats – even turning on their own such as gabbard.
And you have done this all long before Trump stepped onto the stage.
“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.”
“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”
Barack Obama
Why are Trump supporters ignoring you ?
Because your conduct is repugnant.
Because you burned your own integrity and credibility long ago.
So that you can understand – I am not insulting you.
I did not do this to you.
You did it to yourself.
The obvious monster in the closet is the whole Trump/Russia thing.
We all listen to exactly the same outrage for YEARS.
Trump is a russian asset, Collusion, Collusion Collusion.
Trump is toast, Trump is lying about this.
Faux Leaks that fomented outrage
and in the end NOTHING.
The Mueller investigation never should have occured – there never existed “reasonable suspicion”. I expect that over time as we dig further the wheels are coming off even the prosecutions that Mueller did make.
Crowdstrike came up in the Zelensky call. We may never get to the bottom of that.
But to this day there does not exist actual credible evidence that Russia hacked the DNC.
But that is an article of faith in the media and the left. And you do not want anyone to even try to get to the bottom of it.
We are 3 years in – and we still have not seen the FISA warrant.
We already know pretty much everything about it.
It holds no secrets. It is just like the Mueller report. All that is left is to actually see the real thing to end all progressive hopes that hiding it the corners of what we do not know is something that justifies to national harm that YOU have caused.
If you beleive that Taylor was actually damaging – then demand that Schiff release the transcripts.
I have heard what Democrats claim is damaging – and it is not.
I wish Republicans and Trump would stop this “no quid pro quo” chant.
While there was no “quid pro quo” that is NOT the proper standard.
The standard is “reasonable suspicion”.
The Government may investigate any allegation where reasonable suspicion exists.
It may not where reasonable suspicion does not exist.
There is far more than enough to constitute “reasonable suspicion” regarding all the areas of investigation Trump wants cooperation from Ukraine.
And Ukraine is required to cooperate by Treaty.
But much of Taylor’s public statement is just disagreement with Trump over Policy.
That is fine. But the foreign policy of the united states is set by the president – right or wrong.
I agree with the GOP that there was no “quid pro quo”.
But there is no doubt at all that Trump asked for alot of things to be investigated.
and that it LEGITIMATE – Taylor is claiming that is not. He is wrong.
You can beleive Trump is wrong as a matter of policy, but the choice is still his.
Not Taylors.
To the extent Adam Schiff has any voice at all – it is through his vote as a member of congress. That is one vote among 435.
Regardless – If taylor is so damning – release the transcripts.
This is not hard.
You are upset because Trump was trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden a political rival.
What is it that you think Schiff is doing ?
There is not a legal or moral Barr against political investigations.
Our constitution does not care WHY you do something.
It cares whether what you do is justified.
Was the Trump Russia investigation ever justified – so far there is no evidence it was.
Is investigating Biden Justified – self evidently yes.
Is investigating 2016 election shenanigans in the ukraine justified – self evidently yes.
Is Schiff’s investigation justified – probably not.
Regardless, he needs to actually make that case to the american people – PUBLICLY.
You complain about Trump’s tweet regarding Taylor.
While Taylor can hire whoever he wants with his own resources.
There is also nothing wrong with Trump’s tweet.
Given that every time we turn arround every effort to “get Trump” seems to devolve to the often secret actions of mostly the same trump haters – I think Trump is justified in questioning this.
Watergate turned not because Nixon’s enemies got together to attack him.
But because he lost the support of his friends.
Increasingly either Trump has acted outside his powers and the law – or his enemies have.
And the evidence favors the latter.
There are some serious questions about Taylor. While it appears he has been an honorable public servant. It is quite clear that completely ignoring the Biden mess, that he and Trump are not even close to on the same page regarding Ukraine.
All US ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. Their job is to impliment the foreign policy of the elected president. They are advisors. But ultimately they must follow direction or resign. Trump inherited Yavonovitch. He took way too long to fire her given her open hostility to Trump’s policies and her active interferance in investigations in the Ukraine.
The question is how did Taylor come to replace her. While that was recent, it still something Trump had some control over. And it clearly was bad judgement on his part – and likely many others.
That you want to attack Trump on – I am OK with that.
“ There is also nothing wrong with Trump’s tweet.”
You’ve proved you’re an unredeemable idiot.
And a despicable one at that.
It’s sad, really, that you are as blockheaded as you are.
There’s violence ahead in nation.
People like you have allowed Trump to fester uncontested; you’re responsible for the resulting civil revolts that will soon be erupting nationwide. You’re children are going to despise you for your dodo bird obtuseness and views – I’m thinking they may already do.
Rather than continue the insults – make an argument.
What is wrong with the tweet ?
To be clear you are trying to make a moral argument, not one about policies.
This is not about who is right or wrong about ukrainian policies.
Trump insulted nevertrumpers.
Probably not a good idea.
But as I have said before Trump attacks those who attack him first.
Are you saying nevertrumpers are a group that is happy with Trump ? That does not attack him ?
Further you want me to accept a moral challenge to Trump – from YOU ?
You are quite litterally Trump on steroids. You do not merely attack those who attack you.
You attack anyone who does not kowtow to your thoughts.
No you are not the president. no one is going to impeach you.
But you have pissed all over your own integrity and credibilty – so why should anyone listen to you ?
Why should I trust you about anything ?
We listened to 3 years of Trump/Russia from you – all that fizzled.
Put simply – IT WAS A LIE. One you bough, but more important on that you used as the basis for slandering and maligning everyone who did not share your delusions.
We just saw Clinton’s delusional attack on Gabbard and Stein.
I do not agree with either – but they are not Russian Assets.
That claim is vile garbage.
But Clinton has NOT suddenly changed.
To the extent anything is different, she is spewing this dirt directly – as Gabbard challenged her – out from behind the curtain – not using planted stories in NYT or WaPo or by paying Perkins Coi or Fusion GPS or Steele.
Clinton also called Trump a Russian Asset – she was no more credible then – but you beleived. And look where it has gotten you ?
Obama called Palin a pig.
Susan Rice just called Graham a peice of shit.
Clinton called half the country deplorable.
Should Trump call never Trumpers “human scum” – probably not.
but you are late by more than a decade in your outrage.
Here you and jay are day after day spraying exactly the same slurrs and insults at everyone who disagrees with you.
Why are you surprised that no one is outraged over insults ?
If Taylor’s testimony was actually a “bombshell” make it public.
We all know Schiff’s actual goal – to gin up public support for impeachment.
And that is actually fine.
But the process actually matters.
When the Freedom Caucus burst into the hearings yesterday – Schiff admitted that there would be no classified testimony.
Schiff was litterally engaged in an abuse of power.
the House SCIF is for hearings on classified information.
It is not there for political secrecy.
Schiff is free to gin up all the support he can for impeachment PUBLICLY.
As WaPo’s banner claims – democracy dies in darkness.
Dave, wrong!
What Obama said was:
“You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”
“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”
“We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
Later, it was twisted that Palin was a pig because she had the lipstick.
Might want to check out your sources reporting her being the pig. If she was the pig, why wasnt it reported he called McCain an “old stinky fish?
McCaine and Palin are the “change” he was refering to.
The clip below is just a long history of Pres. Obama PERSONALLY insulting Donald Trump.
Some of the insults are quite good – funny. but they are still personal insults. Personal Attacks, by the president of the united states on someone who is not president and at the time not even a politician.
Lets not pretend that Trump is some aberration.
The worst that can be said of Trump is that he is not as good at insulting people as Obama.
Ron
“Later it was twisted”.
I am sure that on one level Obama was attacking McCain’s platform.
But lets not pretend his words were “twisted”.
I linked to Obama’s jibes at Trump.
Those are funny, but at the same time bitter and personal.
Trump asked for what he got From Obama, but do not forget that at the time Trump was just a private citizen critical of Obama, and Obama was the president of the United States – someone who I keep hearing from Jay and Robby and even you is not supposed to hit back from the bully pulpit of the presidency.
I am sorry Ron, I am tired of the double standard.
The fundimental differences between Trump and Obama with respect to insulting opponents, is that Trump speaks to a different audience. Trump’s insults are of elites and intended to be understood by blue collar workers. While Obama was an elite often attacking the working class “clinging to their guns and bibles” and intended to be appreciates by other elites.
Alot of what we have going on is a class war of sorts – with Donald Trump as the anachronistic leader of the working Classes. While elites on the left are defending the establishment.
OK here is a question for using this site once we get to 1000 comments.
1. Following the comments after 300-400 is impossible since they can end up anywhere.
2. Using the email “reply” function works, but once we get over 500, each and every time one replies, word press has to load all the you tubes, links and other non-character based written comments along with comments. It takes forever ( exaggeration) for this to take place, especially when there are times I want to reply to multiple comments.
Does anyone know if there is away to go into WordPress directly and sort comments by date and time, the reply there?
Here is a different explanation of why “quid pro quo” is not the issue at all.
I have some disagreements with the author – in the public interests is NOT the standard for initiating an investigation – that is far too maleable – anything can be argument to be in the public interest – Joe Biden would have little problem arguing that firing Shokin to protect his son was somehow in the public interest.
The other interesting point which I have not heard before was that the forged letter implicating Manafort was a product of the same meeting with Biden and the Ukraine.
So lets be clear – during the 2016 election the Ukraine produced a document claiming that Manafort had received significant amounts of money essentially from Russia.
That document was a FORGERY, it came from the Ukrainian government.
It resulted in Manafort leaving the Trump campaign – so it inarguably was interference in a US election by a foreign power.
We already know that the DNC was involved in getting the Ukraine to produce this document.
The author of this editorial is asserting that Biden as VP was also involved.
The DNC being involved is a big problems. The Vice President being involved – is a huge problem.
You are ranting because Trump asked Ukraine to open an investigation into very suspicious conduct on the part of VP Biden – as well as lots of other suspicious conduct by democrats in the Ukraine.
Trump did not ask Zelensky to “make something up” – while the Manafort ledger is a KNOWN FORGERY – a fraud.
If there was a basis – VP Biden and the democratic party could certainly have asked Ukraine to find the truth about something. But in this instance the result was a LIE.
I am in the midst of watching Ken Burn’s Vietnam with my wife.
I still have a ways to go, but much of it has parallels to today – not perfect parallels, and different issues the various sides have flipped, though not perfectly accross the board.
Burns starts with WWII in vietnam, a story I new atleast part of.
Though I did not understand the extent to which Vietnam was completely avoidable at the start, absent a long sequence of mistakes by the French, the British, the US and the north vietnamese. What I did not know was that by the time Kennedy was president the die was cast.
I am up to 68 now. I was 10 at that time and from 68 forward Vietnam as it effected this country was something I experienced personally. I missed having to register for the draft by only a few months.
Regardless as I watch Burn’s vietnam – and learn even more about what was hidden from us at the time than I knew then, and how bad the decisions of our leaders were, and how to a very large extent they knew their decisions were bad, and how the same tired arguments were being made – as we hear now over Syria or other parts of the mid-east.
So let me be clear. I do not give a shit about thwarting the influence of Russia or Iran, or ISIS, or whoever int he mid-east.
I do not beleive there are any “good guys” there – not even the US.
Bad things are going to happen there no matter what.
I do not beleive the nonsense that if we do not stop Iran or Russia or ISIS in Syria or wherever that we will be fighting them on our own doorstep.
It is increasingly self evident that our leaders knew fairly early in vietnam, that the world would not come to an end if we left, that any harm to our national prestige from leaving would only be amplified by drawing things out, That leaving in the early 60’s might have cost hundreds of Vietnamese their lives. Not leaving cost millions their lives.
I am not interested in what myriads of retired Generals or Colonel’s or CIA or state department people tell us about the mid east. While these are not litterally the same people who KNOWINGLY lied to us about vietnam, They are their intellectual heirs.
I would note that thought the congruence is not perfect – it is mostly the same people who are
telling us that we must stay in Syria who also F’d up the Ukraine.
I would remind all here – that the Ukraine mess started when we persuaded the Ukrainians at the collapse of the USSR to give their nuclear weapons to the Russians. in return for our (false and impossible to keep) promises of protection. That the most recent mess is the consequence of the Clinton/Obama state department engaging in intrigues in Ukraine with Russia and formenting a Coup with the hope of needling Putin. A coup that resulted in a real hot war inside of Ukraine that has the country screwed up through today.
Just because Putin is a bad guy – does not make anything we might do good.
Clinton’s Ukraine Coup F’d up already messy US relations with Russia – resulting (how many ?) Russia Resets under Obama. Ukraine was always corrupt, but the coup ultimately made the US participatory and complicit in that corruption, and it made the Ukraine into an anxious US vasal – unable to trust us, and unable to survive without our help.
I do not know if Hunter Biden’s influence peddling in the Ukraine was a crime. It was certainly morally wrong. But it was also NOT by far the only US corruption involving Ukraine during the Obama administration – it was not even the only corruption involving Joe Biden.
The claim that Shokin was corrupt is fairly dubious. Slow maybe, but not corrupt. He did not move to Monaco after he was deposed by Biden. What is true is that many Corrupt Oligarches – not just those associated with Burisima benefited from Biden’s removal of Shikon. And that corruption in the Ukraine grew rather than diminished with Shokin’s removal. The claim that Biden was fighting corruption in Ukraine, is much like the claim that the US was fighting against communism in Vietnam – just another lie our government told us.
We have learned alot for Vietnam. We have learned how to fight lean and mean, how to own the battlefield day and night, how to be incredibly surgical in warfare, how to mostly kill only the enemy.
But we have failed to learn so many of the lessons of Vietnam.
That we can not trust those in government – from the president on down to marine captains of CIA analysts who tell us how necescary some fighting is, How real US interests are involved, How the fight is actually winable. How things will be worse if we leave than if we stay. How staying will not be forever.
These people have almost never been right during my entire lifetime.
Regardless, these people have been given their chance – in Vietnam, and their heirs by Bush, and Obama, and even Trump.
And it is time to say FU and move on.
If Trump is finally there – not soon enough.
If you are still war mongering over Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, ….
Shame on you.
If you want to attack Trump for not leaving sooner – I am with you.
If you want to attack him for not leaving fast enough – I am with you.
If you want to attack him because he may be vascillating over leaving – either because it has cost him too much support from neocons and endless war mongers within the GOP while lunactic democrats who USED to be the party of peace threaten to impeach another republican president who is actually getting us out of war – I am with you.
But if you are actively undermining getting us the Frack out of these conflicts – FU.
I would like to see out troops come home.
I can live with getting them out of the line of fire.
I do not give much damn where they pitch their tent – so long as they are not being killed or killing in our name, when there is not a compelling US interest at stake. And they remain available – should there be an actual US interest that requires them – anywhere in the world.
And everywhere that Joseph went Hunter was sure to go (profit)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-s-legal-work-romania-raises-new-questions-about-n1071031
I am guessing, but the only way that I can see this being changed to a criminal probe into spying on the trump campaign is that Barr/Durham have established with certainty that Mifsud is a western asset.
There are many other scenarious that are bad for the Obama DOJ/FBI/CIA/State,
But none that I can think of that would result in a criminal investigation of spying.
A criminal investigation including a grand jury and subpeona power would require probable cause that a crime has been committed.
I keep trying to remind all of you that WHY you wish to do something is not the determining factor for legitimacy, it is WHAT or the evidentiary basis for what you wish to do.
The motives of Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden in their respective actions is not important.
What they did is important, and whether it was justified.
Trump has a clear legal justification to investigate Biden and the 2016 Ukraine election interference.
Biden’s justification for having Shokin fired is questionable, but most important he has a personal conflict that requires him to divorce himself from the Ukraine
To have criminal spying on Trump – that would require spying without probable cause.
I think the spying on Carter Page was a crime. But Barr has shown no interest in persuing Horowitz’s referal against Comey, and to my knowledge Horowitz did not refer Comey or anyone else regarding the FISA warrant.
I do not think Barr is willing to make the FISA warrant into a criminal matter,
even though I think he should.
I also do not think though again there is a good claim that Barr is going to Criminally prosecute any action after the FBI received the Steele Dossier that uses the Steele Dossier as the basis. That would require the DOJ to take a stand that the 4th amendment means what it says – and that would run at odds to decades of SCOTUS decisions eviscerating the 4th amendment.
Downing is not a US citizen and host actions took place in the UK.
That leave Mifsud. If Mifsud is an FBI or CIA asset, his first contacts with Papadoulis were in March of 2016 – long before the Steele Dossier.
Absent a probable cause it would be a crime from the FBI/CIA to spy on anyone – Papadoulis or Trump.
https://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-opens-probe-possible-020057655.html
This is a Breitbart peice – which makes it about as credible as MSNBC.
I doubt their facts are wrong – and there is a long list of them.
The fundimental error – the same one that Jay, Robby, the the left make all the time is guilt by association – 2+ levels deep.
i.e. Taylor is associated with Atlantic Council or some other group, and that group is in part financed by Burisima.
I think under the circumstances Taylor violated ethics rules in his opening statement by failing to disclose the relationship.
But there is no more reason to presume that Taylor is lying because he is connected to people connected to burisima
Just as there is no reason to beleive that because people stay at Trump hotels they recieve favors from Trump.
There is a more credible basis to beleive that if you receive 100’s of millions from people that it will effect your actions as Sec State.
HOWEVER, it was improper not to fully disclose this.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/23/who-william-taylor-impeachment-star-witness-longtime-relationship-burisma-backed-think-tank/
Oops
Taylor’s problems do get worse.
Now we have Taylor one level removed from the Steele Dossier, From McCaine, From Sorros, and directly connected to Schiff BEFORE the complaint.
This also amplifies Schiff’s problems.
Schiff is a former prosecutor. He knows better than to act in a way that would make himself a fact witness in an investigation that he was prosecuting or adjudicating.
And yet, he has done so, multiple times.
“The star witness in the Schiff Pelosi impeachment farce, Ambassador William Taylor, has long-standing ties and a financial relationship to a Burisma funded think tank, according to Breitbart News investigative reporter Aaron Klein. Klein also reports that Taylor has a long-standing relationship with David Kramer, the advisor to Senator John McCain who leaked the Steele Dossier to Buzzfeed. More ominously a Schiff staffer on a Burisma funded trip to Ukraine in August met with Ambassador Taylor to discuss the “whistleblower” complaint. The Atlantic Society, funded by Burisma, also receives funding from the George Soros Open Society Foundations. It is a trifecta of corruption undercutting Taylors testimony.”
Excellent peice by Sharyl Attkinson – Citing former Obama State Department officials as saying that precluding Trump from conditioning US aide on cooperating in investigations would violate the constitution.
Attkinson beautifully quotes Taylor himself on the legitimacy of what he claims Trump was doing.
What does it take to get you all to understand – there is a reason that this kind of inquiry MUST be conducted in SUNLIGHT for all to see.
While Taylors links to Burisima, the Steele Dossier Sorros and Schiff are not completely damning. That plus the contradiction between his OWN published remarks on the issue of conditioning foreign aide are extremely important context for his own testimony.
In a proper judicial inquiry examination of the potential biases of a witness is ALWAYS allowed, and one of the reasons we do not have star chamber prosecutions.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/467079-quid-pro-quo-in-ukraine-no-not-yet
Some excellent information on why the Kurdish outrage is nonsense.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/10-questions-to-ask-about-trumps-removal-of-troops-from-syria/
Why the pursuit of profit by businesses is always inherently good.
Revenue (what people will pay in a competitive market) minus cost (the value of resources used to provide a product or service) equals profit (a first-order indicator of a business’s contribution to society).
A business can only profit by giving society what it wants and needs.
Profit is a measure of how well it does that.
No country in the world has every raised its standard of living by fighting poverty.
by far the most powerful force for the improvement of mankind is the pursuit of profit.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
Adam Smith
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/467224-capitalism-on-trial-profit-is-a-good-thing-except-to-the-political-left
The real thing the faux impeachment seeks to thwart
https://spectator.org/the-case-for-indicting-john-brennan/
Now we have reporting that AG Barr specifically asked the Whitehouse to make calls to various foreign leaders to ask for their cooperation in his investigations.
If you read the Sharyl Attkisson article I linked that appears to be the normal process by which an AG secures the cooperation of the Justice Department equivalent in foreign countries.
The IG report is expected to be release very soon, with little or no redactions according to Horowitz and the IC IG was grilled by senators regarding any open investigations into the 125 leaks of classified information that have occured and are part of his purview.
the IC IG refused to answer because his closed house testimony had not been published yet and that he can not comment on ongoing investigations. Republicans called Bunk as Horowitz and other IC’s routinely brief them even providing the titles of people being investigated – as IG investigtations are not criminal there is no legal barrier to sharing information with congress.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-trump-durham-probe-new-york-times-reporting-justice-department
This is worth noting from a 538 analysis piece: neither political side of congress is getting high marks on impeachment but republicans are getting even much lower marks. Really, almost all of the various questions one can ask about impeachment show a split that reflects the trump unfavorability, which lies is a range of 52-55 unfavorable and 40-42 favorable. I think that split is solidly locked in and will never change from here to the election, if trump is still in place by the election. trump has 40% he can count on who will never change. That is clearly not enough when more than 50% steadfastly oppose him and will never change.
“Interestingly, even though the CNN/SSRS poll shows that Americans support impeaching Trump, that doesn’t mean they approve of how Congress is going about it. Only 43 percent approve of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the impeachment inquiry, while 49 percent disapprove. However, the numbers are much worse for Republicans in Congress: just 30 percent approve of the way they’re handling the inquiry and 57 percent disapprove. And Americans say, 50 percent to 40 percent, that Republicans oppose impeachment because they are out to protect Trump at all costs, not because they believe he did not commit impeachable offenses.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-the-public-stands-on-impeachment-one-month-in/
“ Only 43 percent approve of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the impeachment inquiry, while 49 percent disapprove.”
Roby, if Twittersphere is indicative of Dem disapproval, almost all of the criticism is over the foot-dragging slowness of the process …
Jay, please provide source for your info concerning the slowness of the process.
Sometimes I can agree with Jay.
The left has been anticipating the impeachment of Trump since the day after the election.
They want this yesterday.
Schiff is in a bind.
He can proceed more rapidly – but that requires more cooperation from the WH, Republicans and state, as well as an open process.
But an open process will go much as Nadler’s mueller hearings – disasterously.
Proceeding slowly in secret has some advantages, but it drags things out and kills knee jerk responses. Each day – democrats come out of the SCIF announcing how bad the testimony was, but by the time they go back in, the impact of the last witness has been blunted.
I’m talking about how long it took to even start the process.
Didn’t you complain months ago about Pelosi stalling it?
Jay,
Are you even close to admitting that Mueller was disasterous for Democrats ?
Robert Mueller and his gang of Clinton lawyers anally probed Trump and the 2016 campaign.
They looked at every handshake anyone who knew Trump had with anyone who might have known a russian. It is not possible to prove a negative – but they came as close as anyone can. Not from desire to exonerate Trump but with absolute determination to get him.
And the deeper we look the worse it gets Sidney is now trying to use the Flynn “Guilty Plea” and Judge Sullivans requirement that the US attorney provide all exculpatory evidence as a means of putting the FBI and Mueller team on Trial – and she is likely to get what she wants – because Sullivan understands that Powell can withdraw the plea.
Powell is NOT looking to get Flynn a no time deal, She is actively arguing that Sulivan should not just dismiss the case but should censure the US Attorneys.
We now know that the Flynn 302’s were altered several times – before being delivered to Mueller, We know that the alterations were materially significant and that the ones used to prosecute Flynn were actually false. We know that the FBI had the transcript of the Flynn Kislyak call when they interviewed Flynn, that they lied to Flynn about why they were talking to him, that he was not made aware that he was being interviewed as part of an investigation.
That this was a planned setup, that Comey was involved in it, that even Yates thought that what was being done was improper.
Powel has been doing an incredibly deep dive into the material the house was able to pry out of DOJ/FBI, the material in the Mueller Report, Public Source intelligence, and she is point by point proving that the DOJ/FBI and Mueller failed to turn over Brady material – relevant exculpatory evidence.
Put simply that Flynn did not do anything at all wrong, that the DOJ/FBI knew it that they coerced a confession out of him to something they knew was false – the original FBI 302’s of Flynn’s interview say that Flynn did not recall whether sanctions were discussed with Kislyak, this was later changed to Flynn did not recall is Kislyak brought up sanctions, and then to Flynn denied that Sanctions were discussed.
Even details of the call were changed – Flynn initially told the FBI that he did not recall whether he had talked to Kislyak at all – as when he was in the DR as incoming NSA he had many calls with many foreign leaders.
There is much much more, what is obvious is that the FBI was attempting to entrap Flynn, Failed and then changed their 302’s to manufacture a case.
And you wonder why Barr is conducting a criminal investigation ?
Regardless, my core point – is either you understand that the Trump/Russian collusion thing was a HOAX a fraud, perpitrated by Clinton on a Willing Obama administration.
Why is their panic over the Barr/Durham investigation ? Because no matter what this ends badly.
There are rumors at the moment that Hillary is thinking about entering the race.
The Barr/Durham investigation, as well as Schiff’s faux impeachment only touch a single current 2020 democratic candidate – Biden, and only tangentially.
Biden is barely on either Trump or Barr’s radar. Biden makes up half a dozen words in a 5 page phone call to Selensky. There are a long list of things Trump asked for From Zelensky – Biden was a small one of many.
But the Obama administration, assorted 2016 DNC staff, as well as the 2016 Clinton campaign are all a very very big part of what Trump asked Ukraine to investigate and what Barr is already investigating.
Using this idiotic logic that you can not investigate a political candidate – does that mean Barr and the Ukraine must STOP investigating if Clinton enters the race ?
Currently by your theory she is not a 2020 presidential canditate so it is OK for Trump to ask for an investigation of her.
Does that change if she enters the race ?
Does a proper investigation suddenly become improper just because Clinton chooses to run for president ?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that this “you can not investigate political opponents” things is not real. You can investigate anything – where reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed exists. We should obviously subject investigations where there are political motives to more scrutiny. The standard is not higher but it should be applied much more carefully
There was nothing between the Trump Campaign and Russia in 2016, There was alot between the Clinton campaign and both Russia and the Ukraine in 2016.
Even this purportedly massive effort by Russians to interfere in the election has turned into a mouse not an elephant.
Mueller’s evidence of interferance is tiny not consequential.
And Mueller believes that the DNC emails were provided to wikileaks by Russia – a claim that has never received meaningful scrutiny by government. Even Mueller just took the crowdstrike report at face value.
Jay sorry but I can’t find the original comment that I was responding to so I will have to wing it on this reply.
You asked “I’m talking about how long it took to even start the process.
Didn’t you complain months ago about Pelosi stalling it?”
So this came to light in August. That is when the whistle blower was made public. That was not months ago. That was 60 days or so. What I said was I expected this to be drawn out to make it an issue during the campaign, just like the Muller investigation went on for many many months. And that one I complained about over and over and over and…….
But now I am not upset with the speed of things. i am disturbed with the process that does not allow GOP involvement in the closed door investigation, the fact that anyone that leaks info is threatened with charges and then the democrats leak chosen key pieces of info they find useful in making Trump look guilty in the public eyes, but no charges are filed. But I would expect much the same if the GOP had control of the house and a democrat president and democrat senate because that’s just how Washington works. Whats good for me and my party. Screw the country!
Now I will remind you I also said I thought Pelosi should continue with the hearings, send articles of impeachment to the senate by Thanksgiving like it was reported she said she would do and have the senate address the issue before close of the 116th session of congress. Official hearings began on Sept 24th and unidentified aides from her leadership stated ” The House will vote on articles charging Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors in a matter of weeks” who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. (According to analysts, this anonymity was due also to the confidential nature of the hearings and they did not want to be charged for divulging information).
So if this happens I am fine with that. Going from a whistle blower report in August to Article of Impeachment in November is great. The house finally DID SOMETHING!
But I think this is an April fool joke 7 months late. She won’t send Articles until it becomes politically beneficial with the greatest impact on the general election. Probably June or July requiring the GOP senate to vote on it just before the election, thus impacting incumbent GOP senators and forcing them to go on record.
I have said Democrats CAN do this.
I do not beleive I have said they SHOULD do this.
They should not – no matter what everything they are doing will be the new norm.
Referencing Howell’s oppinion – it is nonsense.
The constitution delegates the power to impeach to the house – not the speaker.
It has never been done this way.
Howell’s opinion is not merely unconstitutional it is a ludicrously stupid idea.
All a future congress must do is have the speaker announce impeachment proceedings, and the courts would be obligated to tilt the scales to favor the house in disputes with the executive. It significantly damages balance of powers.
But most everything democrats have done over the past decade or more has been short sighted.
I expect the DOJ to appeal, and I expect they will ultimately win.
But even in the event they do not – so Schiff gets Grand Jury material – it is still a crime to leak grand jury material. Schiff will have been handed a handgrenade with the pin removed.
I am not sure Trump should not drop the appeal and just tell Schiff – you can have it all, but any leaks will be investigated by DOJ as crimes, and someone will go to jail.
Congress routinely leaks like a sieve, let them screw themselves.
I know Jay thinks I am defending Trump in all this.
I do think giving Schiff grand jury material is extremely stupid.
Give a partisan idiot enough information and it is ALWAYS possible to manufacture a crime.
Mueller was atleast not stupid enough to take invention too far.
Look we are already impeaching Trump over perfectly legal conduct that pretty much every president has done.
You have a trial in the Senate and Trump could subpeona every living president.
But the critical issue is not Trump – it is that if you bless this – you normalize it.
I am all for shifting the balance of power away from the executive and to the congress.
But not with this kind of unconstitutional bunk.
Foreign policy could become literally impossible.
There are plenty of things congress could actually do to reclaim powers it has delegates to the executive;
BTW Sidney Powell Flynn’s attorney has now subpeona’s the phone records of James Clapper – for a specific day. She claims to have proof that Clapper illegally provided the Kislyak Transcript to McCabe and then told him to “take the kill shot at Flynn”
According to her Lisa Page admitted that she edited the Flynn 302 and made some of the changes that are the basis for claiming Flynn lied.
Powell is making some very specific and very damning allegations. She is a very high powered attorney, and if those allegations are false, that would be a serious ethical violation.
I doubt she is bluffing or misleading the court, and if she is not this is real Trouble for Mueller.
She is looking for an outright dismissal of charges AND sanctions.
And she might well get them, fighting her on this is probably not a good idea.
The court could give her what she wants. an appelate court could give her what she wants.
Trump could declassify it or it will get out eventually anyway and if Flynn is convicted on evidence that is subsequently demonstrated to be falsified – that means criminal charges.
Frankly based on here own testimony there could be criminal charges against Page already.
Page was not present for the Flynn interview. Any changes that she makes to the 302s that change them from Flynn did not lie to Flynn did, would be fabricating evidence and framing Flynn.
The Clapper thing is a big deal. Flynn was part of the IC under Obama. He resigned over policy differences – with Obama and Clapper and Brennan. He also testified against McCabe in a sexual harrasment claim made against him.
There is lots of evidence that large numbers of people in the upper eschelon of the Obama administration were very unhappy about Flynn’s return. Framing him would be a very serious crime.
Need I remind you that Clinton had the guy who produced “the inooncence of the muslims” – the video no one saw that she blamed for Benghazi jailed ?
Need I remind you that Obama jailed the fast and Furious whistle blower.
Need I remind you that Obama spied on the congress and on members of the press ?
And the speculation on the Durham criminal investigation is that all roads lead to Brennan.
The more evidence I see of things like framing Cater Page, George Papadoulis and Gen. Flynn, the more prepared I am to send these people to jail – for a long time.
When as law enforcement you deliberately frame an innocent person – you go to hell.
Absent Schiff coming up with something more substantive than the current garbage, this is never going to see the floor of the house.
Schiff and Pelosi has taken a huge gamble with their party.
I am personally deeply suspicious that this is actually an orchestrated effort to stop the investigations into the 2016 election.
The process is going slow – because it would die if it were done publicly.
Nadler tried public hearing on the Mueller report – they were a public humiliation.
Schiff faces an impossible task – the task is impossible because that is what happens when you try to push water uphill.
He needs to proceed rapidly to build the public support necescary for legitimacy – without that support democrats are in deep shit in November.
He can move rapidly in public, but then the weakness of the entire mess shows up immediately.
He can proceed in the dark but that makes it harder to build public support and the leaks can not build one each other because there is more time to deflate each leak.
All of this is natural. It is the consequence of trying to manufacture a crime.
We now have Obama State Department staff saying – that actual Quid Pro Quo’s are not only normal, they are an important part of diplomacy, that the president is not constitutionally required to distribute foreign aide because congress has authorized it.
That more and more people – even from the deep state are warning this is a mistake and will hamper US foreign policy for decades if continued.
Put simply we once again have the left and the media trying to make the normal unusual while actually unusual actions are ignored.
Meanwhile AG Barr is giving us all a lesson in how things are done properly.
He is not speaking publicly. There are few public statements about what he is up to.
He conducted an initial investigation, based on reasonable suspicion – properly, without warrants of subpeona’s or coercion. If he is not following Standard DOJ proceducres – you can be sure that would be leaked.
Despite a referal from Horowitz he refused to prosecute Comey because that prosecution would appear too political. It has quietly been announced that atleast part of the investigation is now a criminal investigation. That a Grandy will be empanneled, and that subpeonas and warrants can be issued now. That means Barr has found probable cause that atleast one person has committed a crime.
Most of what we know is by leaks of people trying to thwart Barr, or by press speculation based on observing his travels.
For the most part his investigations are not leaking.
No ones political campaign will be harmed – unless there is probable cause that they committed a crime.
Everyone with a brain knows your ‘secrecy” complaint is facetious BS.
Even conservatives from Fox:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/467337-fox-news-napolitano-republicans-are-protesting-their-own-rules-for-impeachment
And there are Republicans on the committee attending those hearings. Duh!
I like Napalitono – but he is an unreliable source.
and this is “fake news” – it was debunked almost immediately after Napalitono said it.
1). Boehner was contacted and said the 114th congress made almost no rule changes, and none at all regarding impeachment.
2). I beleive it is Re. Gaetz produced the 500+ page rule book and demonstrated that the rules for the 114th and the 116th congress with regard to impeachment and minority party rights generally in house hearings are unchanged and being violated NOW.
Republicans DID NOT change the rules for impeachment, nor did Pelosi.
The rules are just not being followed.
The reason for other republicans trying to attend the hearings – again a standard procedure that has been routine forever, is that by holding secret deposed hearings in a SCIF even though Schiff has admitted no classified information is being discussed, Schiff can precule republicans from discussing the testimony – if they do, they will be refered to the ethics committee for investigation and barred from participation on the committee until the ethics investigation is finished – even if no violation is found. This is what Schiff did to Nuenes two years ago. So clearly the fear is founded.
Using a SCIF also means no one can independently record the hearings, no press is allowed in and no electronics are allowed in.
Conversely democrats are quite obviously talking about the testimony without consequences.
More instances of different rules for democrats and republicans.
Further, as noted nothing classified is being discussed in these hearings.
That means the transcripts can be provided in a few days. Yet no transcripts are being provided. Not to the ranking minority member, not to the members of the committee, not to the members of the house. Schiff and the democrats on the commiittee can tell the world whatever they want without any fear of being contradicted.
This is all being done because Schiff saw how badly Nadler’s hearings went.
Witnesses that were supposed to be favorable to them like Mueller and Cohen were disasterous.
There are also claims that Schiff is engaged in “leading the witness”. Basically telling the witness what they are supposed to say and then getting them to say it.
This is improper in all contexts. Worse aparently even the supposedly cooperating witnesses like Taylor are unwilling to let Schiff put words in their mouths.
Not only didn;t republicans change the rules, they did not engage in a fake impeachment of Obama – though they had far better grounds to do so.
If there is a problem with Trump’s remarks to Zelensky what of Obama’s remarks to Medvedev ? That certainly sounded to me like a completed “quid pro quo” – “if Russia does not interfere with my election, I will give them what they want after the election”
And isn’t Russia the evil empire that we are supposed to thwart at every step ?
Yet wasn’t Obama in bed with Putin right up until after the 2016 election ?
Robby;
Even if I actually thought the polls meant something – they would not change my opinion.
I do not take a count of the people around me before deciding what to think.
With respect to how Schiff is running things – I hope you are happy with it, because it will become the norm in the future.
I think that Congress needs to reclaim alot of its constitutional power. I do not think the courts should ever have allowed it to delegate it away.
But in this instance Schiff is acting outside the constitution.
The congress gave the power to impeach to the house – not the speaker, not a committee chair. This is not impeachment. But it will become the new norm.
I would remind you that though both parties have threatened rule changes to try to bring whatever the minority party was into line, all changes have been initiated by democrats and ultimately all have been most harmful to democrats.
I am actually concerned about all of this – because the greatest danger to the country is too much chaos.
A thriving society needs the right balance between chaos and order.
Normally government is supposed to be the force for order, and chaos is supposed to be in the areas outside of govenrment.
Regardless, when chaos spikes – that is when things go to hell.
That is when we get large backlashes that go too far.
That is when we get Hitler’s and Franco’s and Musolini’s and Castro’s and Stalin’s and Mao’s and ….
Ron I have seen your comments and I would have liked to reply to a few of them but the mechanism is now jammed. I agree with you about the impact the human scum tweet from trump, that should be used to great effect in advertising.
You said something about seeing my posts and thinking that our positions really are not far apart, but I could not find your post in this mess again to reply. In any case my reaction to that post of yours is that our differences could be made to sound minimal from a certain point of view but also, if I want to be brutally honest, we are not ideologically really very close, my comfort range goes from Bush 41 on the right to say, the Gore or Kerry form of the dems side on the left. I think your comfort range policy wise goes from Carter on the left all the way to trumps policies on the right. So our overlap is in Bush 41 territory, a place I would not mind being, but I do not have the fear of government to the extent you have and I would accept more liberal policies than you, if they don’t go overboard. Then of course there are issues like gun control and climate change where we politely but firmly live in very different universes. We are more alike in temperament than ideology.
As well, you have far more detail oriented positions on most issues. My idea of the work it would take to have a truly deep understanding of any issue is that it would take years of study and years of experience in the actual issue, living it in some way, to have a well founded opinion. Thus, I accidently have developed that level of knowledge and experience on Russia and putin but I will never have it on Syria and I am not about to become a 30 minute of research internet expert on the Kurds for example, that level of having just enough knowledge to argue on the internet to me is a waste of time. I might do a little reading on issues as they come up but I don’t think of it as a basis to argue from and so I do not have the time to do the level of research it takes to have detailed positions. You are a detail guy, you were in finance and you are retired now and you like details they are your nature. And as well you have an affinitty for studying the Constitution, you follow Suprem Court decisions and SC justices like I study jazz guitar chords or classical music. I like the big picture (I’m not saying you don’t, you do) the view from 30000 feet, that is my nature. Of course, the big picture Comes from the details so all power to you.
Is it possible for you to talk about the real world in terms of facts, or atleast issues, rather than feelings and people ?
Or don;t you care at all about the policies, issues and facts, and is all that matters to you, your emotional response to particular people ?
On the few issues you noted – we could have a debate – but you do not debate, you emote.
It is clear that you know almost nothing about guns or the law or the constitution, or science – despite having a background in science.
And that you do not care to know about any of these things.
You have claimed to have a strong background with Russia – but aside from one post a long long time ago, you have provided nothing to enlighten discussions regarding Russia.
I do not know if your knowledge of Russia translates into knowledge of Ukraine.
But that really does not matter – nothing you say about the issues involving Ukraine sheds any light on Ukraine.
Even though I came of age during the worst parts of Vietnam – the Ken Burns series is providing a perspective and information that I never had before
And it is strongly reinforcing my view that we need to get the hell out of the mid-east.
I do not trust – and none of us should Trust, the military, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, our government to honestly inform us, Among other things that would presume that it actually knew what it was doing.
I recently linked to a federalist article on Syria, Turkey and the Kurds – which had massive amounts of information that I had not seen elsewhere.
Regardless, it made it clear that just as in Vietnam we do not have a clue what we are doing.
Once again we have thrust the american soldier into the middle of messy foreign matters that we do not understand and probably can not understand, and told our soldiers – kill these people, but not those. We can not solve other peoples probems or conflicts – we can not make them better, but we can make them worse.
As nearly always – more information makes it clear that government – FORCE is rarely the solution – whether the problem is the Kurds or gun control or CAGW.
The Majority of americans – like you, know very little about issues that do not impact them personally – and often not much more about those that do.
That is not inherently bad – your knowledge of the Kurds or Ukraine are only relevant if you are making choices that will have consequences based on that knowledge.
When we do not know alot, we can choose:
to remain ignorant – because whatever the issue it does not personally impact us.
To defer to experts
To learn more.
But unless the issue personally effects us the wisest course is nearly always to do nothing – regardless of our degree of knowledge.
Watching Ken Burns Vietnam I am reliving the past with new eyes as well as seeing the present in a new way.
You say Trump does not know what he is doing – OK – I will buy that.
Truman did not know what he was doing, and Eisenhower did not know what he was doing and kennedy did not know what he was doing and LBJ did not know what he was doing.
Atleast as important – the experts that advised them did not know what they were doing.
And yet what WE were doing through our government picked winners and losers in conflicts halfway accross the world that the people, the pressident and all the kings men were clearly clueless about.
I do not think Trump knows what he is doing in much of what he does.
I do not think that anyone knows that they are doing.
That is a very good reason not to do anything.
Especially to no go in with guns and kill people when we do not actually know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are or where they may not be any good guys.
Trump is right – the best thing to do when you do not know what you are doing is to stop killing people and get out.
Mattis recently said – we are in Syria to make sure that a bomb does Not go off in Times Square.
That is a good sound bite, but Al Qeda, and ISIS are not blowing up Chile.
Ron Paul – not Mattis is right, our presence our use of force creates and empowers terrorists,
My point is that regardless of the issue – knowing little is fine, so long as you do not start using force.
It does not matter whether the issue is Syria or Ukraine, or CAGW,
But defering to “the experts” – when that results in the use of force is NOT fine.
It has quite obviously worked out extremely badly.
Roby, yes we are different when it comes to details.
For instance. Paris Accords facts and associated indicators
China pledged to their country in the early 2000’s to double GDP from 2010 to 2020. They were on pace for this before the trade war.
China is today largest polluter.
USA pledged to decrease ACTUAL total CO2 output by 26% by 2025
China pledged to decrease CO2 by 65% PER UNIT of GDP by 2030
So China doubles GPD which basically doubles CO2 output, then pledges to cut by 65%.
So if a pollster ask, “do you support the Paris Accord Climate Change agreement with USA reducing by 26% by 2025 and China reducing 65% by 2030”, most would say yes.
But if you ask, “do you support the Paris Accord Climate Change agreement with USA reducing by 26% by 2025 and China increasing output by 35%” I think the resulting answer would be very different.
So it appears your 30,000 ft view is the first question and is not factually wrong.
My detail view is also not factually wrong.
But leaving some facts out can change the results.
I dont disagree with reducing pollution, but I also dont support screwing the USA like Obama did with the economic impact of this agreement, while giving China even more economic power before they would need to be back to 2015 levels (some say this would be 2050). They played Obsma like you play your guitar jazz chords.
Details in everything is important. Just remember liars can use pieces of facts to support their own positions.
CO2 is not a polutant, it is critical to the survival of all life on the planet.
All actual evidence is that more CO2 is better.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/10/25/judith_curry_climate_sciences_myth-buster_490342.html
Dave my comment was not one to open another unending debate on climate change. I was only used as an example of how numbers can be manipulated to support most any position. It also pointed out the higher the view the less facts are correct.
It is like I told my staff when they were looking at expenses, budgets and department managers explanation of variance. ” Figures dont lie, but liars can figure”.
That is exactly what Obama did when he sold out to China and sold that shit sandwich to Americans as a climate change breakthrough. Letting the largest producer of X to dounle output, while the other 60% reduces by 25% or less still increases more X.
We are not even close to matching Warmist model predictions.
A scientific hypothesis is flawed if even a single prediction is incorrect.
The number of flaws in CAGW is astronomical.
Regardless, it does not matter whether it is vietnam or Syria or “Climate Change”,
The “experts” do not know what they are doing even when science is solid about something, it is incredibly rare that translates into beneficial government action.
Science will eventually correct itself but political mistakes are much more costly.
Why does whatever nonsense Obama negotiated with China matter if the underlying premise is garbage ?
There is good evidence we may be headed into a sun driven period of cooling – that could be bunk too – projections are difficult. Or it could be that the Sun and Human CO2 are canceling each other, or it could be unicorns. What I do know – is that we do not know.
First, Do no harm.
If you do not know – and in most things we do not know – then do nothing.
The worst thing to do almost always is for government to intervene. One of the worst things about government policy – is that if it is government – everyone must do it.
It is rare that everyone moving in the same direction is a good thing.
It is never good for everyone to move in the same direction for long.
Many of the actions that created the housing bubble and the financial crisis were inherently good things. But they were NOT good when everyone did them together for a long time.
I have been writing alot about chaos and order – for the best society these must be balanced.
Order typically comes from government, while Chaos from private action.
We need more chaos than order. We need chaos in our private sphere – each of us doing our own thing, often canceling each other out. We need order from government – just enough to keep from killing each other. Inside the sphere of chaos people will move together
for long enough to resolve problems that arrise then return to chaos.
Within government we must have order – which is part of why govenrment must be small – the complexity of controlling things increases exponentially with the scope and scale of things we seek to control. big government results in choas not order.
Despite more extreme content oportunities, viewship on Youtube is shifting away from the alt-right and towards mainstream conservatives.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-data-suggests-conservative-content-leads-to-de-radicalization-not-radicalization?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
Double Duh!
NYT: “ Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal, Judge Rules, Giving Democrats a Victory
The finding came in an order directing the Justice Department to hand over secret grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation to House impeachment investigators.”
And Miles to go before I sleep and miles to go before I sleep.
Trump usually loses in the cherry picked venues that the left choses to start this nonsense.
I do not expect this will even have to go to the supreme court before being reversed.
Not only is the proceding obviously not proper, it is likely that the Sirica precedent allowing Grand Jury material to go to an impeachment inquiry was wrongly decided – and it was NOT decided by the supreme court.
The rules covering grand jury material are LAW – LAW that was passed by congress.
A 5th circuit appelate decision from a year ago found that judges can not expand those rules.
The purpose of grand jury secrecy rules are to protect people who testified or were not charged.
Do you honestly expect that shifty Schiff could be trusted with Grand Jury materials ?
He is pretty much the perfect example of who should NOT EVER get grand jury materials.
U.S. annual budget deficit widens to $984 billion, hitting 7-year high.
That’s Trump’s conservative credentials at work, right dhlii
Have I said that I agree with everything Trump has done ?
Complain about the deficits – I will join you.
Though I would expand the blame to include Republicans and congress.
Trump has done more to reduce the deficet than they have.
And we can not forget democrats – who pretty much never have done anything.
So there is lots of blame to go arround.
And yes, this is a serious problem that is going to bite all of us on the ass.
BTW the projected deficit was 1.3T – 984 would be WAY below projected.
Regardless it is still a very serious problem
Are you ready to address spending cuts ?
Dave “Have I said that I agree with everything Trump has done ?
Complain about the deficits – I will join you.”
Good God, you too?
Am I the only one who knows who is responsible for creating money spending and income?
Ron.
absolutely the primary fault for the deficit falls with the house – both in 2018 and 2019.
But Trump does nto have zero influence on spending.
He could have fought for spending cuts.
He decided to fight over the wall.
You can agree or disagree with that choice – but Trump does not get let off the hook, even though congress and specifically the house bears the largest responsibility/
Jay, please do some research before putting your fingers in motion.
Who has control of the house?
Who has responsibility for spending and revenue bills?
The following is the spending by year.
2016..$3.9T
2017..$4.0T
2018..$4.1T
2019…4.5T
The following is the revenues by year.
2016..$3.2T
2017..$3.3T
2018..$3.65T
2019..$3.4T
This was information for multiple sources to insure accuracy. 2019 may vary somewhat from your numbers since those are still estimates.
But please note that 2019 spending is $600B more than 2016 and Revenues for those same years grew $200 Billion.
I am one who believes that we need a balanced budget (this will generate 10 messages from Dave as to why I am wrong), but I also know the president IS NOT the one who creates that budget!!
The House creates a budget, the senate creates one of their own and they get requests from the president. They are free to accept or reject his requests. If they don’t and he does not like it, he can veto, then they can override or create another.
Why in the hell is it so hard for people to understand what the powers of the president is suppose to be in this country?
Maybe if Pelosi would get off her impeachment ass and create a budget that is closer to balanced than now, we could see if Trump accepted it or not. But don’t blame Trump for what is the responsibility of the house and senate. If you do, then why in the heck do we even have that part of goverment?
Ron.
absolutely positively we need to “balance the budget”.
It might not be the most important thing that needs done – but it is very important.
Democrats are never going to do it.
It is not likely that republicans will either.
The senate does NOT create its own budget – constitutionally all spending bills MUST originate in the house.
This was one of the other unconstitutional slights of hand that the senate played on Obama Care.
The House passed a PPACA Bill, The Senate was not going to approve the house bill.
The political mess that occured at the end of 2009 meant that the house was going to have to approve the senate bill as it was passed – that the could not change it. But there was the separate problem that all spending bills have to originate in the house.
So the senate took an existing House spending bill, amended everything out of it, and then amended PPACA into it. and then the house had to approve it exactly as passed by the senate.
SCOTUS should have declared it unconstitutional
The only surviving part of the house spending bill that became PPACA was the number.
Yeah, secret Star Chambers Democrat Impeachment Hearings….
Jay, thanks for this comment. Decided to do more searches and found info where members of the committees doing the investigation were allowed in. Those not on committees were “barred” from entry.
What part of “closed door hearings” dont they understand?
I still can not verify claims GOP members cant ask questions
I dont agree with Schumer on most things. But I do on this.concerning the intelligence agencies. Clip from months ago appearance on Rachel “Madcow”.
I said shortly after he began attacking the NSA, CIA, FBI and others he was screwing with the wrong people. One of the reasons the JFK assassination has never been completely satisfied as to who was behind it was due to many believing the spook agencies were behind it since JFK was downsizing those agencies and making changes those agencies did not want.
Its harder today to kill the president, so undermining him is the next best thing. And that’s my conspiracy theory.😁
I
Ron: Yes GOP members get to ask questions.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-23/impeachment-deposition-room-stormed-by-republicans
I am not aware of any republican on the respective committees saying that they were not free to ask questions.
This is more red herring garbage.
The latimes article is again a red herring
The question is not what DOES happen in Schiff’s secret hearings
But what is supposed to happen.
The first step – is that house must vote itself the extraordinary power to conduct an impeachment inquiry. That happened with Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.
The house democrats in 1972 explored the issue and decided that the constitutiuon REQUIRED that they do so.
You are free to beleive they were wrong – regardless if you wish what you are doing to be taken as legitimate – the burden is on YOU to prove otherwise.
Neither you nor judge howell seem to understand what legitimacy means.
For a process to be legitimate – it needs not merely to be accepted as legitimate by the majority – but by nearly everyone. A process is legitimate when even when those who lose beleive the outcome was wrong, they accept that due process was followed – that they had the “equal protection of the law” that they were not subject to a star chamber where even the rules were determined by those out to get them.
If the house “”impeaches” Trump – to be accepted as legitimate – it is not sufficient that the people of NYC or LA are happy, it is required that nearly everyone accept that the outcome was arrived at lawfully. We do not have to agree on the result but we do have to aggree on the outcome.
If the police came to your house and arrest you for killing Joe doe,
and you are given a secret trial without lawyers, and press and the evidence against you is that you jaywalked on friday, and you are subsequently convicted and sentenced to death and when you ask how this happened – the judge says “oh well for this hearing we decided that kill joe doe means jaywalk – no one would call that a legitimate process.
The point is “you do not just get to do whatever you please”
You do not get to make up the rules as you go, or change them because you do not like them. Or to lie about them.
Republicans have made a number of claims that democrats are not following the rules.
Most of those claims are self evidently correct.
Some of them I am skeptical. The republicans have claimed that the presidents lawyers were allowed to participate in past house impeachments, and that they could call witnesses and question them.
I think that is a very good idea – it is best to have the case tested as much as possible at the earliest stages. But I do not see that as a constitutional requirement, and I would like better evidence that is what was done in the past. I do not recall enough of the house hearings involving Nixon or Clinton.
At the same time – Judge Howell has claimed the current process is normal – and that is complete bunk. It has never been done this way before – that is by definition ABNORMAL
And that means the burden was on the house to prove their process legitimate.
Howell did not even ask them too.
Rivkin and Foley expect her to be reversed. And I expect they are correct.
Regardless, and this goes to Roberts nonsense about not having “obama judges”.
When lower courts CONSTANTLY reach conclusions at odds with existing law, constitution, precident or past process, they overburden the appellate courts and should be disciplined for that. It is one thing to be wrong about an arcane point of law, it is entirely another to force issue after issue to be litigated at the appelate or even supreme court level.
The supreme court is supposed to be there to resolve the hard cases, those that are not easy to sort out,, that have never been decided before.
They are not supposed to be there to fix the fact that lower courts are partisan or stupid or decide based on fellings or indeology not the law.
There is not an argument in Howell’s decision that is actually a legal argument.
Every decisions she made was rooted in her “feelings” regarding what was right.
Jay, thanks, will take your word for it, Cant get past their pay wall. Tried the link, then tried finding it through a back way. No lu k, threw up ” Subscribe for X.XX to get unlimited access” since I had reached some limit. I guess just clicking on there website counts as a read article.
I dont even think Jesus could return as one of our politicians and tell the truth. All of them must go through used car sales training because they are masters of lies. Trump is just more vocal.
Actually no they were not allowed to ask questions.
The normal impeachment process involves a vote by the house that authorizes either a special impeachment committee or reforms the judiciary committee as an impeachment inquiry committee.
There are reasons for this. According to house rules, each committee of the house has specific jurisdicition.
Schiff is the chair of the intell committee nadler is the char of judiciary.
The witness on thursday was from the defense department which is under the jurisdiction of the armed services committee – not the judiciary or intell committee.
Absent a house vote to appoint an impeachment committee – jurisidictions follow existing house rules.
Changing the house rules still requires a vote.
Regardless the rules have not been changed.
Several Republicans who attempted to sit in on Schiff’s hearing were from the armed services committee. i.e. the committee with jurisdiction over all department of defense matters – except possibly DNI.
Put simply Schiff has subpeoned witnesses that his committee does nto by house rules have jurisdiction over.
And this matters not merely with regard to impeachment, but well beyond that.
That means that house and senate committees can now start interfering with each others work. It means that the purpose of a comittee is irrelevant to its actions.
Sen. Paul asked Sen. Graham to subpeona Adam Schiff.
Sen. Graham CORRECTLY responded that Rand Paul was full of crap, that there was no way that the senate was going to subpeona a member of the house. It would violate separation of powers (not strictly correct) but it would still be a dangerous and ludicrously stupid action. But that is very close to where we are headed.
Durham does have Subpeona power now.
He SHOULD not be using it against members of the house or senate without really really compelling basis. But if this kind of lawless nonsense continues – if democrats keep making up the rules as they go along – eventually republicans will too.
I doubt Durham or Barr are ever going to act as lawlessly as Schiff.
But I have no doubt a future eric holder would,
And I have no doubt that if Trump was able to appoint what in his mind was the “perfect” attorney General – they would be prosecuting Adam Schiff for something right now.
Schiff has constantly been holding private meetings with witnesses alone. And has been doing this for a long time. He met with Glenn Simpson alone, as an example,
You know the man that Robert Mueller does not know who he is.
He is accused of colluding to concoct testimony – in fact he is on the record harrassing witnesses to get them to testify in his words not their own.
If I am going to read the law broadly – and it really would not have to be too broad, I would be charging schiff with obstruction of justice.
That would pretty much F’ this all up.
But that is NOT what we should be striving for.
This is not going to get better until democrats start following the real law, and their own rules,
If they do not – ultimately Republicans are not going to follow them either.
I keep warning you that you are charging headlong into chaos. And rushing towards chaos ALWAYS results in a backlash for order.
That is how we end up with hitlers and musolini’s.
“ Actually no they were not allowed to ask questions.”
Trump deceiver. 👎👎👎👎👎
Republicans on the committee have the same allotted time to ask questions as DEMS
They HAVE BEEN using their time in depositions to dig for info on the name of the whistleblower. And to foist the idea that it was Ukraine that interfered in 2016.
Trump already knows the whistleblower.
She blew his whistle, and then he tried to bribe her to keep quiet.
She said his whistle wasn’t anything special.
Bet you know her name
Again you are being deceptive – but so is the media so that is par for the course.
Yes, members of the intel committee were allowed to ask questions,
No one has said otherwise.
But no one else was – and the intel committee does not have jurisdiction over the state department – that would be foreign affairs, or the department of defense – and the witness on the say in question was from DOD, and intel does not have jurisdiction over DOD,
And jurisdiction over impeachment is by default with the judiciary, The rules – you know those things you say were changed in 2015 that were not, require the Judiciary committee to vote to begin an impeachment process, and THEN for the full house to do so, and then either to appoint a specific impeachment committee or as has always been done in the past to assign impeachment to the judiciary committee.
Absent doing that – witnesses from the department of defense can not testify before the intel committee.
You are running afoul of house rules all over the place.
And you are misrepresenting what has actually been said.
A republican on the armed services committee said that schiff was questioning a witness that was in the jurisdiction of the armed services committee and therefore depriving him of the oportuntiy to question her.
That statement is correct.
You are still not grasping that when you make the rules up as you go.
Here is the resolution of the 114th congress adopting the rules of the 113th congress with a small number of amendments. There is no change to the rules regarding impeachment you can read them all.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/5/text
Here is the resolution of the 116th congress adopting the rules of the 115th congress with minor amendments – again no changes regarding impeachment.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/6
Here are the rules of the 116th congress.
Click to access 116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf
“They HAVE BEEN using their time in depositions to dig for info on the name of the whistleblower.”
Lets see – the hearings are closed, the rules specify that any leak from a deposed hearing is an ethics violation. The transcripts have not been published – despite republicans demands that the are published in 3 days and made available to all house members – as they have no classifed material in them.
And yet you KNOW what republicans are using their time for ?
“And to foist the idea that it was Ukraine that interfered in 2016.”
Not an idea – it is actual a fact,.
Separately an NYT times story in early 2017, and a CBS story in 2017 confirmed this.
Mueller has documents and a recording of the head of NABU admitting this.
Ron.
You are chasing a red herring.
Republicans have not claimed that committee members were barred from hearings.
They claimed that representatives not on the committees were barred.
And that is true.
The response by democrats is a red herring.
Outside of classified hearing senators and representatives have always been free to sit in on any hearings regardless of their committee membership.
It is a common practice. Arguably it is outside of the consitutional power of the speaker of the house or the leader of the senate to prohibit as all ACTS of the senate or the house are those of the entirety of the house or senate. Comittees are a convenience and they are not in the constitution, Committees has no actual constitutional authority.
In fact the press and members of the public are free to sit in on most house and senate hearings.
On fact – congress has no constitutional authority to ever act in secret.
The ONLY business that the house or senate is supposed to conduct in secret is hearing classified testimony – and what is classified is determined by the executive.
Not only has impeachment never been done this way – but ordinary house committee hearings are not done this way.
Schiff is trying to pretend the house is like a grand jury – it is not. Congress does not act in secret.
Grand jury testimony is almost never made public,
The names of grand jurors are not made public.
The names of witnesses are not made public
The votes of grand jurors are not made public.
Impeachment has a cursory resemblance to indictment – but it is a quasi-judicial process, it also resembles mediation and arbitration, and administrative law hearings.
It is not the same as indictment, just as the senate removal process is not the same as a criminal trial.
It is the constitution that defines the process and when we are in doubt – deviations from past process are to be held in suspicion.
I would further note – this lawlessness problem is broader than just the house democrats at the moment.
This concept that we can do whatever we please permeates the left.
I have read bits of Howells judgement – and it is complete junk.
The house impeachment is not legitimate – because the house says it is, or because she feels it is. or because she thinks it might be useful. The majority of her oppinion – is just exactly that – an oppinion. But the “legal oppinions” of judges are not supposed to be oppinions, that is just the label given to their evaluation of the applicable law. Howell did not cite applicabal law or constitution. She essentially said “this seems like a good idea to me”
That is not EVER how courts are to decide the law or constitution.
This is not or should not be a right/left problem.
We have legal scholars who should know better like lawrence Tribe saying “this is worse than watergate” – actual laws were violated by Nixon (and Clinton, and Andrew Johnson).
As myriads of legal scholars have pointed out the most egregious arguable version of Trump’s conduct – a real quid pro quo, would not be a crime, would be fully consistent with the presidents constitutional powers and is done routinely by presidents all the time.
And in fact if you preclude presidents from doing so you make foreign policy impossible.
There is an actual constitutional crisis here – with potentially no remedy.
Should the house impeach – they have subjected the legitimate constitutional excercise of a power given by the constitution exclusively to the president to not merely congressional oversite, not even merely congressional veto, but made it the means for overriding elections.
The presidency would effectively cease to exist as constitutionally defined.
I am all for vastly reducing the power of the execitive – but having congress take back the powers it has delegated to the executive – not by ignoring the constitution and creating new ones from whole cloth.
This is nonsense and has been addressed.
If you are a member of the house, the house rules allow you to sit in on any hearing or committee meeting you might wish to
This is not unique to impeachment.
And there is a reason for it. The power of the house exists only as that of the whole house.
There is no place in the constitution that empowers the speaker of the house or a committee chair to do anything.
Every single constitutional power granted the house – is granted to the house as a whole.
The assorted committees etc are NOT part of the constitution.
The constitution allows each chamber of congress to have its own rules – but it does not delegate any authority to portions of the house – only the house as a whole.
Every excercise of the constitutional power of the house requires the assent of the majority of the house.
Therefore the entire purpose of the committees etc is to provide information to the members of the house – they have no constitutional power of their own.
For the most part this is just stupid game playing.
And Schumer is being stupid. The Senate operates under its own rules too.
Republicans are in the majority and if the games Schumer thinks that house democrats are playing are acceptable – republicans can play them in the senate too.
Currently any senator is free to sit in on any hearing in the senate – even if they are not on the committee holding the hearing. McConnel has as much or little power to change that as Pelosi does.
Rivkin and Foley – actual constitutional scholars with clearly more knowledge than Judge Howell – who is ignorant of the FACT that not only has every other impeachment been conducted according to the rules the republicans have asked for, but that the house judiciary committee run by democrats in 1972 concluded that the constitution REQUIRED that they do so.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/this-impeachment-subverts-the-constitution/ar-AAJn6gw
But hey – do what you want – all you are doing is degenerating into lawlessness and that will end badly for all of us.
Today Rep. Jordan has made the allegation that Rep. Schiff has REPEATEDLY prohibited asking questions that Schiff did not like where they were leading.
Someone is lying. You can form your own oppinion on that.
But I would note – Rep. Schiff has LIED repeatedly in the past.
Rep. Jordan has not.
Regardless, there are transcripts – RELEASE THEM NOW!
As with Mueller’s investigation – only half the job has been done.
Mueller was supposed to investigate foreign interferance in the 2016 election.
He did not look at Fusion GPS or Chrisopher Steele at all.
Despite the fact that their actions absolutely interfered in our election and can be traced back to Russia and the Ukraine.
We have the samething going on now.
Investigate Trump – if you wish. But there is already ample evidence of inappropriate contacts between many of these witnesses and Adam Schiff or ties to Biden and his campaign.
If you do not understand that potential Biases are ALWAYS adminisable – we have dealt alot with hearsay – hearsay is generally NOT adminissible on direct, it is nearly ALWAYS adminissable to impeach a witness. Schiff knows that Jordan knows that.
Jay CONSTANTLY sprays us with fallacious guilt by association.
The affiliations of a witness are NOT factual evidence, but they ARE tools in weighing credibility.
Regardless, you have claimed that republicans were free to ask questions.
That is true – only to the extent Adam Schiff approves the questions.
What is Schiff hiding ?
If this testimony can not survive sunlight – it is worth nothing.
Jordon hasn’t lied?
Didn’t he lie on Jake Tapper claiming the Democrats changed the whistleblower form to allow second hand knowledge testimony.?
And he lied when he said Biden got the Prosecutor fired to aid his son.
The IC IG changed the WB form – that is an established FACT.
I am not aware of Jordan or anyone saying that “democrats” did it.
There are two issues – one is the form – which was incontrovertably changed.
The other is the law – which also incontrovertably precludes hearsay as credible evidence.
“Credible evidence” – when written in a law, requires that evidence to meet the centuries old standards of the law. Hearsay is by law not credible – regardless of forms.
I am pretty sure the IC IG has admitted the form changed. He has even admitted the standard was changed. What he has not admitted is that he is wrong.
There does however exist EVIDENCE – though not PROOF that some very fishy things were going on involving Schiff and the IC IG and the WB at the time of the complaint.
In the unlikely event that Jordan “Claimed democrats changed the form”
That would be a credible allegation at this point, but not a proven fact.
It would certainly not under any circumstances be a lie.
So do you want to try again ?
Or we can just demand the transcripts and resolve the issue in public.
I would further note that when you conduct the public’s business in a secret star chamber the burden of proof that you are conducting things properly is YOURS,
Especially when we are not dealing with classified information that requires secrecy.
You appear oblivious to actual facts.
“Jordon hasn’t lied?”
that I am aware of no.
“Didn’t he lie on Jake Tapper claiming the Democrats changed the whistleblower form to allow second hand knowledge testimony.?”
Fact: the form was changed.
Fact: the IC IG also changed his interpretation of the law to a meaning of credible that includes hearsay. There is no such legal meaning to credible.
“And he lied when he said Biden got the Prosecutor fired to aid his son.”
Fact: Biden was aware his son was paid by Burisima
Fact: Biden – both from the NYT and the State Department that Shokin was investigating Burisima and his son.
Fact: Biden ordered the Ukraine to fire Shokin and they did.
Fact: Shokin has testified that he was fired because he was investigating Biden.
While your post misrepresents what Jordan actually said.
More importantly your post assumes as false FACTS that are known true.
Trump continues to corrupt the processes of our government; those who acquiesce to or applaud his despicable behavior are contemptible by default.
With the impeachment against Trump gathering velocity, the Barr probe has been elevated into a criminal investigation — this to allow the smearing and intimidation of Trump’s severest critics. How convenient. Barr is the incarnation of Roy Cohen; two slimy dishonest creatures doomed to historical condemnation.
Trump also ordered Mattis to ‘screw Amazon’ on a major $10 Billion Pentagon contract to update and secure Pentagon cloud services, according to new book by a Mattis former speechwriter. Trump has been on a Jeff Bezos vendetta to hurt Amazon since Bezos bought the Washington Post. Microsoft was awarded the contract today, which engendered outraged feedback from numerous tech media sources, claiming Amazon’s bid was better, more comprehensive, and technologically more advanced than Microsoft’s bid. Fuckhead Donnie screws with national security once again.
Trillionaire Bezos should make it his lifelong goal to demolish Trump’s financial holdings after Trump is removed from office, leaving him to have to survive on his presidential retirement money _ which he can spend on the hundreds of lawsuits that will hound his ass for decades.
You have things entirely backwards.
Hunter has been investigating for over 2 years. Durham for over a year.
Their investigations significantly predate the House faux impreachment.
The faux impeachment is an orchestrated effort to interfere with Barr/Durham and Hunter – not the other way arround.
You have known that Barr/Durham and Hunter have been investigating for a long long time.
It is not likely they will finish any time soon. They may not finish before the election.
You also know that Horowitz has been investigatiing for even longer – and his report is due momentarily. Are you claiming that Horowitz is there to thwart the house ?
Barr is Roy Cohen ? Really – at long last have you no shame ?
How about Horowitz – he refered Comey for criminal prosecution – and Barr refused.
If Horowitz is not roy cohen why did he recomend prosecuting comey ?
And if Barr is why didn’t he prosecute Comey ?
And what of Durhan and Hunter – are they roy cohen too ?
What of Mueller and his bad on angry democrats ? They spent 2 years pissing in a dry hole and eventually had to admit they had nothing.
Are you saying that Mueller was actually bought off by Trump ?
Jay – anyone that does not agree with you gets slurred by you.
That is evil.
That is what is wrong with the country right now.
I do not know whether your conduct will result in violence from the left, or from the right.
But it will result in violence if continued.
You are lawless and lawlessness results in anarchy and violence,.
A story in a book is not a fact.
I have major problems with government procurement – particularly very large contracts.
Even during WWII the government insisted that all major weapons had to be manufactured by more than one supplier – hence ford made B-25’s.
I suspect Amazon was the best choice for the govenrment cloud contract.
BUT it is still a mistake for govenrment to award such a large and pervasive contract to a single provider.
Few decisions in the world have a clearly right or wrong choice. Change the weighting of the criteria and you can favor a different choice. I could probably list 10 reasons Microsoft would be a better choice that do not conflict with the reasons Amazon would be.
I do not doubt that there were also political reasons for the decision.
What you can not seem to grasp is that with extremely rare exceptions – such as the personal conflicts, like those of Biden, the presence of political reasons does not prohibit actions that have non political justifications.
If Bezo’s makes it his lifes mission to go after Trump – more power to him.
Your hatred for Trump and everything and everyone even remotely associated with him grows by the moment.
Yet, it has no rational basis. IF every single one of the few factual claims you have made about Trump were true (which they can not be many of your claims are self contradictory), they would not justify your hatred.
If Trump was clearly wrong about China, Wrong about Trade, Wrong about Syrian, Wrong about …. those are all differences of polciy. they are not a justification for your hatred.
Trump is not likely to live that much longer. While he seems to be in good shape for his age, he is still near the end of life. but your hatred will still be burning.
If he went to hell – you would chase him there to make it worse.
If he went to heaven you would change heaven into hell to punish him.
And for what ?
You are trying to pretend the process house democrats are using is constitutional and proper,
But no one here doubts – that just like Schiff you hate Trump so much you do not care if the process is legitimate
Disclosure of conflicts is a core ethical principle in the media.
How credible is it for someone tied to Burisima to say that the Biden’s were innocent in their dealings with Burisima ?
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/cnn-failed-to-disclose-biden-apologists-business-ties-to-burisma/
Nope, Joe Biden had no clue what his son was up to in his business dealings.
Except when his son got him to intervene for his lobbying clients with regulators ?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/biden-outreach-to-dhs-and-doj-overlapped-with-work-by-son-hunters-lobbying-firm
More and more evidence that Flynn was deliberately and falsely framed.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-agents-manipulated-flynn-file-as-clapper-urged-kill-shot-court-filing
Right, Flynn was framed, that’s why he pleaded guilty.
We have executed atleast one person subsequently proven to be innocent each year of my life.
I beleive there are 2000 people on the exonerated list – my wife participated in getting two of them release. 80% of those plead guilty.
People plead guilty to crimes they did not commit all the time.
Based on the now readily available 302 Flynn did not lie to the FBI when they interviewed him. He did not tell them that Sanctions were not discussed in the phone call with Kislyak – because according to the original 302 he did not even have a specific recollection of the call with Kislyak. He told the FBI that he had made atleast 30 phone calls to diplomats and other key foreign dignataries and he did not have specific recollections of the Kislyak Call.
BTW that was not the only change to the 302’s.
I would further note that Page has testified that SHE changed the 302, I do not think at this point we know that she is the ONLY person who changed the 302, or the full extent of the changes to the 302. But we know they were changed – Sidney Powel now has several versions of the 302 FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
Grow up Jay – there is no doubt at this point that the 302 was altered.
As to why would Flynn plead guilty ? That is not even the smallest Secret.
Mueller publicly targeted his son. Flynn’s deal was that he would plead guilty if Mueller would leave his son alone. Separately though less important Mueller had nearly bankrupted Flynn with legal fees.
From the start we have had assorted leaks and rumors from “high placed sources” in the press that created the impression that Trump was going to be charged with something heinous tomorow.
ALL of these have proven false. In the past 3 years the Case against Trump has despite all the leaks and rumors ultimately gotten WEAKER to the point of non-existant.
All the leaks and rumors – and everything in the steel dossier has actually proven False.
At the same time – often on “right wing conspiracy sites” there has been a parallel story.
Almost none of that has ever been falsified and today much of it is proving to be true.
We now KNOW – this started in 2015, that Rubio, Bush, Cruz and Trump were all targeted,
We KNOW that Carter Page was not a Russian Spy – and we KNOW that the FBI KNEW that when they wrote the FISA requests. We KNOW that Papadoulis was not a Russian Asset – and we are very close to proving that the FBI knew that. We are within Millimeters of establishing that Mifsud was a western asset not a Russian Asset – and if that is the case – the entire Trump Russia thing is a Fraud run by the US government.
Is it within your capacity to grasp where this goes when the purported Russians in this story turn out to be US spies ?
It means that the US government in 2016 ran spies against the Trump Campaign for the purpose of entrapping them into appearing to collude with Russia AND THEY FAILED.
We also now know that the only basis for concluding that Russia hacked the DNC is the crowdstrike report – that there is no other US intelligence, that Mueller found nothing else.
And Crowdstrike is tied strongly to Hillary Clinton and Ukrainian corruption, and that Crowdstrike has made PROVEN false claims attributing hacks to the Russians before.
So you may well have NO CONSEQUENTIAL RUSSIAN INTERFERANCE in the 2016 election.
We now KNOW from multiple sources – including emails that Rosenstein did talk about wearing a wire on Trump shortly after Comey was fired. And we KNOW that of the people who heard the statement – and there is more than one and it was documented in emails, none of them thought it was a joke.
We now KNOW for certain that Mueller met with Trump Before he met with Rosentein, that when he met with Trump he was interviewing for the FBI director position, and that he LIED to congress about that.
And there is alot more. There are numerous serious ethical violations associated with the Mueller report.
We KNOW that the DNC participated in planting the forged Manafort ledgers in the Ukraine, that it is likely that the US government participated in planting the story. That the forgeries were so bad that even Mueller did not use them.
We know that Cohen did not go to Prague.
We KNOW that both Bruce Ohr and a deputy secretary of state told the FBI not to touch the Steel dossier that it was politically sourced crap – and they used it anyway.
We KNOW that Mueller’s office wiped Page and Strzok’s phones, but that Horowitz has over time been able to retrieve many of the texts that were wiped and some of them are damning.
We KNOW that Page and Strzok were aware of a separate CIA operation targeting Trump – though we do not as of yet have details.
We KNOW that in early 2016 Strzok was part of a group investigating Trump that was reporting progress to Obama twice a week.
And I can go on and on and on.
And those are the tings we KNOW.
Beyond that there are a very large number of things that have leaked but are not yet confirmed..
We also KNOW from before Trump/Russia that Mueller has a LONG reputation in high profile cases of putting incredible pressure on innocent people to try to get them to confess.
Ask Richard Jewel or Bruce Ivens or Steven Hatfill. Comey was part of that botched investigation too.
So you have to ask why did Flynn Plead Guilty ?
BTW the Mueller attorney still on the case has repeatedly made it clear – even publicly that if Flynn backs an inch away from the deal – his son can still be prosecuted.
How about you ? Would you plead guilty to something you did not do to avoid spending your life savings to defend yourself against false accusations, and to protect your family for false criminal charges ?
I would do it in a minute.
More evidence of criminal leaking against Flynn
Powell has also provided evidence that Weinstein who also lead the Mueller team.
Used the press to gather evidence from the caribean on Manafort.
That is highly unusual. Normally the press recceives information from the government.
Reporters have gone to jail for refusing to share information with the government.
But in this instance we have Weinstein using the press to spy on Manafort.
This is a big deal.
To be clear – governement is permitted to use the press or others to assist in investigation.
But when it does those sources become “agents of the government”, they are then bound by the same constitutional and due process constraints as government.
The press as an example has means of obtaining information that are not permitted to the FBI. But when the press acts at the direction of govenrment, it must follow the same rules are the government would.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/25/pentagon-accused-leaking-flynn-phone-calls-washing/
I am floating this merely to dispense with more of the left nonsense regarding campaign contributiuons.
You can argue the conduct here – by a democrat is immoral.
But it is not or should not be illegal.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-katie-hill-paid-female-lover-thousands-of-dollars-in-consulting-fees
More explanations of the Durham announcement timing – that have nothing to to with Schiff.
But let me reiterate – we have known that Horowitz would be reporting long before Schiff opened his faux impeachment.
We have known about Durham nearly as long.
We have known Horowitz’s report would be damning and that it was imminent before Faux impeachment.
It an effort to obstruct exists – it is not by Barr/Durham/Horowitz,
It is by Schifff the WB and those Horowitz, Durham and Barr are after.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-ratcliffe-fisa-report-will-show-why-doj-opened-criminal-inquiry-into-russia-probe
Yup, the left is non-violent.
https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/clothing-attention-billboard-hog-tied-trump-66380861
Those violent Trump supporters ! Argh!!
Let me reinforce some points in this – in the 1950’s Venezuela had a HIGHER standard of living than the US. Prior to Chavez it had the highest standard of living in South America.
Today 90% of Venezuelan’s live in poverty.
Venezeulla is NOT actually a USSR style Socialist state.
It more closely resembles what American’s think the nordic social democracies are (they are much more capitalist than most americans understand) The US have an economic freedom score of 75.8 Sweden 75.2 Venezeula 25.9
What happened in Venezeulla could happen in ANY western democracy, and it can actually happen fairly Quickly Venezeulla was a wealthy country with Ford building automobiles there in the 90’s.
I would further note that the mess that is Venezuella is NOT the consequence of the rise of dictators like Chavez or Maroru. There is not a strong correlation between the form of government and the prosperity of the people. Venezuealla’s problem is not that it is a dictatorship – Chilea thrived under Picochett, Hitler and Italy did well under Mousolini.
England rose from and impoversihed backwater island to the largest monoarchy in the world with the highest standard of living in the world.
It is not the form of government that matters – there is NOTHING inherently prosperous in democracy. In fact pure democracy is one of the most repressive forms of government there is. It is not the form of government that matters so much is the ideology that underpins it.
The government in Hong Kong and Singapore is fairly repressive. But there is enormous economic freedom and as a consequence Hong Kong and Singapore have the highest standards of living in the world.
Think about that as you watch protests in Hong Kong.
These are not poor chinese protesting.
These are people MORE affluent than the US.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Adam Smith.
https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1923
https://twitter.com/TCPigott/status/1188208476583026688
So Jay, your OK with this ?
Let Me remind you that yavonovich is emblematic of and one of the people Schiff is using.
So we now have retired admirals calling for a Coup – are you OK with that ?
I will bet Jay is.
McRaven didn’t call for a coup, you lying Trump enabler.
The writer of the article you linked to stated McRaven was SUGGESTING that when he said Trump has to be “removed from office as quickly as possible.”
Despicable you pushed the faux assertion even further, like the Trump cultist you are.
And if Trump after losing the 2020 refuses to surrender power (as he will do), I’m Ok if the military, or CIA, or any other armed branch of government removes him by force. Aren’t you?
You are correct McRaven did not use the word “coup”.
Nor did the article I linked,.
He said that the “United states was under attack by Trump”
He demanded that Trump be removed “the sooner the better”
And nowhere in his editorial does he mention impeachment.
McRaven’s remarks were WAY over the top, and false.
Much of the article is a long debate over foreign policy.
McRaven is entitled to disagree with Trump over foreign policy.
He is entitled to disagree over Trump’s use of the military.
But the foreign policy of the united states, and the use of the US military in persuing that foreign policy is made by the president – not admirals.
McRaven is retired – or his remarks would be insubordinate.
An active duty officer arguing for the removal of his commander – by any means – including impeachment, is a very serious violation of the military code of conduct that could get you time in military prison.
Regardless, since McRaven insisted Trump must be remover – the sooner the better and made no reference to impeachment and said that Trump was attacking the united states,
If he did not mean impeachment – what did he mean ?
BTW – we deal with much more ludicrous interpretations of what people say from you all the time.
When Trump is no longer president – whether that is in Jan 2021 or 4 years later, only left wing nuts beleive he will not cede power.
That is just a ludicrously stupid claim. There are about a bazillion reasons it is stupid.
Not only are you claiming that Trump would not let go when he is no longer president, but that atleast hundreds of other members of the US govenrment and military both republicans and democrats would aide and abet him in staying
You are defaming not only Trump but minimally hundreds of others.
The instant another person is sworn in as president – the secret service will no longer take orders from the prior president, the cabinet will not longer take orders, the white house staff will no longer take orders, the military will no longer take orders.
The only means that a person can remain in power after another president has been sworn in would be with the support of the military – put simply it would require force.
No one with a brain – not me, not any republicans I know, not any conservatives, not Trump himself would accept trump as president – regardless of any other view of him, from the instant another person was legitimately sworn in.
Why is it that you offer these Bat shit crazy claims ?
“I’m Ok if the military, or CIA, or any other armed branch of government removes him by force. Aren’t you?”
I am not OK with using force when force is not necescary.
The moment a new person is sworn in as president, the power of the presidency transfers.
No one in the US government takes orders from Donald Trump.
They take orders from “the president”.
Under most circumstances the whitehouse has months of advance notice and it is my understanding that they will fully remove the posessions of the outgoing president in something like 3 hours, and move the new presidents posessions in.
The ex president is escorted by the secret service from the whitehouse to wherever they wish to go.
There is no means by which Trump would have the ability to stop the transfer of power – without actually using force. And in this case that would mean Trump would have to stage an actual military coup.
Do you honestly beleive that will happen ?
I do not beleive that McRaven would actually lead a coup, or that he intended to incite one.
But I do beleive that he misspoke VERY BADLY, and should be chastized for it,
Interpreting what he said as a call for a coup – is quite reasonable.
The reason to beleive it is not a call for a coup – is because I do not beleive anyone on our military no matter how angry would do so.
As to military policy – McRaven is wrong.
He is not the first US soldier to be prepared to sacrifice US soldiers pointlessly.
We have no interest in Syria.
Dave, please! “We have no interest in Syria.”
Really? Trump is finally the first president in my lifetime of watching middle east American politics that has said we have an interest in the !iddle east other than the B.S. they have fed us. Trump said some troops will stay in Syria to protect the Syrian oil fields.
It has always been oil, it is oil today and it will be oil into the future for years.
I have no problem with special ops into regions to remove terrorist leaders like Al -Baghdadi. But putting boots and guns to protect oil interest in the region is unforgivable.
You will hear little from the left praising the special ops today because Trump should get no positive support for good decisions. To me, that disqualifies them from criticizing them for his bad actions.
Ron, the ‘left’ is praising the operation:
Adam Schiff: “ The death of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi is great news. A bloodthirsty killer has been brought to justice….Our profound thanks to the brave service members and intel officers involved….This is not the end of ISIS and the struggle will go on….But with one less murderous thug.”
Joe Biden: “ I congratulate our special forces, our intelligence community, and all our brave military professionals on delivering justice to the terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The world is better and safer without him in it.”
Add Pelosi to the list:
When Bin Laden was killed – Obama got the credit.
All we heard over and over was Obama got Bin Laden – even today Obama constantly claims to have killed Bin Laden – as if he did so personally.
Killing Bin Laden has become an Iconic event, and Obama is the hero of nearly all telling.
In each of your examples – no one mentioned Trump at all.
As if the Special Forces did this entirely on their own. That Trump was either uninvolved or actively thwarting them.
Al Baghdadi is as significant today as Bin Laden then.
But this story will vanish in a few days.
You, the left, democrats, the media are never going to give credit to Trump for anything.
More importantly you are NEVER going to respond to anything the same when it involves a democrat as you do when it involves a republican.
Rep. Hill paid actual campaign funds to a lover. At most there is talk of Censure and possibly some FEC fines. Trump you wanted to impeach, over something that happened years before the campaign, while not in office and did not involve campaign or public funds.
You STILL want to trout that out as an example of bribery – not having a clue what bribery actually is – the crime of bribery requires the exchange of money in return for an exercise of public power.
I do not want to dwell on Hill – I am not aware of anything that was not consensual, except to point out the horrible hypocrisy of democrats – she was one of the loud voices attacking Kavanaugh.
“ You, the left, democrats, the media are never going to give credit to Trump for anything.”
He doesn’t get ANY credit for an operation that he nearly fucked up.
The web is full of leaking stories of how the planning to get Baghdadi had to be rushed into action quicker then advisable because Trump’s pull out and abandonment of the Kurds made that necessary. The Kurds were crucial in providing daily surveillance info on the security guards, pedestrian and traffic movement at Baghdadi’s target structure, etc. With them now under fire from Turks and Russians, US strike planners had to move up the attack before the remaining Kurds still aiding the mission were forced to leave the area.
That so many Kurds remained steadfast in place is a tribute to them; that President Anus thanked the Russians for flyover assistance but didn’t thank the Kurds is typical – he’s a Russian asset after all; and President ASSet also informed the Russians that Baghdadi was dead before he bothered to notify the US Congress.
As I said you will find a way to deny credit to Trump no matter what.
With Bin Laden – he was camped in plain site for YEARS, we nearly lost him because Obama waited too long.
So you want to piss on Trump over what are LEAKS not FACTS.
That even if True say Trump did NOT do what Obama did and nearly wait until he lost the chance.
The Baghdadi operation required Trump’s blessing just as the Bin Laden one did.
There is no consequential difference.
There are ALWAYS complications.
Further are you saying that Trump should have left US troops to be killed to buy more time to get Baghdadi ?
There were lots of complications getting Bin Laden.
We knew that the Pakistani Intelligence service was providing Bin Laden information,
and yet we needed to work with them on other issues.
So we had to lie to an unreliable allie and mount an operation that violated their national sovereignity and risk an open conflict with Pakistan.
Again – there are ALWAYS complications.
And lastly – why am I supposed to assume that your stories all over the internet are true ?
You have been flogging this “fake news” story that the GOP changed the impeachment rules for day, Despite my notifying you within hours of the first time you posted it that it was false.
What does it take before you start to grasp that InfoWars is a more reliable source of information today than WaPo – and that is really sad.
Rachel maddow is flogging Barr for “chasing right wing conspiracy theories”.
Yet many of those “right wing conspiracy theories” have actually proven TRUE, and more of them are credible and may yet prove true.
Conversely she flogged and Mueller spent a fortune and 2 years following a FALSE conspiracy theory. –
Jay, thanks. Sincr you are three hours later than I am, your seeing comments closer to when they were made. I see many since I made this posting. Will take your word on what they said.
As a consequence of the Fracking boom, Mideastern oil is no longer a US interest.
It is primarily a European one. Let the Europeans take the lead.
Even to the extent Oil is an issue – Syria is a minor producer – while Saudi arabia’s production is massive. This would be a driving force behind the fact that the Saudi’s have US support – even though they often do stupid things.
I am not going to fight over special forces operations against ISIS, but ultimately even these are really counter productive.
There is no islamic terrorist group in the entire world that has targeted the US that has any interest in the US beyond stopping US meddling in the mideast, Let the Russians meddle in the mid east – then ISIS will attack Russia.
If the low ball 2T figure for the cost of our wars in the mideast over the past 2 decades is correct – that is about 1000 times the cost of 9/11, That is far lower than any higher oil prices that MIGHT have resulted.
Honestly – even oil is NOT a sufficient interest to justify our involvement in the mideast.
Neither oil nor the war on terror justify our meddling in the mideast.
Both are problems that would solve themselves if we stayed out of things.
Whatever happens today – It will somehow be painter badly for Trump.
If there is an Earthquake in Tibet – somehow it will be Trump’s fault.
If the Economy booms AFTER Trump is elected – somehow the left will credit Obama and Biden.
Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to Syrian knows that we do not know why the F we got into Syria in the first place. Obama could not figure out what he wanted to do.
Whether he was thwarting Russia, getting rid of Assad, fighting ISIS, thwarting Iran or ….
There was absolutely no vision regarding Syria. We did not have a foreign policy with respect to Syria.
Shifting to a focused policy of defeating ISIS came with Trump’s election.
To be clear Obama DID talk about ISIS – and defeating ISIS was a goal, but not THE goal.
Trump campaigned on
Defeat ISIS and leave. A clear acheivable goal and a clear endgame. When asked he was also clear – we are leaving when we defeat ISIS, and should ISIS or some other problem re-emerge in the future – we can come back if we need.
I am fully in agreement with that.
Where I part companies with Trump – is there is no NEED today, nor likely to be in the future to come back. ISIS is a problem for the nations of the Mideast – and for europe.
Oil is a problem for Europe and China.
Even to the small extent Oil is a US interest – then deal with Venezeula which is in the America’s OUR actual sphere of influence.
Though even there – let Venezuela fail on its own.
Dave, everything you said might be true.
But Trump said troops would stay to protect the oil fields. So somewhere, someone has money invested in Syrian oil that has his hands in the making of the bread dough that has influence in reelecting Trump.
By the way, in followup to my comment about the left not commenting about the ISIS leaders death, could be they had not heard yet. Andrea Mitchell just was beside herself that Pelosi had not been told this was going to happen.
With the way Washington politicians leak stuff today like a soaker hose in the garden, I would not tell anyone anything either. Once the ops was formed, anyone part of that would be in the “situation room” locked in until it was over without anyone able to leak. And if they did, it would be known exactly who.
With respect to Syrian either:
The left/NeoCons as well as myself but with the opposite judgement blew what trump was doing in Syria out of proportion.
Or Trump is responding to the backlash, by the military, the deep state, the neocons and his base and partly reversed himself and is trying to paint his original choice as less broad than claimed.
Or some combination of the above.
I am not going to re-iterate all my disagreements with Trump regarding the mideast – beyond saying that on the issue of foreign conflicts I am very very close to Gabbard and not Trump.
But that puts me on the OPPOSITE side attacking Trump from NeoCons, Clinton, Graham, and the suddenly war mongering press and left.
I am not going to throw a hissy fit over the fact that Trump is NOT doing what I want.
I am capable of grasping that he is CLOSER to what I want, than Bush or Obama – despite the fact that Obama PROMISED to get out QUICKLY – 10 years ago.
I can complain that Trump’s mideast approach is LESS than I hope without degenerating into total outrage or as McRaven hinting at a military coup.
As I have noted – YOU more strongly share Trump’s positions than I do, but you are much less tolerant of his style.
I am mostly happy with Trump. I do not think he is close to perfect,
He is just the best we have seen in a long time.
I do not expect any president to give me all that I want.
But Trump is a large improvement over Obama and Bush.
It remains to be seen whether he is a better president than Clinton.
Trump’s foreign policy is better than Clinton who was atrocious.
Trump is more deregulatory than Clinton.
but the Trump economy is not as strong as the Clinton economy.
The leaks in washington are nearly all one sided.
Everything we KNOW that is favorable to Trump comes not from leaks but observations and public information.
Barr/Durham are pretty silent about what is happening.
Nor are their “leaks”.
Same is true of Horrowitz.
There is educated speculation – the press knows where Barr is traveling.
They get public notice when the status of what Durham is doing changes to criminal.
We get lots of politicians saying what they THINK will be in the Horrowitz report.
And there is good reason to beleive they are right.
But I have not seen a story where WaPo says an unnamed source in the Durham investigation says he is going after Brennan.
Those stories are based on named people, not part of the investigation, with no direct knowledge making educated guesses based on the facts
While with Anti-Trump stories we constantly get “unnamed highly placed sources in the IC say” …….
i.e. they leak.
Looping to Flynn – we KNOW that someone CRIMINALLY Leaked the Kislyak Transcript to WaPo. Near certainly someone in the FBI.
That transcript has very small distribution. it is possible to identify who leaked it – and Sidney Powell appears to beleive she now knows who and wants to the able to depose that person, and wants to know if DOJ ever looked into that person.
That is reasonable, that leaks was espionage, the transcript was highly classified and leaking it was a crime and the person doing so KNEW that.
Further the only possible reason is political, and the person was a ranking person in government.
That is a really big deal.
Dhlii. (I’m having trouble locating posts now; Rick better write something new. Or dduck hs to reappear to find a less congested article to post on until then)
“
October 26, 2019 3:14 pm
Ron.
You are chasing a red herring.
Republicans have not claimed that committee members were barred from hearings.
They claimed that representatives not on the committees were barred.”
A; NUMEROUS Republicans and commentators and other ditzes have claimed ALL Republicans were banned.
B: Republicans WROTE those rules in the Republican controlled House in 2015, dumb-dumb. The rules state this level of impeachment hearings CAN BE HELD IN SECRET! Duh!
(Notice alliteration between Duh, Ditzes, Dumb-dumb, and Dhlii).
PS: And you, sir, are the red herring…
Sorry, Top quotes were dhlii to Ron; I was answering dhlii…
A – please provide a Cite to what you are claiming. ‘
Further – given that I do not trust the media – I do not want a reporter saying some republican said X. I want video of actual republicans saying that ALL republicans were banned.
I have listened to the public remarks of possibly 30 republican reprentatives, I have not yet heard ONE of them make an actually incorrect statement of any kind regarding Schiff’s hearings
B this is FAKE NEWS – I informed you of that before.
Boehner himself was interviewed ans said the 114th made no consequential changes to house rules ans absolutely none to the impeacement process.
FURTHER the rules for the current 116th congress are readily available – every congressmen has a copy, they are about 500+ pages long. I beleive Rep. Gaetz has texted photos of the relevant pages.
Schiff is NOT FOLLOWING the CURRENT published house rules.
What does it take before you Quit spreading ACTUAL lies ?
What does it take before you grasp that MUCH of what is reported in the left wing nut media is garbage ?
Honest and honorable people quit trusting those who lie to them – especially when they have done so repeatedly.
You can easily confirm that the claim that Republicans changed the impeachment rules is BUNK, if you actually wanted to.
But you really should not need to. These are the same people that fed you the entire trump Russia HOAX
And still you beleive them ?
You keep accusing Trump over and over of being a liar.
Certainly he exagerates, and often over simplifies.
But the REAL WHOPPERS of the pas 2 years of the past 10 years – have come from the LEFT – quite often from the media.
Truly smart people, do not trust those who have lied to them.
I verify the vast majority of what I get – even from sources I trust.
The stuff I listed as things we KNOW in a prior post – are based on things like actually hearing Mueller’s testimony, and reading part of the mueller report, and from published texts or emails, or published testimony.
I have excluded LOTS of stuff that is increasingly likely to be true, but as of yet not proven – to ME.
Such as that Weinstein (Mueller Lawyer, not Harvey) used the Press to get dirt on Manafort,
Or that it has been established that Mifsud was an FBI asset
Both of which (and many other things) are likely true, but have not yet been proven.
A surprising good peice on Rep. Hill and Kavanaugh on Brietbart.
Rep. Hill is entitled to the same Due Process that Kavanaugh was.
Unlikely Kavanaugh maybe she will get it.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/24/pollak-katie-hill-deserves-the-due-process-she-would-have-denied-brett-kavanaugh/
This editorial is about education, but it applies to everything.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/29/rescuing-the-national-conversation/
https://twitter.com/KPiexe/status/1188292295659085825
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1188477609434341376
What the hell, If Jay is going to twitter bomb us with Crazy,
this is atleast funny (and true)
More fun
Jay,
You asked why someone would plead guilty when they had not committed a crime.
Here is an article in Reason on exactly that.
You need not have sympathy for Loughlin or the others involved in this mess to understand that prosecutors in this case – and pretty much all cases use hyped up charges to compel plea deals. As the article notes – ultimately that deny’s your 6th amendment right to a trial.
Ultimately we need to radically reduce or eliminate plea bargains.
Prosecutors should be required to prove their case in court.
That requirement would substantially reduce crap prosecutions and arm twisting by prosecutors.
Regardless, we actually no that many innocent people are coerced into pleading guilty – whatever you think about specific pleas, that should never happen.
https://reason.com/2019/10/24/federal-prosecutors-are-punishing-actor-lori-loughlin-for-exercising-her-right-to-defend-herself/
Here is a long history of how Sweden got rich and how it declined substantially as it actually became more socialist.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich?utm_content=101622644&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-354990034
The impeachment of any president should not be instigated in a closed-door process, allowing no due process to the president or his party.
There should have been a vote of the entire House, in order to begin the inquiry. The Constitution does not provide for “impeachment by Speaker”, announced in press conference. What’s going on is a faux process.
The GOP members of the Star Chamber committees are not permitted to have their own transcripts to share with the rest of their party or the public, and are not permitted to even read those transcripts, except in a SCIF, with a Democrat “minder.” This is to prevent them from countering the dishonest and/or out of context leaks that are being fed to the Democrats’ media allies. FYI, Elise Stefanik is a NY Republican, who frequently opposes the president, and sits on the Intelligence committe, i.e. she is not what Jay would call a “Trumpanzee”:
https://www.rollcall.com/news/video/elise-stefanik-schiff-unfit-chair-intelligence-committee
The argument that the House “makes its own rules” is not convincing, because, if those rules are unconstitutional, then they are simply not lawful. In what world is it ok to refuse due process to any citizen?
Oh, right, the TDS world of Soviet style inquiry.
What’s going on is a travesty, and anyone who justifies it because they believe that the president is “unfit,” based on the fact that they don’t like him, is complicit in that travesty.
Judge Howell should have recognized this as a farce.
The house is not following prior rules, nor its own rules.
I do not think that the courts can interfere in the house enforcing its own rules.
At the same time, when the house does not follow its own rules, they should not take its actions as serious.
That is really the most fundimental aspect of this.
Essentially the house can behave however it wishes, but neither the senate nor the courts nor the people need to take what they do when they behave badly seriously.
I am not going to get outraged by the house behavior. They are harming themselves.
That is the appropriate consequence.
And if there is no consequence – then this conduct will become the norm.
The message Democrats have been selling from the moment of the election is
We do not like the outcome, Trump must be removed as president BY ANY MEANS NECESCARY.
If Democrats fail – badly, this will not happen again.
If they succeed – this will become the norm.
As Democrats have tried to game the rules over the pas two decades – that has always worked out badly for democrats.
I doubt this will be any different.
“ The impeachment of any president should not be instigated in a closed-door process, allowing no due process to the president or his party.”
1-This is a preliminary hearing, to determine IF Congressional Impeachment hearings should be held.
2- The Preliminary hearing is equivalent to a grand jury hearing to determine if charges should be advanced or dismissed. Grand Jury hearings are always CLOSED.
3- All evidence and testimony gathered during this Preliminary hearing will be turned over to the full House.
4- At least 4 (sometimes more) Republicans have attended and been able to cross examine ALL witnesses at EVERY hearing.
5- The rule permitting this Preliminary hearing to be closed was DRAFTED AND APPROVED by Republicans, when they were the majority in both houses.
You babbling this ‘closed-door’nonsense is further proof you Trump Cultists are as easily led as goats with rings in their noses.
More:
“Then-Rep. Lindsey Graham, at a November 1998 news conference one day after Special Prosecutor Ken Starr publicly testified before the House Judiciary Committee, praised the Judiciary panel’s plans to hold depositions before conducting public hearings. Graham was a key Republican on the Judiciary Committee and was one of the House impeachment managers during the Senate trial that followed… “
Asked if he thought there would be closed hearings Graham said:
“The depositions, I think, will determine whether or not we go forward with hearings. I think it’s a very smart thing to do, to depose these people and find out what they’ve got to say and not drag this thing out unnecessarily.”
Red Herring.
No one is objecting to testimony.
The “closed door” depostions in 1998 were of lawyers, both for the whitehouse and for one of Clinton’s accusers. They were not for fact witnesses. I would guess that the whitehouse lawyers REQUESTED closed door testimony. I am near certain that the accusers lawyers did. When an lawyer testifies they are almost never a fact witness, and they have to be extremely careful as they owe their clients a duty, and priviledge applies.
The Clinton impeachment was preceded by a multi-year IC investigation, the public testimony of the Independent counsel, a public vote by the entire house 258-176 voted to begin impeachment. Nearly all subsequent testimony was in public. Transcripts were available to the full house.
You seem to think that vaguely similar word equate tot he same process.
No one objected to deposing a clinton accuser’s lawyer in private, no one objected to Clinton’s lawyers testimony in private. That was an unusual accomodation of an actual priviledge/duty – that of the lawyers to their clients.
If Yavonovitches lawyer is to testify – we can do that the same and Clinton’s lawyers.
But the other witnesses should testify in public.
But this is about much more than “public” testimony.
Schiff has not closed doors on a few witnesses where there is a priviledge involved.
He is deliberately engaged in trying to use the rules to control spin and to politicize the process.
As Graham stated in the remarks you partially quoted.
This is about overturning the vote of the people in an election – it must be done right, and the justifications for doing so must be compelling.
Clinton lied under oath – MULTIPLE times. He suborned Perjury, and he obstructed justice.
All very serious crimes. 31 democrats voted to impeach,
Yet even with proof of a crime, the Senate fell 11 votes short of removing Clinton.
Regardless, follow the process that was used for Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and you will have legitimacy.
Right now you don’t.
You do not seem to grasp that it is not beltway wonks, or manhatan elites or San Francisco Socialists you have to persuade. It is not people who already hate Trump.
It is those that voted for him, and those that would do so again that you have to convince.
A senate conviction requires 2/3 of all senators. I would be surprised right now if you got all democrats. The core allegation – even if absolutely proven in every detail is not only not sufficient, but it is SOP for presidents. And that is ignoring the fact that whatever you are alleging Trump did, it was in furtherance of an existing investigation that is now criminal.
Essentially you are saying that any (republican) who investigates allegations of prior crimes of democrats will be impeached.
Do you really think that is going to fly ?
Jay, you are making the mistake of believing that this is a judicial proceeding, which it is not. Adam Schiff is not a prosecutor, impaneling a grand jury, based on evidence of a crime or crimes. Not to mention, that his lies regarding his previous contacts with the phony “whistleblower” make him a fact witness.
But you are a great example of how little fairness, constitutional ethics or the rule of law matter to Democrats right now.
This is a quasi-judicial process.
The Grand Jury model is NOT entirely wrong, it is just not a perfect fit – Or schiff would be in jail for leaking grand jury material.
The house does SORT OF function as a GJ for impeachment,
but the driving force behind Grand Jury secrecy does not exist in impeachment
and as a political as well as judicial process it needs to be conducted in public.
Ultimately the public must buy what the House does and how it acts.
On one hand they are trying to impeach Trump – but on the other they MUST sell the overwhelming majority of americans. Nixon was not impeached because he lost the support of the majority, he was impeached because he lost the support of his base.
Nixon had a peculiar problem because he ran on law and order, and was a lawyer.
And because watergate was a crime and even if only after the fact, he was involved.
Jay,
Please do not make things up you are not credible.
You cited Judge Howell – if she thought this was not an impeachment inquiry, but a preliminary – whatever that is, as there is no historical analog, she would have said not to access to GJ material.
If this were the equivalent of a Grand Jury – then the leaks from democrats are a federal crime – a felony.
Schiff seems to think that leaks are something very very very serious – if they come from republicans. But not so much from democrats who leak like a seive, and we already know are not trustworthy.
This needs to be in the open where all of us can judge.
Further this is impeachment – the parallels to a Grand Jury are poor.
With very very limited exceptions congress does not operate in secret.
That is by design.
Whenever it does we should be suspicious.
Evidence gathering is not a partisan process – there is a reason that at past impeachments both the other party and the president had subpeona power and the ability to call witnesses.
Trump is being impeached for something that is not a crime – that is fine, the house may do that. But it is extremely relevant whether what he has done is unusual.
Prosecutors, Grand Juries – investigate crimes. They either find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or they fail. But this is not a crime. Trump is being impeached for something that is not a crime. The investigative standard is therefore radically difference than the prosecutor/grand jury model does not work.
Schiff is not seeking to determine whether Trump’s conduct is normal or not – he just asserts it without examination. Prosecutors and Grand Juries do not explore whether the alleged conduct is unusual – if it is a crime, you convict. There is no “everybody does it” defense to a crime. But there is absolutely such a defense to impeachment for conduct that is not a crime.
Schiff is not going to explore what would be exculpatory evidence in a process that id not really about guilt of innocence, but about whether some conduct warrants removal from office. Put simply the house is only exploring half the evidence.
If the evidence is eventually to be shared with the full house – then why not now ?
Why are republicans only allowed access to transcripts – and only a few of those and only in the presence of a democratic staffer.
Elected Republican representatives have LESS access to the testimony that unelected democrat staff members – that is the most repugnant display of partisanship I have ever seen.
But lets assume that you disagree. Is that how you expect republicans in the senate to act ?
Or in the house when Republicans retake it next ?
However Democrats conduct this now – that will be the norm for the future when the tables are turned.
Rather than defending democrats because you hate Trump, how about thinking about a future with some foresight where you are not in power ?
And What if Trump aggrees to share GJ material with the house – but they may only read it while accompanied by a whitehouse staffer in a SCIF and they may not have phones or take notes ?
Whatever stupid games you play – remember two can – and inevitably will play those games.
Wow, 4 republicans were present!!!!
There is not a single committee in the house with only 4 republicans on it.
There are 10 republicans on the committee – I would expect several rounds of questioning by each of 10 members.
Regardless you do not seem to understand how cross examination works.
To do it you must have advance familiarity with the testimony of the witness AS WELL as intimate familiarity with the testimony of other witnesses. Not only you – but your staff must have had a long time to prepare.
In court the prosecutor must provide a list of witnesses before the trial starts.
So that the defense can prepare to cross examine them.
Cross examiniation is conducted many ways, but it is quite often brutal because it is about the credibility of the witness.
Just as the left gets this nonsense that women should be beleived wrong – so is it wrong that witnesses should be beleived.
We beleive people BECAUSE they have been subject to rigorous cross examination and the critical facts AND their credibiliy have held up.
Cross examination is NOT just about what a witness said a few minutes ago.
You seem to think this is all a game.
“Due process” is not a game, it is a set of rules that we have spent hundreds of years evolving to improve our odds of actually discerning the truth in important matters with serious consequences.
It is not trivial and half assed due process is a fraud.
It is an all or nothing process.
We do not conduct Grand Juries in public, we do not allow cross examination in grand juries, but we also have absolute secrecy in grand juries – and breaching secrecy is a serious crime that will get you thrown in jail. Even district attorney’s do not talk about what went on in a grand jury.
If you are going to pretend this is a grand jury – then actually follow the full model, properly,
and send schiff and any other democrat (or republican) who has commented to jail.
Otherwise open this up to the public. Do this where we can all see.
Because guess what WE are judging this process.
We are not just judging Trump, we are judging democrats at the same time.
But you have not yet figured that out.
“5- The rule permitting this Preliminary hearing to be closed was DRAFTED AND APPROVED by Republicans, when they were the majority in both houses.”
You keep repeating this LIE.
I have linked to the motion of the 114th house that adopted its rules – it accepted the rules of the 113th congress with a few amendments – none of which in anyway address even the smallest part of what you are claiming.
I have linked to the motion of the 116th house that adopted its rules – again there is no mention of this type of process – not in the previous rules, not in the amendments.
This is not only NOT something approved by prior republicans,
It is something that was not approved by this congress.
Not only are you lying about it,
But whatever source you have for this is LYING.
I have provided you with the actual motions that were approved setting the rules for both the 114th congress and the 116th and the rules of the 116th congress.
You are selling a narrative that has no basis in FACT
You do not just get to make things up because you heard them from Chris Cuomo or Rachel Maddow.
Why do you keep repeating something that is so easily provable as false ?
Let me ask this differently.
If Republicans approved these rules – why didnt they use them ?
Why was the Benghazi, or IRSGate or Clinton Email or …. investigations all conducted in public ?
Why was it that during the 115th congress it was DEMOCRATS who were preventing the release of transcripts – for a long long time, release of transcripts in both the house and senate has required that both the majority and minority leader sign off before they are releases. This was supposed to be proforma and for the purpose of preventing the majority from creatively editing the transcripts. Democrats in the 115th congress used it as a weapon to prevent the release of damaging transcripts.
From the start of the obama presidency to the present, regardless of what party controlled the house or the senate, DEMOCRATS have near universally advocated for SECRECY while republicans have advocated for transparency.
We still have not seen documents and transcripts from the Obama presidency.
Judicial Watch is STILL prying documents releated to Clinton’s bathroom email server and Benghazi from the government tooth and nail.
Documents that judges have ordered delivered years ago.
A federal judge has ordered that JW can depose Hillary Clinton on a wide range of topics related to Benghazi and her email server – basically as a sanction for failure to provide information that was demanded years ago
As WaPo says – “democracy dies in darkness”.
You are being judged.
There is not an outside party with the authority to compell the house democrats to follow their own rules.
My guess is it is time for Republicans to walk out enmass from committees and possibly the senate.
I do not beleive that a house committee can meet without a quorum, nor can the house conduct business. But again those are just rules and it is clear that house democrats are not going to follow the rules.
I would note to those trying to defend this.
House business is nearly always conducted in public.
Almost nothing the house does requires actual secrecy.
A SCIF is to address classified information. All these “rules” you are discussing are “fake”.
It would be a misuse of power to conduct a non-classifed hearing in a SCIF.
In a non-classified hearing classified rules would not apply – such as much of what you are describing.
Regardless all this does is make Schiff and democrats look bad.
It is quite obvious they are afraid to follow the rules.
The house does not make its own rules as it goes.
The rules are not set day to day, nor by individual comittee chairs.
They are set by vote of the whole house at the begining of each house session – that was in January 2017.
Graham has gotten atleast 50 votes on a resultion asking the house to follow the rules.
I beleive he has atleast 1 democrat. The resolution is non-binding.
However Graham has threatened to make the first order of business for any articles of impeachment turned over to the senate, sending them back to the house if they do not follow past rules and if they do not articulate an actual crime.
Just as the house is free to do as it pleases, So is the senate.
Schiff likes to pretend that the house is conducting the equivalent of a grand jury investigation. The model has some favorable points – though he has entirely inverted the purpose of grand jury secrecy – it is SOLELY to protect those the government is accusing.
Which is pretty much the opposite of how Schiff is using it.
We can tell when “due process” does not exist – when the effect of the process being used is the opposite of its purpose.
Anyway, I think a Senate Vote to kick this mess back to the house would be the appropriate response to this mess.
It sends exactly the right message.
So this right or do not do it at all.
Do not waste the time of the senate on a political farce.
“ it is SOLELY to protect those the government is accusing.
Which is pretty much the opposite of how Schiff is using it.”
The problem here is that a powerful part of the government is openly, loudly, consistently trying to prevent itself from being investigated. Advising witnesses to ignore subpoenas. Withholding documents, transcripts. Obstructing the investigation at every hour.
If anyone tried that against a grand jury they’d face federal Obstruction of Justice charges under Title 18 of the US Criminal Code.
Unlike Trump’s taxes, everything Schiff’s committee presents to support Impeachment will be released for congressional & public scrutiny.
I don’t see why you have a problem with that?
Jay, does it matter if the report is public if this continues as long as the House Bengahzi investigation lasted? In Mar, 2014, the investigation was given the go by Boehner. The final report was issued December, 2016. So even if this only takes 1/2 as long, does anyone think Pelosi will begin impeachment in the fall or late summer 2020 when all her children are running for reelection? And how many voters ( besides Dave) knows what the house found during their investigation into Begahzi?
If I were Pelosi, based on two alternatives, I would open impeachment as soon as sufficient information was available if articles to the senate could happen by the end of November. If it was weaker information, I would instruct Schiff to slow down, take this long into 2020 and then have a report that impeachment was not supported released in December 2020.
I cant see this being anything other than election year maneuvering.
The longer this takes the better for Trump and the worse for democrats and pelosi.
I think that If Pelosi’s plan was to ramp up public support so that she could get a majority of house dems to sign on an kick this to the senate – before 2020.
I do not think she will succeed.
Right now I think Schiff is desparately hoping to come up with something else.
Because the Ukraine thing is going to flame out.
I do not think the whole house will ever vote.
Are you trying to impeach Trump ? Or the government ?
While you have gotten your facts wrong – much of the executive is not only cooperating, it is colluding, it has created this farce and it has since the election been trying to undermine the policies of the president.
But that is a tangent.
This entire impeachment inquiry is a farce.
There is no reason to question pretty much everyone the house democrats are questioning.
None of these peole can actually provide evidence of an impeachable offense by Trump.
What the House appears to be investigating is differences of oppinion on the foreign policy of the US. Worse it is investigating not even what US foreign policy was – which is not a valid subject for impeachment, but the competing views of different members of the state department as to what it should be.
To a very small extent that is a legitimate realm for congress to enquire, but absent the violation of a contitutional law it is not impeachable.
Interestingly this is devolving to something very similar to the andrew Johnson impreachment – except even stupider.
Johnson was impeached for policy differences with congress.
Trump is being impeached because democrats reject ANY policy of Trumps because “argh! Trump!”
There is self evidently from the testimony leaked by democrats so far and from editiorials from retired administration members – either Obama or Trump lots of evidence that lots of people were fighting tooth and nail against TWO things.
First they were trying hard to maintain Obama’s foreign policy even though it was not what Trump was elected to impliment.
2nd they were actively trying to thwart exposure of any and all misconduct that occured during the Obama administration through efforts that occasionally reach the level of obstruction of justice.
Trump’s request to investigate US participation in assorted acts of corruption in the Ukraine is LEGITIMATE.
The fact that the Obama administation and democrats participated does not preclude investigation.
There is todate no actual evidence that Trump used aide as a lever, or that the Ukrainians were aware that there was a hold on Aide.
All Ukrainian aide was delivered as required on schedule.
But even there Trump actually did more than required.
Actual US law (and the constitution) allows the president to withold congressionally allocated foreign aide to accomplish US policy objectives.
And presidents do that all the time. and Obama did that all the time.
Trump could have quite litterally said to Zelensky “Investigate corruption involving americans int he Ukraine in 2016 or you do not get any money”
And US president have done that. It is increasingly likely that Obama did just that
You can spin and throw naratives, you can keep up this nonsense that republicans changed the rules, you can atleast temporarily drive Trump’s numbers down – but over time people grasp this is bogus. And worse you are doing all this with almost no credibility of integrity left.
You think I am desparately arguing to thwart you.
I do not expect to have any effect on you.
I am just warning you ahead of time – this is likely to end very badly for you.
Biden has somewhat recovered in the polls, but the news stories about Biden are relentlessly negative. Biden is “dead man walking”.
There are the leaks from his campaign claiming that he is sundowning or sluring words.
There are new stories of corruption each day – much of it “legal” but that does not matter.
More and more democrats grasp biden can not beat Trump, He can not get out of the primary alive and none of the other contenders stand a chance against Trump.
This is not Trump on the ropes,
This is democratic desparation.
If Schiff fails to wound Trump sufficiently that he loses the 2020 election, Democrats may lose the house, regardless we will have 4 more years of Trump, Swamp cleaning will go into high gear after the election. Republicans are talking about moving 90% of the federal government out of DC – they can not likely acheive that in 4 years,
but it will radically alter the federal government.
Trump has already altered the judiciary in a way that will endure for 40 years.
4 more years and the long term positive benefits of a federalist judiciary could be incredible.
If you want to impeach Trump – you need testimony of what Trump has said,
or of what Trump has written
Not what people several levels from Trump say someone told them.
Wow – Graham has 50 votes on a partisan pro-Trump resolution. Surprise, surprise! Who woulda thought Republicans would act that way. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
But double surprise-surprise – I’m in favor of making the hearings public. Dems say they will be doing that mid November, but sooner is better. Imagine the media frenzy to cover live witness testimony. And the possibility of a deep throat witness revealing Trump knife-in-the-genitalia evidence.
Yeah- open it up Adam!
What is partisan for one is due process for another.
There is some relevance to the partisanship claim – only it does not work as you think.
The left has polarized us – not Trump.
If you doubt that ask what of the policies of the lead democratic candidates are not highly polarized ?
That would be fine – if like Trump they were advocating to get government OUT of things we do not agree on. But they are not. They are advocating to impose by force things that at best have majority support and mostly do not even have that and entirely do not have majorities – when they have to be paid for.
Regardless. graham got 50 senators to put their name to something – to vote.
To speak publicly, to take a public stand to own accountability
Schiff does not even have a judiciary committee vote.
If Pelosi thought she could get the votes – she would have voted.
If Schiff thought he could succeed with public hearings – he would hold them in a heart beat.
We do not have public hearing because Schiff is AFRAID of public hearings.
I am arguing that you are behaving very stupidly.
Not that you should be stopped from your own stupidity.
The left has been playing Poker with Trump since before the election. They have presumed Trump was bluffing – when they had a weak hand.
They keep losing and doubling down. It is poker and they keep going all in.
They could win the next hand and the pot. But the odds are against them.
They are playing with a weak hand and they keep making it weaker.
Yes, there is alot of partisanship going on.
But if this is perceived as just partisanship – Trump wins.
And you still do not seem to grasp that the cost of losing is really high for democrats.
You keep using the wrong metaphors.
There will be no “deep throat” – we already know the worst possible revalation.
It is highly unlikely you will establish that and if you did it would be foreign policy you do not like, that is all.
Weak Witnesses will not survive a public hearing.
You have already tried the public hearing route repeatedly – and they are universally going badly for you.
Whether it is Kavanaugh, or Candace owens, or Holman, or Barr, or Mueller or Cohen or Lowendowski or …..
Democrats come accross shrill and partisan, the witnesses own them. Even purportedly unfavorable witnesses – like Cohen or Mueller tank.
Purportedly Radcliffe destroyed Taylor Cross.
That is just a leak. it could be just partisan bunk.
But thus far all the claims that “now we got him” have been an abject disaster for dems.
Whenever we have not known the facts and two narratives were presented – when we got the facts, reality favored Trump and republicans.
Why do you expect a different outcome ?
Good news, Jay – anything is possible in public hearings (not really, in the end the hearings are mostly constrained by the facts and the real world).
The bad news is the odds are heavily against a deep through with a knife to the balls.
But you keep up the wishful thinking.
Priscilla, “What’s going on is a travesty, and anyone who justifies it because they believe that the president is “unfit,” based on the fact that they don’t like him, is complicit in that travesty.”
1. This is not a real impeachment process. It is a political ploy to make Trump look bad to swing voters.
2. American voters, for the most part, are ignorant voters, They understand little about government, the impact of government and who benefits.
3. American voters are easily manipulated by propaganda, political lies and brain games, thus the current processes.
when framers of the constitution created this document, they understood these facts to some extent. White males, some colonies requiring land pwnership, others requiring a certain net worth, were those allowed to vote since they were more likely to be informed voters. Over the years, constitutional changes have occurred that now produce an electorate that votes based on empty promises, lies, deceptions and free stuff.
When people wake up and understand that government screws up most of what it touches, only then will we have government as designed. Limited with limited authority. But in most counties, something like results in Venezuela need to occur before people know what the impact of overgrown government.
I do not have as low an oppinion of voters as you.
Polls and votes are quite different. Usually when it comes to voting, voters do factor in their actual self interests, and the real costs or their best guess.
Lots of things that are popular in polls do not survive votes.
I know Jay and Robby think this is working but lots of evidence suggests it is not.
Trump AND the RNC have been running about double the fund raising that democrats have over the pas year. Since the House started this impeachment nonsense, Trump is raking in 4 times what Democrats are.
Alot of this is related to the presidential race – but the far better than normal republican fund raising is accross the board. Democrats have less money to spend at every level.
Further in 2016 Trump ran a very lean and focussed campaign. He learned what there was to learn from Obama’s successfull campaigns, and then added his own additional improvements.
In 2020 he is following the 2016 pattern ON Steriods.
In 2016 he heavily focussed on flipping 2.5M blue collar democrats in 4 rust belt states.
In 2020 he is not only working those states but 15 other potentially flippable states.
Working WITH the RNC – which Obama did not do and therefore Clinton and 2020 Dems are not inheriting Obama’s machine, Trump is building a nationwide campaign infrastructure.
They have data on votes such that they know who they can likely flipp and they know exactly what message to use to communicate with that voter.
They are mostly sending a POSITIVE message – while democrats are going to be pushing a negative one. Negative messages are more powerful, but they make both parties look bad.
Some of Trump’s effort is GOTV, But alot of it is targeted at flipping democrats – particularly minorities, and blue collar workers.
Trump wins if he gets these votes, but he also wins if they just decide not to vote.
Trump is NOT on the defensive – democrats are.
Biden is working to form a super PAC now – Trump’s attacks on him in the primary have cost him dearly, they have negatively impacted his fund raising, and they are causing him specifically but all democrats to have to deal with both the primary and the general election at the same time and 6 months ahead of schedule.
Trump has something like 100M cash on hand AND a growing national grass roots organization. He is also eschewing offices and traditional staff and call centers and working this as a kind of gig economy work from home on your own time thing for his campaign workers. Which is very efficient – so not only does Trump have more money he is spending it more wisely.
Further Trump’s efforts are NOT just about him. Democrats have given him a huge issue.
The house.
Jay and Robby think what matters is national polls. It does not matter is 100% of NYC, Seatle, SF want to impeach Trump. What matters is people in the rest of the country.
The left may be frothing in TDS. I may disagree with some of Trump’s policies – but a huge political underclass that did not vote in the past, and thinks they were ignored and taken for granted by Democrats, is angry with Dems and happy with Trump.
He is speaking directly to them. And he has them voting.
Trump has SOME focus on minorities in 2016, There has always been an excellent republican argument to lots of minorities that Democrats do nothing for you and take you for granted – and infact a subtantial portion of Clinton’s deplorables, or of the racist homophobic hateful hating haters that Democrats malign are minorities, and Trump is going after them big time in 2020.
Democrats are highly likely to spend the entire campaign as they are now – one defense.
And that is pretty much a guaranteed way to lose.
Democrats have also screwed up the timing.
Republicans impeached Clinton AFTER a house election where that was their mandate and where Clinton would not be running again.
Democrats claimed that republicans were trying to take the choice away from voters.
Structurally today – Democrats ARE trying to take from voters their decision in 2020.
There is no compelling reason to impeach Trump – the election is 13 months away, and the campaigning is already in high gear.
“ Trump AND the RNC have been running about double the fund raising that democrats have over the pas year. Since the House started this impeachment nonsense, Trump is raking in 4 times what Democrats are.”
That will flip-flop once the Dems choose the presidential ticket.
Of course if Trump wins we can look forward to even more rich greedy incompetent lobbyist appointments to government: the swamp won’t be drained, but sponge-like absorbed for transit.
Your not getting it Trump and the RNC are out fundraising the entire democratic field and the DNC by a factor of 4.
Further Trump has STARTED the campaign almost a year early. And he is going after the democrats – and not just the front runners but the entire democratic party NOW.
He is not just looking to defeat Biden or Warren, but the entire democratic party.
Further the bulk of his donations are SMALL donors – the people that Democrats claim they own.
You have a billionaire that you are trying to attack as a corporate shill who is getting money from Grandma, opposed by so called champions of the people who are funded by big corporations.
“this is going to turn arround” – wishful thinking.
To a large extent Trump’s inquiries into Ukraine are absolutely “political”,
But they are not mostly about Biden, they are an attack on the entire democratic party – particularly the Obama and Clinton people.
They are an attack on political corruption.
They are an attack on those within the federal government that are actively thwarting Trump.
And you do not seem to grasp that Trump is winning.
Do you understand that absent a relentlessly negative press that no other president has faced, Trump would be up another 20 points ?
Trump is in bed with lobbyists ?
Which ones would that Be – Podesta ? MNBA ? Burisma ? Assorted Russian Oligarchs ?
Rosemont Senacca ? the Clinton Foundation ? U1 ? Rosatom ? CGI ? ….
Trump fired a shotgun at corruption in Ukraine and not only got Biden, but Pelosi and Kerry and as always the Clinton’s
Thanks God that evil Bahgdad bastard is dead if there is a hell may he rot in one of its lowest levels. I give the military full credit for this, along with the recently trump screwed Kurds. No! I do not give trump credit for this not at all, the military was able to overcome his bad decisions. His decisions on Syria did not help, unless there is something I do not know. In the case where Obama was gutsy and approved a raid into Pakistan to get bin Laden, which was not at all guaranteed to be a winner, remember Carter’s approval of the failed Iranian hostage rescue that F’d up, Obama deserved some actual credit, although it is the actual planners and participants who deserved the lions share of getting bin Laden.
Another issue, it is beyond my belief that Obama, trump, and the news media blab details that should remain only known to the military! Neither the president nor the media are the ones putting their lives on the line. Our heros would have the greatest chance of success in future missions the less our adversaries know about the details. It disgusts me that this is not obvious to the guilty parties. Or maybe it is obvious, they just put their own aggrandizement ahead of all else.
Anyhow, again, thank God the bastard is dead.
Roby, I generally agree with you here, although I don’t believe that Obama’s call was any gutsier than Carter’s or Trump’s.
Any commander-in -chief deserves a measure of credit for ordering these kinds of missions, although none of them are guaranteed success ~ far from it. But, 99.9% of the credit goes to the military, and that is the way it should be.
There are always political ramilfications, however, and we can’t really avoid that, because our commanders-in-chief are civilians who have the power to greenlight military operations that are inherently risky, and they will pay a heavy political price ~ as Carter did ~ if the mssion fails.
I think that Obama and Trump, who are as different as night and day, used different standards with which to release certain information to the public. Obama made a big deal over the fact that we treated BinLaden’s body with respect, and according to Islamic law. His standard was to not offend Muslims, or make moderate Muslims angry at us. Trump made a big deal over the fact that Baghdadi died a coward, and used his own young children as human shields, before detonating his vest and killing them along with himself. Trump’s standard was to warn those Western Muslims who might be looking to join ISIS, that their leaders will not be great warriors, but whimpering cowards.
I don’t fault either one of them for revealing the information that they did. Nor do I think that it is the sort of thing that needs to be kept a military secret. Far too much unnecessary secrecy goes on…
Baghdadi is a PR coup for trump at the moment.
Beyond that Bin Laden is more important – because he actually committed acts of war agains the US.
Overall I think that Obama botched getting Bin Laden more that Trump Baghdadi.
But in the end both are dead.
And right now Baghdadi is the news and deserved or not it is good news for Trump.
Debating the rest of this is irrelevant.
Bagahdadi will buy trump a few good news cycles which are useful now as we wait for Horowitz and then the slow drip of the Durham investigation.
One of the good things about the media is that no matter how biased they are.
If it bleeds it leads.
BaghDadi will lead for a while.
then Horowitz, then lots of Durham stories.
Probably more deal with China,
Probably lots of stories about trade talks with the UK after Johnson manages to close the deal on Brexit.
Even immigration is either a good or a neutral story for Trump.
Numbers are WAY down. Though there could be an issue because Mexico is going to hell.
Errors political and otherwise are part of the process – as a competing items.
Trump deserves no more or less credit for Baghdadi than Obama.
Both dictated to our military the priority to kill these people.
Both based on other priorities frequently interfered.
Both made the final decision to get the target.
To the extent there is a difference – Bin Laden was the architect of an actual act of war against the US.
Baghdadi was certainly an evil person, and someone who hated the US.
But he was arguably much less of a terrorist and much more of a zealous revolutionary leader.
Defeating ISIS was a Trump campaign Promise.
It was NOT an objective I share.
To the extent that ISIS is a vile revolutionary group – they are not our business.
To the extent they are a terrorist organization that targets americans they are.
I am much ore interested in getting out of Syria and less interested in ISIS.
We did not actually go to Syria under Obama to fight ISIS, we went to remove Assad
That was a mistake. One Trump wisely abandoned.
As much as I dislike ISIS – they are NOT our problem.
I read a recent article in RCP on Syria explaining how Trump has actually gotten just about everything right. That he has actually kept the real promises that we have made. that he has accomplished the real US objectives – beyond defeating ISIS,
that he has disempowered Iran, that basically all the neocon bullshit being offered is lies.
And after reading the article what I am convinced of is that Tulsi Gabbard is right.
GET OUT NOW,. Whether it is what the neocon’s are demanding or what Trump has purportedly actually accomplished – BOTH are wrong.
We do not belong here.
I do not beleive the military is the primary progenitors of our historically bad foreign policy – but they have all too often been complict.
I am not an advocate of peace at all costs, nor am I am absolute issolationist.
But I am less and less and less inclinded to support our governments foriegn meddling – with it is military of political pretty much anywhere ever.
Read Mark Twain’s “a pen warmed up in hell” or much else that Twain wrote to criticise the US foreign policy and use of force in the 19th century.
In the 20th US involvement in WWII was a mistake that brought about WWII.
Read “the ugly american” or read about the actions of the CIA in Iran – or almost anywhere else.
I lived through Vietnam – and as I watch Ken Burn’s Vietnam I have to keep reminding myself – that there are a few things he misses – Le Duan was not interested in peace negotiations as an example. But Burns revelation of the fact that from the very begining – we did not know what we were doing. and our involvement PREVENTED a wise resolution of Vietnam after WWII and the longer we stayed the worse we made things.
Gulf War I might have been justified – but WE made Sadam.
We should not have gone to Iraq, and we definitely never should have gotten into Libya or Syria.
And we need to get the F out of Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan NOW!!! or a decade ago, or two.
None of the arguments – not about Russia, not about Iran, not about Oil are relevant.
Ultimately they ALL are arguments for wasting our blood and treasure in the mideast forever.
Every single consequential mideastern problem must be solved by the people of their countries.
Absolute our soldiers are brave and incredible. We should treasure them and not waste them on idiotic things like Syria – not even ISIS unless ISIS attacks the US.
Well apparently we have a new game coming Thursday.
If I understand this correctly Pelosi has agreed to hold a vote on impeachment.
But unless I have misheard it is a vote on the rules for the procedings, not a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry.
I fully support a vote on the rules – and I hope that democrats propose and republicans agree to fully transparent rules.
If the chair of the rules committee does his job properly the vote will be unanimous.
No one should oppose proper process.
But BEFORE there is a vote on the rules there should be a formal vote to proceed.
Whatever Schiff has gathered todate should be shared with ALL of the house – and the public. There should be time for debate. And there should be a vote on whether that provides a basis to proceed. The bar for proceeding is low, but it is not zero, and I think it would be extremely unwise for the house to proceed with an impeechment inquiry without reasonable suspicion that some actual crime has been committed.
That is not a constitutional requirement – that is a requirement for credibility and to keep hyperpartisan bunk from becoming the new norm.
I do not think that standard has been met – the evidence presented so far – in the light most favorable to impeachment is that Trump used foreign aide to demand an investigation that would benefit him politically but that also had a legitimate basis.
Note – that has not been proven, that just appears to be the most that could possibly be proven.
That is not a good reason to proceed with impeachment.
The actual evidence suggests there is no credible evidence that aide and investigation where connected, and there is still some question as to whether the requests of Zelensky were instigated by Trump or just a normal part of AG Barr’s/Durham’s investigation.
Whether house democrats like it or not – when the DOJ/AG is investigating in foreign countries there is typically a president to president phone call asking the leader of one country to cooperate with the AG of the other.
And that is what Trump did.
We do know that Barr requested other such calls and that Trump made them.
Trump has NOT to this point claimed that the call was at the request of AG Barr,
and Barr has not said that he asked for it. In fact there are stories that DOJ was very unhappy with the call. Of course with what is run in the press who knows what to beleive.
That said we do know that Ukraine is on Barr’s plate and that such a clal would have been made at some point.
We also know that numerous people inside the “deep state” such as amb Yanonvitch were actively trying to thwart any investigation into the Ukraine.
These people should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
The constitution specifies the required foundation for an investigation.
The president and/or a US attorney get to decide if that standard is met.
Not Ambassadors. Should another in government disagree – they are obligated to do as they are told or resign, or be fired. Interfering is a crime.
Just to be clear – the standard of criminal conduct for members of the executive is NOT the same as for congressmen. For Adam Schiff to be guilty of obstruction his interference would have to be more consequential.
Members of congress (or the judiciary) are not obligated to follow the directives of the president. Members of the executive ARE.
Meet the new BS, same as the old BS:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/28/pelosi-calls-house-vote-to-affirm-speaker-impeachment-inquiry-the-house-never-authorized/
This is just a trick to keep the game going. Ron’s got it pretty well figured out. There will never be an impeachment, unless they actually find something in their neverending committee hearings, the President will never be afforded due process, and the press will dutifully continue to publish the latest “We got him now!” story on a daily basis.
I read through the article you linked – and while I agree with most of its oppinions on the intent of pelosi and democrats – as I have said many times before – intent is not what matters.
I think this vote is relevant to Howell’s decision – but in the opposite direction as the article.
There is about a 50:50 chance that somewhere along the route to SCOTUS some court is gound to say ‘Hell no” to providing the house with GJ material – EVEN if there is a real impeachment going on. A recent court decisions pretty solidly affirmed that GJ material is ONLY available according to the existing rules – which does not include Congressional impeachment, and that a judge can not create an exception to those rules.
That is actually an excellent decision – because those rules were set by congress, and congress can change them BUT JUDGES CAN NOT.
To my knowledge the only instance ever where the courts went past the rules specified by law for GJ access was Judge Siricca and Nixon. I remember Judge Sirricca at the time.
He was generally well respected and a straight shooter – so we thought.
But lots of evidence has come out since showing highly improper collusion between Sirricca and special prosecutors and some in congress.
And that is adding additional weight to reversing the Siricca decision to provide GJ material to congress where no rule authorizing that exists.
I do not know what will happen there – as I said it is about 50:50 that the house will get GJ material.
And that BTW presumes that the house process is deemed to actually be impeachment by the courts. I think it is 75:25 that Howell is overruled on that issue. The constitution is NOT crystal clear. But it is clear enough. The consequences of vesting the power to initiate impeachment in either the speaker of the house or a committee chair are beyond anything the constitution would seem to allow. Impeachment – including starting it, is a power of the house, not the committee chair and not the speaker. I do not think SCOTUS is going to accept what is occuring as a sanctioned impeachment process absent a majority vote of the house.
I think the current effort by democrats serves two purposes.
It is an open admission that this star chamber nonsense is NOT going well for them,
and it is an effort to protect the Howell decision on appeal.
Oh Sorry, there is a third purpose – to give the democrats something they can vote FOR without much risk.
The idea is that voting for the rules of impeachment is not the same as voting to go ahead with impeachment. They can tell their voters – they did not vote to go ahead with impeachment – but presented with it as a fait acompli they voted for fair rules.
Purportedly the Judicial committee passed something – I have no idea what that was.
I guess we get to find out today.
I will be shocked if there is a vote in the house to authorize and impeachment inquiry.
But I hope I am wrong in that.
I expect that there will be a vote on the process without ever authorizing the inquiry.
If the proposed process is significantly different from past processes – everyone – republican or democrat should vote against it.
If it is substantially the same – republicans should abstain until an authorization vote occurs.
Given that the foundations of the impeachment inquiry are fairly well defined, right now.
I think the hose should vote on whether what they are investigating even constitutes an impeachable offense.
That is the really reallyreally big thing.
That has implications WAY beyond Trump.
I was listening to one former US attorney who said – there is absolutely no way that a counter intelligence investigation involving either russia or the Trump campaign was started without the explicit blessing of President Obama.
That is very important to know – as there is little distinction between that and what Trump is being accused of – except that:
There was never evidence of Trump/Russia collusion and there is clear evidence underlying Trump’s requests to Zelensky.
Rep. Gaetz just noted one some show that not only did the ukrainian courts FIND that Ukraine had interfered in the US 2016 election, but that Neilie Ohr testified that MUCH of the steele Dossier came from Lenshenko in the Ukraine.
Lets get past this nonsense that there is nothing behind the curtain in the Ukraine.
If Ukraine was part of the Steele Dossier – that is going to come out in the Horowitz report on FISA abuse, and that should pretty much kill this impeachment.
If Horowitz does not address ukraine – which he is not likely to if Ukraine had nothing to do with the Steele Dossier we will have to wait for Durham to kill this idiocy.
Here is a different perspective on the substance of Schiff’s hearings.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/blob-strikes-back-90471
It is all too easy to forget that all of this is tied to together in a gordian knot.
From atleast the moment that the Obama administration fomented the Ukrainian Coup, Ukraine has been both a mess, corrupt (corrupt long before) and at war with Russia – something that is not actually in anyone’s interests.
It has also from that moment been a vasal to the US “deep State”.
Ukraine can not hope to stand up to russia without US support.
There is a claim here that Trump threatened the Ukraine.
No one needs to threaten the Ukraine.
Ukraine government has been trying to thread the needed to maintain US support since the coup.
The forged Manafort Ledger and other 2016 election nonsense, Biden’s threat regarding Shokin are all reflective of the fact that Ukraine can not afford to piss of the US,
Right up to election day 2016 Obama sought better relations with Russia – after botching them with the Uraine coup.
The Urainium One deal and the massive Russian Oligarch donations to the Clinton Foundation were not symptoms of an administration that though Putin was Public enemy #1.
Russia did not return to its cold war total paria status until the democrats needed a scape goat for their 2016 loss.
Not finding scapegoats is a big democrat/Clinton thing.
Vast right wing conspiracies, or internet video’s causing Benghazi or “Russian Assets” all over are SOP for Clinton.
Who can complain that Trump thinking he was spied on is a right wing conspiracy theory while Hillary thinks everyone she does not like is a russian asset and still keep a straight face
What we have is two competing conflicts being misrepresented as an impeachable offense.
The first is that Trump has a differetn Foreign policy than that which was foist on him.
Oddly one consistent with the Obama administration desire for a better relationship with Russia, but not bogged down by the fact that Obama fomented a Coup against a russian proxy and drag Russia into a war with Ukraine.
I would note that Obama’s desire for a closer relationship with Russia was also NOT shared by the “deep state”.
Democrats did not align with the deep state on this until after Trump won the election and they needed a scape goat.
The other area of difference is the investigation of Obama administration corruption in the 2016 election. That implicates democrats, as well as many in the “deep state”.
It is likely that the deep state loves Hillary more than Obama.
After all the coup in the Ukraine was Hillaries invention.
Some wisdom from Alan Derschowitz.
I note he now refers to himself as a “civil libertarian”.
I am fully with you Prof. Derschowitz
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15069/impeachers-new-crimes
You can find almost anything on Youtube.
Joe Biden using nearly exactly Trump’s words in impeachment lynching AND
making it clear that the founders intended impeachment to be very difficult – to have a high bar.
Everything that is being said here about Clinton and the conspiracy theory that Gabbard is a Russian Asset is true
It is ALSO True that the smear that Trump is a Russian asset was and is also a preposterous conspiracy theory.
The only conspiracy that actually exists is the one to get Trump.
That is very well established, it has been dug our from the darkness and established as fact.
Sullivan Cancels November Flynn Hearing
https://saraacarter.com/judge-cancels-november-hearing-after-powells-explosive-brief-to-dismiss-flynns-case/
Sullivan has not yet announced what that cancelation means but there are only a few likely choices.
First He could decide that Powell is lying through here teeth in here briefs to the court,
Which would result in serious sanctions and disciplinary measures against an extremely high power prominent respected attorney.
I put that first because it is the ONLY outcome that is good for the Mueller team or the left.
And it is HIGHLY improbable.
Other possibilities are:
He could order the DOJ to produce all or most of the brady material Powell has requested.
He could sanction the prosecutor,
He could revoke Flynn’s guilty plea and order the prosecutor to go to trial on the lying to an FBI agent charge alone.
He could outright dismiss everything.
He could do so with predjudice barring the DOJ from refiling anything related to this against Flynn.
Or combinations of the above.
No matter what the odds are this is very bad news for team Mueller.
I would also note. That if Sullivan is now convinced that Flynn was framed – and that is what Powell’s brief says, then he is likely to be really really really angry with prosecutors.
Sullivan himself lost his temper with Flynn and said some highly improper things without really being cognizant of the facts. That pretty much guaranteed that if Powell made her case to Sullivan – he was going to turn on the prosecutor.
If you lie to a judge and he beleives you and he comes to doubt you, you are forked.
Impeach Bernie, Quid Pro Quo
https://twitter.com/EraseState/status/1188890296957972480
I thought it was the alt-right that are the violent anti-semites ?
Jay, here is one of your hero’s calling Baghdadi courageous.
Twitter is such a sewer. It’s no wonder that people like Jay get their TDS fix from it each day…According to Pew research, 55% of Twitter users strongly disapprove of Trump, and, more significantly, those people are responsible for 80% of all tweets. https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/23/20925275/twitter-users-disapprove-trump-pew-survey
So, the platform is essentially a TDS echo chamber.
Yesterday the big trending topic on Twitter was that the President did not bring his 13 year old son, Barron, to the ball game, most implying that the kid did not want to be seen with his father, or that Trump is a bad father. Forget that:
1) It was a school night, and the game didn’t start til 8PM
2) Maybe Barron isn’t interested in baseball.
3) None of Trump’s adult children were at the game with him ~ besides Melania, he brought a group of political friends, like Steve Scalise and Mark Meadows.
4) Only 4% of voters in the District of Columbia voted for Trump, and the Nationals refused to invite him to throw out a first pitch, so it was a good bet that the crowd would boo him…why would he want to subject his young son to that?
5) The Trump’s have done an excellent job of shielding the kid from public and press attention and letting him live his own life ~ just as the Obama’s did with their daughters. (Of course, the Obama’s were praised to the hilt for it).
I have little doubt that most Twitter users would have loved to see 13 yr. old Barron be humiliated and scorned by thousands of idiots at a ball game. They are probably the same people who think that al Baghdadi was a “hero.”
Ah,more Trump Floozie talk.
Twitter is a sewer? “National politics tweets represented just 13 percent of all Twitter tweets” per your link. Those posting political views there are not concentrated geographically, like your D.C. observation of the World Series boo-ers, but are geographically diverse, international in fact: Trump is despised, ridiculed, insulted across the world on social networks – the most sneered at US President in history.
Only 12% of FOX viewers identify as liberal – by that percentage is Fox a sweet smelling sewer?
And in a heavily democratic venue like the DC stadium, did you expect to hear cheers of approval for a politician who called them HUMAN SCUM? And he wasn’t invited to throw out the first pitch (modest Donnie himself suggested he do that) because he would have been engulfed by boos and trash – the first American President to deservingly ‘invite’ such public scorn.
I’ve come up in the world! I was a goat a few days ago!
Wake up on Trump and you will be elevated to Princess Priscilla; even if you only switch to idolizing Pence you won’t be demoted much lower. Promise.
Your adulation has no value.
Do you read what you post ? First you try to claim that Twitter is really not political, and then claim Trump is loathed on twitter accross the world.
Twitter is a sewer.
While the proportion of left wing idiots is higher than right wing ones, it is still a place where people come to spout complete nonsense.
Worse where some really smart people that I once respected come to spout absolutely loathsome sewage.
Fox viewers are 12% liberal ? That is not far from the actual mix of the country.
Depending on how identitiy is asked the “left” makes up between 12-25% of the country, the right 20-32%.
Regardless, you are saying fox is a sewer ?
I am actually disturbed – I do not watch fox but I trip over videos featuring DiGenova or Toensing that I would normally call conspiracy theorist lite.
Except that a very large portion of their “conspiracy theories” over the past couple of years have proven Truth.
I would take most anything from Fox with a grain of salt.
Of course most of the media requires a block of salt.
If DC baseball fans boo’d the president – that speaks of them.
But a large portion of people as a DC ball game are from the deep state/swamp.
It is way past time to move much of the federal govenrment out of DC so that maybe government employee can rub elbows with real people.
Priscilla, I think Malania should protect Barron from Trump also. Someone like him is the last person I would want my kids coming in contact with.
From his own father?
Priscilla, not sure how many times I need to say this but I support Trump policies probably more than others here. There are also things that the far right supports that I dont think Trump would wager.political capital over. For instance he says he thinks abortion in bad, but most of his life he was pro-choice. I think that is still his position. I also would fall into that category because I dont believe government should be regulating others bodies, but with limitations, such as a ban after certain weeks.
But I also believe Trump is a morally corrupt individual. Trump is everything, short of murder, that I find objectionable in a human being. His being a role model for young men and boys, especially those of Barrons age, is one that teaches bullying, personal attacks and obnoxious behaviors, especially toward women. His objectification of women is what led to Ivanka’s actions before he ran for president, this should indicate what he can do for young men.
Trump has a specific character. It has positive and negative attributes.
I find several attributes of his character offensive.
but there are others that I value,
and some that offend others that I could do without but do not greatly offend me.
All of this goes together into a whole – as it does with everyone.
My distaste even extreme distaste for some attributes of Trump’s character are NOT a complete assessment.
We have heard over and over that Trump is a LIAR..
Trump brags and he exagerates – those are not good attributes.
There might even be rare examples of outright lies, though not consequential ones.
At the same time he absolutely takes MOST committments extremely seriously – more seriously than any president in my life, possibly more seriously than any president in US history. Often he keeps committments I wish he did not. But he still keeps them.
That has a name – it is called integrity.
It is what those who scream liar, liar – and claim Trump Russia Collusion DO NOT HAVE!
It is also an attribute that President Obama DID NOT HAVE.
There are numerous examples meaningful committments that Obama made that he did not even pretend to keep. These were not exagerations of things of minor consequence.
They were not bragadocia. They were actual promises that people relied on to their harm.
THAT is not intergrity.
Is Obama’s language less coarse and more pleasant – absolutely.
Is he more likely to insult his opponents in a way that sticks the knife in and twitsts it while still seeming gentlemanly ? Absolutely.
But at the end President Obama had no integrity.
My guess is that Michelle Obama can Trust Barack alone with attractive women more than Melania can – and that too is a attribute of character – and even integrity.
But the american people could not Trust Obama to keep committments.
In 2016 – we were still in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guatanimo – AND serveral new places.
Despite repeated promises to get out in 90 days. Not only were we not out – were were MORE deeply engaged. Obama had all kinds of capable advisors – including many in the military – after earning the democratic nomination he gained access to the PDB and military and intelligence assessments and he did not change any of his promises.
This is not suddenly getting elected and discovering what he wanted to do was impossible.
It is LYING.
Just like telling us there were all these shovel ready projects or that if we liked our doctor we could keep them or that Benghazi was a spontaneous attack over an internet video.
Trump has not kept his committments either – but he has kept alot of them, and he has and is clearly continuing to try with respect to others.
Obama did not even Try.
I am angry with Trump because we are still in the mideast. I do not give a flying shit about most of the crap arguments that “the deep state” has offered – and neither did democrats until Trump was elected. But we are working to get out – way slower than promised. But still out.
Trump has danced towards opportunities to expand fighting in the mideast – gotten way too close for me, but ultimately he has not.
Character is NOT just whether you can Trust Trump alone with your wife.
It is also whether you can trust him with the nation, our soldiers.
Absolutely you can find some George Patton’s or Douglas MacArthurs or Curtis LeMays in the military who will condemn Trump. And should we ever get into a serious conflict we will need those people to obliterate our enemies.
But we are not going to war with Russia – because some modern Patton wants to, or with China because some modern MacArthur wants to.
MacArthur, Patton, LeMay were great patriots, and military geniuses without equal.
They were NOT people who should determine our foreign policy.
Vindeman is no Patton – but he deserves respect for his service.
But like Patton he is NOT commander in chief, and I would rather have Trump determining US military posture in Ukraine, towards Russia or in the mideast – than either Vindeman or Patton.
When we need someone to destroy our enemies – call Patton. But not to set foreign policy.
Please watch Burn’s Vietnam. I know that like myself, you lived through it – but we have forgotten. Today we forget that Westmoreland was a modern hero when he took over in vietnam, that his subordinates are not different than the vindemans or MacRaven’s or ….
Robert MacNamara was one of the most respected intellectuals of that era. When he became Sec. Def. we thought he could do no wrong. Yet he and his brain trust FAILED us miserably. LBJ as an absymal commander in chief. But it can not be credibly argued that he drug the nation into the mess in vietnam against the advice or Westmoreland or the DOD brass or almost the entire military above the rank of leutenant, Nor can it be argued that the Department of Defense, or CIA was not goading him on.
Bush and Obama are our modern LBJ’s. Trump conversely understands Bullshit.
Have we learned anything since Vietnam ?
Trump is odd in that we have a draft dodger as president who is NOT also a war monger.
Who understand – as usually only those who fought alongside men who DIED for the country that our soldiers are a precious resource to be used only when necescary.
Bush II has a reputation for being far more empethetic to the families of our fallen.
But he still sacrificed their lives – and for what ?
Trump may not make the best decisions in that regard. But he has made better decisions that Obama or Bush.
That too is a form of integrity, and character.
“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Trump included.
I am not looking to excuse Trump’s sins.
But if as an example I were god and was trying to decide who of Trump, Obama and Bush gets through the pearly gates – Trump is at the head of that line – if any of them get in.
The gospels do not tell us that in judging us christs looks into our hearts and weighs our intentions or our feelings, Christ does not judge our outrageous remarks.
He tells us that prostitutes will get into heaven before the santimonious pharassees.
Morallity is what we DO, not what we say. It is not the outrage we inspire.
330M people are significanty better off after 3 years of Trump than 8 year of Obama or 8 years of Bush. That is an absolute moral GOOD,
Is Trump “morrally corrupt” ? Romans 3:23. Is he as morrally corrupt as his predecessors and detractors ? Not a chance.
I am not seeding the moral argument to the left – THEY are morally Corrupt. Whatever Spec Trump has in his eye, they need to remove the board from theirs.
While I am not looking to attack you for your morally judgement of Trump.
At the same time.
There is no world whose principles and values do not create hell, that ranks Trump more morally corrupt than his predecessors or detractors.
I live in morality.
a priori
I do not beleive that the ends justifies the means.
I also do not beleive good ends are acheived by bad means.
a posteriori
I beleive that you can judge a tree by its fruit Matt 3:23.
Bad fruit means a bad tree.
Good fruit means a good tree.
Ron, I am aware of your personal dislike for Trump, and I’m also aware that you don’t generally allow that personal dislike to affect your opinion of his policies, but that you can’t vote for someone that you find personally dishonorable.
If someone says that Trump is disgusting, becaause he objectifies and disrespects women, but thinks that Bernie Sanders is a decent guy, because he advocates taxing the rich to pay for programs for the poor? I would say that both are immoral in different ways, but that Sanders is worse, because he is prepared to use the force of the government to take people’s property and liberty from them, while Trump is just personally disgusting. We can avoid men like Trump, but we can’t stop men like Bernie ~ or women like Warren and AOC ~ once they have gained political power over us.
The only way we might be able to stop the Bernie types, is by voting for candidates who oppose what they stand for. And, even if those opposition candidates happen to be personally distasteful to me, I’d still vote for them, if I believe that it will keep us free from government coercion.
Obviously, if I think that the distasteful candidate is outright evil or dishonest, then no, I would not be able to vote for him/her. But obnoxious and icky? I can tolerate that, if it means keeping the Bernie types out of power.
Sanders published rape porn decades ago.
I would not be using Sanders as some mirror for appropriate treatment of women.
Ha. I didn’t know that.
It came up in the 2016 primary – as well as prior senate races.
It was some pretty revolting stuff. It was also a very long time ago.
But most of Trump’s far less offensive remarks were a long time ago.
Trump’s character has lots of questionable attributes.
But my understanding is that he has a reputation as an excellent father.
Even if he is a poor husband.
The news today is almost entirely peoples guesses and feelings on things they do not know about.
If you know why Barron was not at the game – MAYBE, there is a story there.
If you do not – guessing is not news.
And this is not just twitter. That are atleast 4 stories about how Trump’s decision to withdrawl 28 soldiers from in front of a Turkisk advance through through the baghdadi effort into turmoil. But there are a few stories that it made getting Baghdadi possible – atleast now,
That the shifting of forces and Turkey’s advance required Baghdadi to become substantially more mobile and exposed.
Which is true ? either ? Neither ? Both ?
Who knows. But I am sure Jay knows. The version of events that makes Trump look the stupidest. God forbid that the root of the story is “feelings” not facts.
We are discussing impeaching a president because – the people who voted for Clinton do not like him. Because many state department lifers butted heads with him on foreign policy.
Taylor is purportedly a smoking gun – but I here what Democrats say he testified to and it is to differences in oppinion on policy.
We have a Colonel that has come forward because he was “concerned” Trump’s phone call to Zelensky. Well I was “concerned” about everything Obama did. It is increasingly certain that the released transcript accurately reflects the phone call.
Why does someone else’s “concern” have any weight at all when we can personally evaluate what was actually said ?
To clarify, Ron, I think that our disagreement, in addition to having different opinions about Trump himself, is largely about being able to vote for someone that we might personally detest.
You can’t bring yourself to do it, which probably makes you a better person than I am. But, I can do it, if I think it’s the best way to keep the wolves from the door.
Huh?
What?
In your link he’s calling him sick and depraved…
And denying he said what you said he said.
Boot edited his post. He initially called Baghdadi Courageous – though he did use other less favorable remarks.
The original post did not IMPLY anything – it outright STATED Baghdadi was courageous.
Apparenty Max Boot is another of those you need to screen capture as he will change his posts and then lie about them.
I saw the original post. Boot is denying saying what he said.
But what should I expect – he is your source.
Yawn. Nit picking bull crap.
Boot didn’t use the word ‘courageous’ in the original post.
This is the sentence he removed, after the exaggerated swell of criticism:
“The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up,” he wrote.
That was in response to Trump’s untruthful assertion Baghdadi “died like a dog…whimpering and screaming” – more quack quack from Prevaricator in Chief, who ‘courageously’ twists the truth no matter the consequences. Which utterance is more detrimental: Boot’s truthful assertion, backed up by facts, that he blew himself up – or Trump’s blabbering phony assertions?
And Boot received equal criticism from the left for the original sentence. I too thought it a contextual mistake to write it, even buried as it was within the outright criticism Boot hurled at the Isis murderer – the Patriotically Correct were sure to extract and excessively distort it – as you have done. How many times have you chortled that facts should determine judgements, not emotion. And factually history is full of persons who were personally brave but perpetrated monstrous acts nonetheless. Does Attila the Hun ring a bell? Therefor why are you criticizing Boot at all?
YOUR version of what Boot purportedly said is STILL really bad for Boot.
As to what Boot actually said – I really wish I had a screen shot of the original post.
YOUR credibility and Boots – SUCKS.
I keep telling you when you are CAUGHT making false moral claims about others – it is YOUR integrity is shot.
Why should I beleive you ?
Why should I beleive Boot ?
I did not misrepresent Boot – I linked to the original tweet.
At that time what was said was easily weighable by everyone.
Nor did I change the tweet.
But even you have to accept that it was changed.
Regardless, clearly Boot was ashamed of his orriginal post – WHATEVER it was.
You still “have no shame”. –
So it is actually important to you to debate whether “blowing yourself up” rather than “dying like the dog he was” is courage or cowardice ?
I will accept that if you are a jihadi – Baghdadi’s action could be perceived as courageous.
I am not a Jihadi.
Are you ?
Is Boot ?
Is there a reason I should weigh Baghdadi’s actions by a moral code that is repugnant ?
It there a reason Boot is ?
You ?
Why are you bothering to continue this debate ?
Why is it critical to you to establish as universal moral certainty that dyijng by blowing yourself up is an act of courage rather than cowardice ?
Whether Baghdadi’s final action was one of courage or cowardice is not absolutely knowable without being inside Baghdadi’s head at that moment.
But Trump’s assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward is a perfectly valid oppinion.
One most of us – except you and Boot share.
Max Boot is and always has been the self appointed arbiter of what is “patriotically correct”.
Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.
I have zero problems with subjecting Max Boot’s comments to his own standards.
My question is why are you obsessed with an obvious hypocrit ?
Short of your magical clairvoyance capabilities revealing to us Baghdadi’s thoughts at the moment of his death – Baghdadi’s courage or cowardice are NOT a question of FACT,
they are a question of opinion.
It is Boot – and by extension YOU, that has tried to claim that Trump’s OPPINION of Baghdadi;’s motivations, is refuted by Boot’s FACTUAL assesement of Baghdadi’s mental state.
Worse for Boot – Boot is the self appointed pope of Patriotic correctness.
Absolutely. I fixate on FACTS. I do not – like Boot or You accuse people of lying or error over what are inarguably not ascertainable facts.
You are entitled to your own oppinions – where something truly is an opinion and not a fact.
Morally Impugning others impugning others over differences of oppinions is at best a lessor moral error to accusing them of lying.
But Boot and your problem is far larger.
But for Boot’s and your animosity to Trump, his and your remarks about Baghdadi’s death would be indistiguishable from Trump’s.
Boot’s OPPINION that Baghdadi was courageous rather than cowardly, is inconsistent with and hypocritcal compared to Boot’s “partiotic correctness”.
His attack on trump is clearly – disagreement BECAUSE Trump said it.
There are several accounts of Atilla’s death.
There are none that have him dying courageously at his own hand.
“WASHINGTON — A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine’s president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior.” NYT
Republican scum, in regard to this reported testimony, are attacking decorated soldier because he’s foreign born Ukrainian.
John Yoo on Fox casually accused him of espionage today, for speaking English to Ukraine officials (I am not making that up).
You are way behind the times, the Colonel has already been addressed.
I also saw Yoo’s remarks, you are misrepreesenting them.
The most relevant fact is that the Colonel has nothing to add.
I beleive he heard the Call to Zelensky and he does not contradict the transcript
His “concerns” are not evidence. His feelings are not evidence. Only facts are evidence.
The only FACT’s he is asserting are that the transcript is accurate.
What’s the name of the Wizard of Oz character who sings “if I Only Had A Brain?” Was it Davecrow?
We don’t know how accurate the released transcript is – it’s an assembled and edited document compiled from many transcribers. Who did the editing? Trumpers? And the transcript does not include tone of voice, or emphasis of words – elements that those listening to the conversation would use to judge content.
Surely you understand that… or not?
“We don’t know how accurate the released transcript is”
Actually we do – many people have testified NO ONE – not even vindeman has testified that it is inaccurate.
“– it’s an assembled and edited document compiled from many transcribers. Who did the editing? Trumpers? ”
There are perhaps a dozen people who heard the phone call – including the transcribers.
Has a SINGLE person come forward claiming that the transcript is innaccurate ?
Absent that you are presuming an enormous conspiracy involving many people ALL of which have to be lying.
Is Vindeman lying ?
“And the transcript does not include tone of voice, or emphasis of words – elements that those listening to the conversation would use to judge content.”
You seem to be oblivious of reality and the law.
Courts throughout the country work from TRANSCRIPTS.
FACTS are determined by WORDS.
Credibility is determined by tone.
You can use the “tone” of what was said to determine if Trump meant what he said or not.
You can not use it to determine that he meant something different than what he said.
I would also note that translators were involved – tone, emphasis does not translate.
In otherwords both as a matter of law and as a matter of reality – only the text matters.
“Surely you understand that… or not?”
I understand that you are so intent on getting Trump that you will assume things not in evidence.
Todate NO ONE has testifified that Trump said something different from the transcript.
Todate NO ONE who heard the call has said – even not under oath, that Trump said something different.
You are free to challenge the transcript – WITH EVIDENCE.
Absent that it is the best evidence, and it ends your argument.
All the purported “smoking gun” testimony is nonsense such as vindeman being “concerned”
Vindeman’s emotional response is not evidence.
His disagreements on policy is not evidence.
The same is true of Taylor.
All in all alot of people have testified that they must resign or be fired because they are unwilling to impliment the foreign policy of the president.
Disliking, disagreeing being concerned are not evidence of any wrongdoing at all.
This is what happens when you elevate emotion over fact.
There you go again, bowel-movement misinformation spouts from you daily:
“ WASHINGTON — Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.” NYT
By your own standard of trusting those with no history of lying, you have to take those charges seriously. Are you going to be calling for an investigation of the transcription process, or continue your Trump-cult rationalizations? My guess is that you’ll continue to obediently bend to kiss Trump’s shoes.
With respect to your “Vindeman story” – it is a story – we do not have Vindeman’s testimony, and we do not have a public statement from Vindeman.
I do not trust people who have lied before – the media has constantly run stories that have said one thing that has subsequently proven FALSE.
When you have vindeman’s actual testimony subject to rigorous and unlimited cross examiniation, then you have actual evidence.
But a story in the media today is little more than gossip. I am not interested in what Wapo says that someone says that vindeman said.
There is a reason we conduct testimony in public – so that we do not have this whisper down the lane game.
No I did not say we trust people who have not lied before.
Quit the false binaries.
We do not trust people who have a track record of lying.
We trust people who have a track record of telling the truth – especially when the truth is in their interests.
When we do not have a history to either trust someone or not – we weigh ALL the evidence.
I do not wish to comment specifically on Vindeman without actually knowing what he said and knowing much more about him.
I am very disturbed that he wore a DRESS uniform to the hearings. I am near certain that is a very serious honor code violation. That is not a good sign regarding his credibility.
Tulsi Gabbard received an ethics complaint for using a photo in dress uniform at a veterans cemetary was an ethics violation – and she removed the photo and added a disclaimer to her website. The military is very serious about uniforms. Wearing or not wearing the wrong type of uniform is an ethics violations.
Nor is the assorted claims that vindeman had “concerns”.
I want to know FACTS, not feelings.
He is an officer – he should be able to separate out feelings and oppinions and testify to FACTS.
As to trusting a leutenant Colonel.
Oliver North was a Colonel.
Carter Page was a distinguished anapolis graduate and a leutenant commander in the navy.
Micheal Flynn is a leutenant general in the army.
I can go through a long list of military people who have featured in political life who have either proven highly honorable or completely disreputable.
I wish we could presume the integrity of officers. But we can not.
“With respect to your “Vindeman story” – it is a story – we do not have Vindeman’s testimony, and we do not have a public statement from Vindeman.‘
So what? Even when you see the direct testimony, you’ll refute it.
Reminder: today is GFY Wednesday.
“So what? Even when you see the direct testimony, you’ll refute it.”
I do not have the ability to make facts transform into fiction or visa versa.
My skill at “refutation” is exposing “concerns” and feelings for what they aren’t – evidence or facts.
But more broadly – I doubt I will have any problem with Vindman;s testimony.
It is completely irrelevant.
The most egregious spin on all of this – is NOT A CRIME, Is NOT an impeachable offense,
And in fact reality is the oppoosite – Vindman and the WB and those in the federal government working with him are “colluding to obstruct a legimate investigation”
I WANT VP Biden’s efforts to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigated.
I WANT Hunter Biden’s influence peddling in Ukraine, Romainia and China investigated.
I WANT the DNC, Clinton, HFA, the State Department the DOJ, FBI and Obama investigated for using the ukrainian government to interfere with the 2016 election.
There is FAR FAR more ACTUAL evidence of each of the above than the Trump/Russia Witch Hunt.
So I WANT us to get to the bottom of it.
I do not beleive there was EVER any need to threaten Ukraine to get that.
I do not beleive a threat was ever made.
But if a threat was required – I am fine with that.
Presidents have done that from time immemorial.
Obama did it repeatedly,
Even a former Obama state department staffer said this was nonsense.
They are impeach Trump for having a foreign policy they do not like.
BTW according to US law – passed by congress, the president can delay or withhold completely any foreign aid to any country to achieve policy objectives.
Further there is case law to dispense with this complete bullshit that information – such as “dirt on Biden” is “a thing of value” for the purpose of any law – whether bribery or campaing finance law – it is not.
Put simply if Trump actually did pretty much everything that those like you are desparately hoping that he did, what you have is ordinary US foreign policy done perfectly legitimately.
And more important ANYONE’s efforts to thwart the investigation of these things is actually a REAL crime.
Now if Vindman can testify to something that Trump did that is actually a “high crime or misdemeanor” – rather than a legitimate excercie of presidential power – that I WANT to see actually conclude, then we can talk.
Further Vindman’s testimony suggesting that the transcript might be inaccurate – is a basis for inquiry. assuming Vindman actually testified to that.
It is NOT proof of a crime.
Before proceding Vindman’s credibility much be tested – I know you do not understand this, but he is making the allegation so the burden of proof is on him.
He purportedly says he expressed his concerns to others.
Who ? They need to testify, so that we can confirm that Vindman did what he says he did and to determine what they did in response.
But assuming that Vindman’s allegeged testimony is allegedly accurate – dealing with double and tripple hearsay is a mess.
Trump could have spent the entire phone call ranting about Burisima.
That would change nothing.
The transcript has Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.
As we have noted repeatedly – there is a proper foundation of reasonable suspicion for that.
asking Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden is MORE attenuated and therefore MORE easily justified. Asking Zelensky 1000 times to investigate Burisima would be completely meaningless.
Regardless, you do not seem to grasp YOU have a huge problem here.
VP Biden’s actions are a CRYSTAL CLEAR ETHICAL ISSUE,
His public statements alone are PROBABLE CAUSE – that is MUCH MORE than is required to investigate a crime.
We KNOW why Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden – and the reason is sufficient to justify the investigation.
We do NOT Know why Biden demanded to have Shokin fired.
We do NOT have an actual legitimate justification.
We do not have anything that rises to the level that a vice president of the united states would threaten to withold $1B in aide to have the AG in a foreign country fired.
There is a CLAIM that Shokin was corrupt – then there should be EVIDENCE to support that.
You do not seem to grasp that for Trump to be guilty of anything. not only must Biden be innocent, he must be so clearly unequivocally innocent that Trump could have no possible legitimate reason to investigate,
You are not close to that standard.
Assuming that this double hearsay regarding Vindman’s testimony is correct.
There are two issues:
1000 references to Burisima would be meaningless.
Why can’t Trump ask for further investigation of a Ukrainian company that has already been found corrupt and paid heavy fines ?
You are essentially arguing that if Joe Biden’s son had dinner with a murderer we can not ask the murder to be investigated.
Does that actually make sense to you ?
1000 references to Biden MIGHT be slightly more troubling than 2, but it does nto alter that there is reasonable suspicion to investigate. And that should end this.
The 2nd issue is the extent to which the transcript is accurate.
So far all we have is double hearsay allegedly from vindman that is the case.
I beleive there has already been testimony that the transcript is accurate.
It does not contradict the WB complaint.
Further according to Jordan Vindmen testified that he had talked to a number of people about this. Guess what ONE of the exceptions to the rule barring hearsay is to impeach direct testimony. Vindman said that he told other people X, full examination means asking those people what Vindman told them to verify that Vindman’s testimony is accurate.
Jordan was precluded from asking Vindman who it was he told these things too.
It is not possible to judge Vindman’s credibility in a vaccuum.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
If you are not allowed to verify the parts of vindman’s testimony that ARE verifiable, you can not trust the rest.
I am not going to call for anything – absent a transcript.
I am not going to call for anything – absent testimony under oath of an offense that I think is impeachable, where that testimony has been properly tested for credibility – where is has been subject to cross examination and where those elements of the testimony that can be verified have been verified.
What you have is a double hearsay news story.
You have “miles to go” to reach a credible allegation.
Finally, I am not sure even assuming that the double hearsay all gets transformed into verified testimony that I would support going farther.
There is still no allegation of an impeachable offense.
There is a legitimate basis to ask for an investigation of Biden. That should end all of this.
If Trump ranted at Zelensky for hours about investigating the Biden’s and actually cut off aide – that would not be an impeachable offense as far as I am concerned absent Trump knowing that the Biden’s were actually innocent.
We have plenty of evidence that Biden could be guilty of something.
You will NEVER get to Trump KNEW he was actually innocent.
And absent that you have a disagreement over foreign policy.
And worse you have a situation where, the WB, possibly Vindeman, Schiff, Yavonovich, and possibly the IC IG are engaged in obstruction of justice.
If there is a reasonable basis for the the investigation then efforts to thwart it by others than the president, AG and US attorney would be obstruction.
You have spent 3 years trying to paint the outrage of Trump at an obviously bogus investigation as obstruction of justice. You are stuck with the same standard you used for Trump applying to those now trying to thwart an investigation into Biden.
Comparison between class and ass
Obama was pretentious. Trump was entertaining.
In HS I got pissed because my creative writing teacher was rewarding students who wrote like Obama speaks – pretentiously.
So I wrote a carefully crafted parody that insulted the teacher and pretentious people in language sufficiently complex that the teach could not understand it.
I got an A+ for pretentiously insulting my teacher and other pretentious students.
I would suggest some lessons on communicating by authors like Orwell.
(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
I beleive Trump followed every one of these rules.
Obama broke them all.
Trump is no Orwell.
Neither is Obama.
Obama’s language is not honest though.
So two of us think that trump doesn’t lie and we can get three votes I would think for trump Does lie and in fact his character is so wretched that his wife ought to keep him far away from his son. Really, it’s no use closing one’s eyes, it doesn’t change things. History is going to see Trump’s character and it’s consequences without any blindness. Character is destiny. By choosing a blind view of Trump’s character as the hill they are willing to die on Trump’s defenders are being very short sighted and seem to be hoping that their illusion, call it a mirage, can be made real by believing strongly enough. Trump defenders are only making it worse, there is a price to pay and it will be paid. Unfortunately, the whole country will pay.
My little dream is to exclude this drama from my life for a couple months and enjoy the holidays with family, improve my music, all those good thing. Let’s see if I can do it. Watching a train wreck in slow motion is taking over too many people’s lives. When I am older will I really say that I wish I had spent more time following this battle between denialists and reality?
🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
(Newspaper gag is hilarious)
Reality is something that you can demonstrate using facts, logic, reason.
Your inability to do so means that you are the one in denial.
“everybody lies”
House.
The question is not whether Trump or anyone else has ever lied about anything.
It is the frequency with which they lie and the significance of the lies they tell.
No one has said Trump does not lie.
Hopefully no one is saying that Schiff does not lie, or Warner does not lie or Nadler does not lie or AOC does not lie, or HRC does not lie.
You are free to judge Trump’s character however you choose, but you are not free to demand that others judge Trump or anyone else as you do.
If you wish us to share your oppinion – you have to persuade us.
If you wish to persuade me – and most people, you will use facts, logic and reason.
I have zero interest in your efforts to persuade me or anyone else using outrage insults, slurrs and emotions.
You do not make factual arguments., You do not make logically valid arguments.
A boatload of fallacies is not a compelling argument – for anything.
It is irrelevant whether the issue is Trump or CAGW or the Minimum wage.
If you want support – Especially if you want to use force against others,
you must JUSTIFY your arguments.
Facts, logic reason.
You seem to equate asserting something mulitple times with proving it.
There is no valid proof by repetition argument.
If things are as you say – regardless of what thing we are addressing,
Then you can support that claim with
facts, logic reason.
If it is as obvious as you claim – that should be easy.
I am going to beleive the parson who has been repeatedly falsely accused of lying and yet facts proved correct.
Keep kissing trump’s ass, your lips have assumed a perpetual pucker.
Deceptive Donnie accused of telling a thousand lies; ten of the accusations were false, 990 correct; you base his probity on the ten, ignore the rest.
Reminder: today is GFY Thursday.
Then you should have little difficulty finding specific quotes of Trump in context, that are inarguably both false and significant.
You have burned your own credibility and integrity – if you expect to persuade – you will need strong evidence, not insults, naked assertions and slurrs.
How many of these are false accusations, pucker-boy?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/fact-check-trump-96-false-claims-ukraine/index.html
I have no idea – CNN presented another “narrative” rather than clear claims, actual quotes in context, and clear refutation, and evidence of significance.
As an example Trump’s speach to zelensky was not “perfect”.
But exageration is not consequential lies.
If you tell me something was “perfect’ – I know that is not true – nothing is ever perfect,
But there is near infinite difference between:
Telling your spouse your interview went perfect, when you stumbled a few times ut got the job, and when you sexually molested the interviewer and were chased from the building and threatened with arrest.
So which of these is an actual:
In context quote of Trump ?
actually of consequence ?
Which of these is of the same consequence as falsely accusing Trump of lying ?
Which of these is of the consequence of investigating a political opponent, spying on them absent reasonable suspicion of a crime ?
Which of these is an effort to escape responsibility for the death of 6 americans including a US ambassador ?
Which is these harmed millions of americans ?
Which of these resulted in the Chinese accessing state department classified information in real time ?
Which of these involved lying under oath to the FISA court ?
I can go on ?
I am going to beleive the small army of people who were involved in producing this transcript.
Several other former or current military officers who served with or over Vindman have come out and noted that he has always had an agenda, he does not play by the rules, that while serving in Russia he was politically active with the Russians in ways that are inappropriate and prohibited for US military personnel.
Bullshit.
More Trump assholes spreading phony negatives to undermine a critic of Heir Trump.
You’re another asshole to spread it.
Go fuck yourself, you loser.
Something is not BS merely because you do not like it.
Nor are those in the military entitled to be beleived and respected ONLY if they share your politics.
Several officers including peers and superiors have noted that then Maj. Vindman was engaged in inappropriate political activity while engaged in official military activity in a foreign country.
Sure they could be lying – or Vindman could be.
All of this is one of the reasons we follow the rules. We follow due process.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/05/the_democrats_high-risk_gamble_on_impeachment_141655.html
Two Transcripts have been released.
They are long and I have not yet read them, but the analysis thus far is that there is nothing there.
Yavonovich was clearly unhappy that she was not in complete control of US policy regarding Ukraine. Much is being made of the ad hoc efforts to circumvent her.
Are you really going to impeach a president because an ambassador disagrees with the president over foreign policy, fails to follow the presidents policy and is circumvented and ultimately removed ?
If So impeachment is going to be very common.
So far we have evidence that democrats and some in the “deep state” do not like the presidents foreign policy, attempted to thwart it and were fired.
I would be ecstatic if Trump would fire most of the state department.
For those fixated on Polls.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-poll-poses-serious-questions-about-dem-impeachment-drive
and more polls
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/29/trump-poll-impeachment-ukraine-call-core-supporters/2478185001/
and more polls
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/poll-trump-impeachment-battleground/2019/10/30/id/939325/
Even CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/impeachment-unpopular-swing-states-wisconsin/index.html
If the Durham investigation is legitimate – which it clearly is.
The Trump phone call also is as they have much the same foundation.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/467977-democrats-doth-protest-too-much-against-the-durham-investigation?
Somehow seems fitting.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/george-papadopoulos-running-for-seat-left-vacant-after-katie-hill-resignation
Arizona Democrat Party Chairman Felecia Rotellini: Trump “has aligned himself with ISIS”
Rotellini made the remarks on Saturday, approximately 1-hour before a Trump-authorized raid in northern Syria resulted in the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pic.twitter.com/lyYraFg6Eq
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 29, 2019
I match your Vindmen and raise you a Crenshaw!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/30/dan_crenshaw_trump_asked_ukraine_about_biden_in_the_public_interest.html
So Rep. Hill’s most fundimental problem is that had the press done its job, she would not have been elected in the first place.
https://spectator.org/exit-lying/
Is irony dead?
Actually just said by Donald Trump Jr on Fox: “I wish my name was Hunter Biden. I could go abroad and make millions off my father’s presidency. I’d be a really rich guy”
Do I need to piss Ron off and link the entire Youtube intereview with your commment in context.
The Trump family are successful international business people, and have been for decades.
Long before 2015.
They have made money in foreign countries based on trading value for value – not because Donald Trump was president.
Donald Jr. noted that starting BEFORE the election – as the Trump’s KNEW people like you would make idiotic claims – they worked hard to isolate their business from foreign governments. They substantially avoid services to foreign governments or lobbyiests and they voluntarily pay any profits on those they can not avoid to the IRS.
Trump Jr. explicitly referenced the Trump Hotel in Washington – which they leased – when the government could not get anyone to lease it. Which they spent millions improving – before the election, and which they have been severely restricted in their business oportunities since the election as a consequence of self imposed reqstrictions on who they will provide services to.
They are considering selling their lease on the Washington property as it is substantially underperforming as a consequence of self imposed restrictions.
Regardless, there is nothing that any Trump does internationally that they do not have demostrated skills and success at predating the election by decades.
Chris Kerry, Hunter Biden Pelosi’s kids, …. can not say the same.
There is little doubt Donald Jr. got oportunities the rest of us did not get because his father was a billionaire.
But there is no evidence that the Trump’s have gained special advantage because Trump is president.
There is not a job Hunter Biden has held that he likely would have if Joe Biden was not VP or senator.
“ WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s former top adviser for Russian and European affairs arrived on Capitol Hill Thursday to testify to House impeachment investigators , a day after leaving his job at the White House.”
Tim Morrison is the first White House political appointee to testify, if he confirms any of the whistleblower’s account, what faults of character or motivation will Douch Donnie accuse him of? And how quickly will dhlii pucker up in agreement?
Almost everyone has affirmed the WB account.
Almost everyone has affirmed the transcript
The two are NOT at odds.
Everyone has affirmed that Trump was engaged in “foreign policy” with Ukraine and that some – particulary the carreer staff did not like that policy and actively sought to thwart it.
Put simply – almost everyone has testified that Trump needed to fire significant portions of the foreign affairs corp in the executive, and that he was fully justified in using private citizens like Gulliani to preclude the carreer staff thwarting his policy.
Trump or not,
I want Biden investigated for the firing of Shokin.
I want Ukrainian interferance in the US election investigated
I want the conduct of the US govenrment in 2016 investigated
All of those requests are legitimate.
No one gets a free ticket to commit crimes or ethics violations because they are a political candidate.
You have been telling all of us that for 3 years.
BREAKING DALLAS WEATHER REPORT ** It appears that there is a SNOW DAY on the way folks and it’s looking to be the winter event of the CENTURY.
But climate change is a hoax…right?
Jay, Weatherbell.com
Joe Bistardi.
He will provide scientific data on why weather patterns like this is occurring and show how climate patterns repeat.
Ron, I hope he’s right.
But there seems to be an excessive amount of repetition happening at the same time.
The actual theory of global warming – and the predicted results of the models is
LESS variation in “weather” – the warmer the planet gets the LESS unstable the climate gets the LESS extreme weather their should be.
The claims regarding droughts, huricane’s tornado’s greater variability, more extremes – are both false – in that we are NOT having more of these,
and false in that more extremes are not a symptom of warming.
Climate change has been ongoing for 4b years.
Global Warming is a hoax.
The pretense that the climate does not change naturally is a hoax.
The current UAH anomally is 0.46C since 1979 that is 0.11C/decade.
That is exactly the same rate of change as the previous 200 years.
There are predictions that North America will have an unusually cold winter.
Leftists have come totally unhinged – even from their own faux science.
It is now irrelevant what the latest weather prediction is, anything is evidence that government must take control of everything to prevent “climate change”.
We do not want and do not have the capacity to stop climate from changing.
It would do so as it pleased – even if humans never existed.
I think it is time for Dave and Jay to take their personal shit slinging pissing contest over to Dave’s personal site, Brokenwindows.net. There are others here that want to have limited (words as well as qualtity) number of comments concerning different issues. But due to the self centered attitude of Dave and Jay who believe they can dominate this site with crap reposted from Twitter and shit from You Tube, it has completely fucked up Ricks site for civil communications between current users and is a complete turn off for any new people to join the conversation. It is now to the point the derogatory names are now being recycled since after 1100+ comments, there are no new ones to use.
Dave will say I am free to not read the comments. He will say Rick is free to set the rules. That is true. But it is also true this obnoxious self centered behavior is no different than someone in a large group of people talking on their cell at a raised voice where all can hear. Everyone is free to leave if they dont want to listen. True, but it is still self centered shelfishness and not right. The difference is it something being proper behavior.
jbsay at thebrokenwindow dot net
Jay or anyone can email me at that address and slur or slander as they please.
And no one else would be involved.
I am separately considering creating a kill list that just deletes Jay’s comments from my feed.
But that is non-trivial because of the way wordpress formats the emails.
Past that – what is it that you expect ?
Is it acceptable to publicly lie – without rebutal ?
Are we at the point were slur and insult are the acceptable norms of discusion ?
Dave, I could care less how two grown men want to throw shit at each other, but when it gets to the point there are 1200+ comments and most of them are comments that are nothing but derogatory comments about the others mental capability, then it has far past the level of acceptance. You and Jay can have your pissing contest in a private setting, but at some point in a public setting I am going to call both of you out, even if Rick ignores this, because I would like to have a conversation with others here that have some basis other than name calling. That is impossible when I have to turn off comments on email to avoid Jays and your childish argument as to who is dumber, etc. who can Find the most twitter comments, You Tube videos, and flood the site with useless information no one cares about. There have been many who have come, commented with good arguments supporting position and left due to the flood of inconsiderate and useless messages that make it impossible for others to stick around.
If this is disturbing to you, I dont apologize because I am from a generation that does not avoid speaking the truth to avoid hurting some snowflakes feelings.
Ron;
I am trying to get to the bottom of what actually matters to you.
Pic 3 realistic things that I could do differently that would make you happier and
maybe I will do one or two of them by choice.
Or do something less frequently.
I addressed some possibilities in a prior post.
I am aware that links – particularly those to youtube tend to slow wordpress down.
At the same time video’s are an efficient and entertaining way of communicating information,
and they often substitute for long and lengthy posts.
I am not looking to set rules – just establish your preferences so that maybe I can atleast partly accomidate some of them.
I have become slightly “nastier” in my posts – mostly towards Jay,
Oddly George Will and Johnathan Goldberg who I respect are driving that.
I have increasingly come to the conclusion that I do not give a damn if Trump is an obnoxious asshole.
That in fact it might be a necescity.
I would prefer a world of Goldberg’s and Will’s.
I do not agree with Kaisich and Romney on policy – but I would prefer their “style”.
But aside from the amplification in the outrage, nothing has actually changed.
Trump suddenly playing by marquis of queensburry rules of presidential ettiquette or even doing so all along would likely have altered only one thing – who won in 2016.
Every republican through my entire life has been called an authoritarian and a nazi, and a racist and a sexist.
Robert Packwood – just about as tame a republican as there was, was driven out of the senate from being Joe Biden.
There is a youtube clip with some prominent democrat or member of the media refering to some prominent republican or president as a nazi going back to Ford
To long as the left’s approach to politics is slur rather than debate, being nice is not getting anyone anywhere. Romney was accused essentially of murder, because some woman died of cancer something like 7 years after Romney downsized the business her husband worked for. Never mind that but for Romney the business would have gone bankrupt and everyone would have lost their job and insurance.
I read lots of analysis of Trump’s base – and it is interesting.
Most of these people are not republicans. or not strongly so.
They are also mostly people who did not vote in the past.
They are people who mostly ignored politics because politicians ignored them and did not give a shit about them.
They are people who did not speak their political views in public – because if they did they knew they would be insulted and shamed.
And most of them still don’t.
They go to work quietly minding their own business.
And when Trump comes to town they pull their MAGA caps out go to a rally cheer and applaud, come home, put their caps away and do not say a thing – until november.
I do not agree with everything they beleive.
But the fact they beleive they need to be silent is disturbing.
This technique of slurring people into silence – mostly practiced by the left has no place in public discourse.
But unlike Romney and Will, and Goldberg – it is NOT going to improve by being polite.
When the left comes after you – you do not even get to be a martyr
Mother Theresa would be painted as a sexist, racist, homophobic hateful hating hater should she deviate publicly from left wing nut dogma.
Not only has Hillary Clinton called Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein a “russian Asset” – but way too many journalists responded with idiocy like – well how can we be sure she isn’t ?
Really ?
Do we live in a world where the most vile accusations are presumed true and must be proven false ?
Neither Gabbard or Stein are in any way Trump like.
Nor has Hillary suddenly become demented.
A wise person would see this and say – she is trying to do the same thing to Gabbard and Stein as she did to Trump.
They would also say – HMM, Trump Russia really was the batshit rantings of a political witch.
I do not want to relitigate Trump Russia – I just want to know how it is that someone who is practically in bed with Putin who pushed Russian Reset I + II who scored hundreds of millions from Russian oligarchs, whoses husband pockets a cool 500K for a speach to russians, can say that some guy who had a beuthy pagent in Russian and does not have sufficient political clout to get a hotel built is a Russian asset and be beleived ?
If Eugene Debbs called John D. Rockefeller a “russian asset” who would beleive ?
“ I have increasingly come to the conclusion that I do not give a damn if Trump is an obnoxious asshole.”
Birds of a feather?
It’s not primarily that he’s an obnoxious asshole..
It’s that he’s a obnoxious asshole who is a deceitful liar.
Both Goldberg and Will, who you claim you respect, have stated that many times.
Will: “ “I believe that what this president has done to our culture, to our civic discourse … you cannot unring these bells and you cannot unsay what he has said, and you cannot change that he has now in a very short time made it seem normal for schoolboy taunts and obvious lies to be spun out in a constant stream. I think this will do more lasting damage than Richard Nixon’s surreptitious burglaries did.”
Here’s Goldberg on Trump’s phony defense of his attempt to pressure Ukraine to undermine Biden:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/trump-best-option-for-avoiding-impeachment-an-apology/
That you don’t acknowledge the long term deleterious effect Trump has already had on the nation from his assholeness, or worse that you ‘don’t give a damn’ about it, will haunt you in later life.
It’s useless to interact with you further.
“It’s that he’s a obnoxious asshole who is a deceitful liar.
Both Goldberg and Will, who you claim you respect, have stated that many times.”
I have read many editorials by Goldberg and Will that were critical of Trump.
None of them have said “he’s a obnoxious asshole who is a deceitful liar.”
I keep reminding you that you shot your credibility some time ago.
If you expect to be able to make claims and be beleived – you are going to have to prove them – quotes in context please.
Otherwise I am not going to beleive what you say – and no one else should either.
That is the price for repeatedly making false accusations.
If Trump repeatedly falsely accused Clinton of colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election – I would no longer beleive what he said without proof.
You Schiff, Clinton the media and others have made the same false accusation thousands of times. If you want to be beleived, you must provide substantial factual support for your claims.
I asked you for evidence that Trump has lied about something significant.
You provided a hillarious article that rarely quoted Trump, never in context, and was mostly either false claims, nit picking over imprecision or inconsequential exaggeration.
I did not check each of the “96 claims” – I would have expected that atleast the first 3 or 3 would be clear convincing and significant, and they were so unsubstantiated and weak that it was not worth reading further.
If Trump is the gigantic liar you say – it should be trivial to find a clear convincing and significant example.
Not Idiocy where the press confuses a retweet of an obvious funny meme of a dawg receiving the medal of Pawner with a misrepresentaiton of reality – or an insult to a veteran who when contacted found it not merely funny – but heartwarming – as his life was made safer by many brave dogs in vietnam.
Come on Jay – or is this just another false accusation ?
I could probably find a lie or two of Trump’s I think is significant.
But you can’t seem to do so. You do not actually know any real lies Trump has told,
You have just bought what you have been sold – outrage in a bottle – facts be damned.
Regardless the question is not has Trump ever lied,
But is his relationship to the truth unusually bad for a president or politician.
And you have miles to go to make that case.
With respect to Will,
Here is Lincoln responding to criticism of Grant.
‘I Can’t Spare This Man, He Fights’
George can be forgiven for conflating Trump’s refusal to act like a gentlemen when he is being attacked by thugs.
I wish we lived in George Wills world where behaving with calm and honor with actual liars and thugs would win the day. But we do not.
I disagree with Romney on policy – though probably not much more than Trump.
Overall Romney seems a decent man. Certainly more decent than I would call president Obama today. But Romney was slandered mercilously – called all the same names and all the same lies that are used regarding Trump, being “the gentleman” did not get him very far.
The best man certainly did not win.
Actual war hero john mccain – someone you claim to respect was slandered and maligned personally be candidate Obama – and much more egregiously be the press and the left,
how far did that get him ? I doubt McCain would have been a good president. Though likely better than Obama. Regardless, you have no problem with slandering actual war hero’s like McCain – unless Trump does it. You have no problem calling 3 star generals like Flynn a crook or Anapolis grads like Page “russian assests”, but if any question whether a lt. Colonel’s “feelings” regarding Trump’s policies are evidence of anything – and we are besmirching the integrity of an honorable soldier.
Vindman was sanctioned twice for breaking chain of command, and by his own testimony someone in the military working for the NSC was providing unsanctioned advice to a foreign power. That is probably not as some have said – espionage, But it is certainly “deeply concerning”.
Regardless, the point is conservatives, republicans, libertarains, even democrats like Tulsi Gabbard – conducting your self with honor is all well and good – if you want to appear dignified as the country burns.
There is absolutely no long term deletorious effect that Trump has had on the nation.
If Biden or Warren or Sanders somehow manages to get elected in 2020,
the country will revert to the same significantly reduced level of contentiousness that existed when Obama was president.
Congress will be even less attached to any rules – but that is due to their own actions, not Trump.
No matter who is elected in 2020 and who wins congress, any hope that anything approaching the rule of law will exist regarding the behavior of congress is out the window.
The only bar to a future republican house impeaching a future democratic president for “foreign policy” will be a resounding defeat of house democrats in 2020 that will terrify house members for a while into not repeating this fiasco.
What is the deletorious long term damage trump is doing ?
Encouraging Republicans not to sit there and take it on the chin when Democrats the left or the media slander them ?
That is only a bad thing in a world turned upside down.
The modern behavior of democrats, the left and the media is a direct consequence of the ideology of the far left. This nonsense that all oppinions are equal (though some more equal than others), that we can weigh the merits of a person or society not by what they have accomplished, but by how many victimhood chits they hold, that encourages widespread adoption of Alinsky’s rules.
What is wrong today is epitomized by YOU – personally.
Insults and slurs as a substitute for arguments, evidence facts, logic and reason.
I am not easily able to refute the nonsense you spray – because I am some towering genius.
I am able to refute you, because there is no substance to your arguments.
Some people are naturally better at logic than others. But logic is not pervertable.
If the premises of an argument are valid, if the rules of inference are followed, the results are always true.
Conversely if an argument is demonstrably fallacious, or self contradictory, it is false.
No matter who exposes that. error.
Facts, logic, reason – those are the tools for successfully interacting with me.
And should be the prerequisites for successfully interacting with anyone.
Ron,
I want to directly address and discuss some of your concerns.
Would you rather listen to me make a point – or Andrew MacCarthy or Johnathan Haidt, or …. ?
To the extent I can I link articles by others as a means of avoiding long posts.
Youtube is problematic – as WordPress chokes more with even video link.
At the same time it is a more efficient and effective means of communicating,
Further I am divided over whether the “blame” belongs with youtube links or with WordPress.
I am willing to contemplate a common aggreement not to post youtube or twitter sources,
At the same time – SOMETIMES those ARE the best sources of information.
Regardless, I am asking you what is your complaint, and what is your goal for TNM ?
Do you see TNM as a place for personal political kabitizing ?
Is it to offer each of our own arguments ?
Or is it an exchange of information ?
What is it that you actually want from TNM ?
And please do not say less of this or that – that is what you don’t want.
It is not the same.
Dave, its easier if you go back into comments and read your comments and Jays. How many are just some other unknown assholes twitter thinking that you or Jay dug up to rub the other person the wrong way. I cant solve the problem of useless comments here because I was never a 1st grade teacher teaching students how to handle fights.
Ron;
I am going back through my comments – particularly those with links.
I think Obama calling out Cancel Culture – is a big deal.
And it is greatly to Obama’s credit.
I think that out to be featured and praised.
In fact that is pretty much Obama saying much the same thing as you are.
Quit calling people assholes,
Win arguments with arguments not slurs.
Separately I posted that a prominent democrat had called Trump out as being aligned with ISIS. I think that was from a tweet. Is that a problem ?
Yes, it is twerking Jay, but my point is that things are getting bat shit crazy – and the crazy is NOT coming from Trump or the right.
I am not a republican. I am not a conservative. But like Marianne Williams it is not conservatives who insult me.
Is a reason clip about Rand Paul’s efforts to end endless wars offensive ?
What about the youtube clip with dozens of democrats and the media saying over and over for 3 years “the walls are closing in on Trump”
How many times can the left cry wolf before we grasp there is not wolf ?
Jay posts Max Boot tweets all the time.
Shouldn’t I post a max boot tweet where he makes an ass of himself ?
All I regret about the Boot Tweet was not linking to screen save are Boot subsequently edited the tweet and my link then changed.
How about the andy ngo tweet about antifa anti-semetism ?
Is that a problem ?
OR the hilarious Bernie Sander’s tweet about being unable to fix a corrupt system if you are taking its money
Or Bernie Sanders Tweeting that Israel can not have US aide if it does not capitulate to palestinians ?
Is the video of Clinton calling Gabbard a Russian Asset what is getting your goat.
Or of Joe Biden calling the impeachment of Clinton a “Lynching”
or the video of trump supporters saying why they like trump ?
Don’t we want to know that ?
Or the sarcasm and liberty memes of the week video that mostly mocked Clinton over her Tulsi attack ?
Anyway. I am about 1/4 of the way through the current comments, and still trying to figure out which posts of mine have offended you
I want to adress something else.
There is no cost incurred by you by anyone else’s post or posts.
There is no harm to you
The analogies that keep getting offered – such as the cell phone one, are therefore flawed and useless
It is arrogant and self centered to reduce what is available to someone else for your own benefit.
But you can take an infinite amount from an infinite capacity and still have an infinite amount left.
You are not harmed therefore you have nothing to complain about, and analogies involving real harm are in error.
You are not merely free to leave, you are free to ignore individual posts or portions of posts or all posts by a person or …
You have infinite freedom, you are complaining because you can not control something that is not actually harming you.
There is one and only one complaint that I have regarding TNM that I would even remotely consider making into a “rule” and I am dubious about that,
especially as it is easy to interpret any rule broadly against those you do not like and narrowly against yourself.
The one and only one possible rule I would consider is no insults of people posting here.
Insult Trump,
Insult peoples arguments.
But do not insult other posters.
Quid Pro Schmo
Washington Post:
‘ Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, on Thursday corroborated the testimony of a senior U.S. diplomat who last week offered House impeachment investigators the most detailed account to date for how Trump tried to use his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with his deposition.
Morrison told impeachment investigators that the account offered by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, is accurate. He said that he alerted Taylor to a push by Trump and his deputies to withhold both security aid and a White House visit for the Ukrainian president until Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens and interference in the 2016 presidential election, said one person, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions“
If you spin it – they will beleive.
When in fact the testimony was the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
The Ukrainians were unaware that there was any hold on aide.
I have criticized republican’s repeatedly for fixating on “quid pro quo”
While there was none, – and even the testimony you cite actually demonstrates their was none. That is NOT the standard.
All exchange involves a “quid pro quo” of some kind.
Short of out right charity, no human interactions occur that are not “this for that”
The only thing that matters in the Ukraine matter is whether trump’s ask was justified – and clearly it was.
You continue to use this nonsense standard that because you presume there was a political motive and benefit that Trump’s actions were improper.
Lets look at Biden’s open threat to the Ukraine using YOUR standards.
Forget whether Hunter Biden did anything improper.
The story about Hunter Biden’s involvement in the Ukraine was planted by Hillary Clinton for the purpose of keeping Joe Biden out of the 2016 primary.
It is trivial to argue that Biden demanded Shokin’s firing to prevent that story from emerging and doing him political harm – and that is true REGARDLESS of whether there was anything to investigate.
Joe Biden demanded the Ukraine act in a manner that would benefit him in an election.
And he did so using the power of the US govenrment.
Except that there is no doubt that Biden threatened the ukraine, and no doubt that his family benefited, that is no different from your allegation regarding Trump.
So why was there no impeachment of Biden ?
Ultimately Joe Biden decided not to run.
Probably because Hillary successfully scared him out of the race.
Is there anyone who doubts that in 2016 Biden would have easily defeated Trump ?
Priscilla- what’s up with this?
Three weeks after Trump ordered full withdrawal of all US forces from NE Syria, he’s now sending the same number of troops back as we had there before the chaotic US withdrawal unfolded.
What happened to ‘bring the troops home?’
What happened to he never lies?
I am not going to defend keeping troops in syria, afghanistan, Iraq, ….
They need to leave.
To the extent Trump is failing to get out – he is wrong.
I am also not going to defend your misrepresentations or Trump’s over generalized speach.
The objective is NOT to “bring them home” – it is to get them out of harms way.
While I might reduce US troops deployed world wide. the major issue is those either directly involved in fighting or those in harms way, not whether they are in diego garcia or camp lejune.
I can have fun with the press (or max boot) portraying Baghdadi as some hero.
But I do not personally care much that we killed him.
I do not care if ISIS wants to create a caliphate in Syria – that is Syria’s problem.
I do care if ISIS directly attacks the US – as Al Qeda did.
By the way, After my last comment earlier today, I removed the choice on WordPress for “follow this conversation”, so I will no longer be getting email notifications as of about 3:00. Will be back when something important takes place. Until then, or until Rick posts something new, have a wonderful holiday period!
Liars to the right of us.
Liars to the left.
https://news.yahoo.com/warren-reveals-52-trillion-medicare-121018624.html
If you tax employers 20 trillion, where does that come from?
Answer, employees! Employers look at salaries and benefits as a package. When employers decide to raise wages, they look at the impact on benefits. A tax on employers will be made through a percent of salary cost, just like Social Security. So Elizabeth Warren is a liar when it comes to that.
If you tax financial transactions, where does that come from?
Answer, most often that is a cost passed through funds such a Fidelity, American Mutual, etc.Who covers those costs? Much of that comes from the retirement funds, 401,s and 403’s. They comes from pension funds investing in securities.Who has most of those funds? Middle class taxpayers through pension funds. So Elizabeth Warren is a liar when it comes to that point.
And who in their right mind is not going to understand that the moneys she claims will be taxed through a wealth tax will not find their way into a country or investments that will shelter those funds from much of her taxes.
Are Americans really this stupid to believe this stuff?
Well we now near certainly have the identity of the Whistleblower. And even in the very off chance we do not, we have the name of a puportedly carreer public servant who is indistinguishable in conduct from a political operative. and who amazingly is deeply involved in EVERYTHING anti-trump, Including the Ukrainian efforts to influence the 2016 election.
Put Simply the Whistleblower is NOT a whistleblower, he is a heavily vested party.
When Trump asked Zelensky to investigate US political corruption in the Ukraine in 2016, When Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden’s role in political corruption in the Ukraine – that investigation was going to run right smack into the possibly criminal misconduct of “the whistleblower”. There is supposed to be a very strict division between political appointees and carreer public servants. The permanent exexuctive branch advises on policy, it does not make policy and it does not participate in political activity. The WB is a carreer civil servant, while he is a democrat and worked with Biden – those are not the damning problems.
No one expects civil servants not to have a political affiliation or not to work for the elected representatives from on party of the other.
The WB’s problem is much bigger than that – He was Biden’s point man in the Ukraine. he was intimately involved in thwarting Shokin, as well was getting the Ukrainians to investigate Manafort and to interfere with the Trump campaign – and in that capacity worked with – not just elected democrats or political appointees – but DNC staff members in the Ukraine.
In fact the WB is tired to just about everything associated with “the resistance” within “the deep state”.
Schiff can not allow the WB to testify. The WB can not testify without either confessing to crimes or pleading the fifth – either of which is the end of the road for this idiocy.
The WB is a relatively key player in “the deep state conspiracy” to get Trump.
Merely testifying will result in questions that prove the existance of a deep and broad conspiracy that was the butt of jokes before.
The WB is heavily tied to pre-election malfeasance int eh Ukraine and Russia going back to 2015. He is strongly tied to Biden (and the ukraine), to Brennan, to early classified leaks in the Trump white house, to the DNC, to the manafort investigation, to Comey, to the Steele Dossier, to the Trump is a Russian Asset nonsense. There is almost no effort to “get Trump” over the past 4 years that he is not involved in.
His personal involvement in nearly everything anti-trump makes it near impossible to claim with a straight face that there was not an organized conspiracy.
Washington sucks at keeping secrets – almost no one expected that the WB’s identity could remain secret for long. And aparrently it did not. The whitehouse, the republicans in congress, and the press have apparently known who the WB was for over a month.
House GOP members have NOT been trying to get witness to reveal the name of the WB – they already know and have a 40 page dossier on him. What they have been probing is the scope of the conspiracy that he is a part of, what they have been after is getting his name out in the press so that the press would start reporting on him as this is not someone whose actions are going to hold up under public scrutiny.
While it is possible that Schiff can prevent the WB from testifying – should this ever leave the house – he will have to testify in the senate, and the questions will not be about his complaint, but his involvement with Biden in firing the prosecutor in the Ukraine, his involvement with the DNC in sabatogaing Manafort in the Ukraine, his involvement in 2016 Ukrainian election interferance, his involvement in an assortment of classified leaks to the press early in the Trump administration. His involvement with Rice and Brennan in the efforts to sabatoge Trump at the start of the Trump administration, his involvement with the Steele Dossier.
His involvement with the claims that Trump was a russian asset.
Put simply questioning him will be a bloody mess for democrats.
The first time I( hear information about the WB a few days ago – the extent to which he was tied to EVERYTHING just seemed implausible. It was like a fictitious person was created to prove every single element of the alleged conspiracy against Trump. While there have todate been numerous disparate efforts within government to “get Trump”. there has been nothing connecting them all together. There was not evidence of a broad conspiracy. just evidence of islands of deep state that shared the same anti-trump convictions.
The details being reported on the WB are as if he was created as a plot device by central casting to tie up all the lose ends in a story.
If even half of what is now being reported is true – this is a huge problem for democrats.
As of today – several different outlets are reporting all the same details.
There MIGHT be some miniscule possibility the person being reported on is not the WB,
There is little possibility the other facts about him are false and no matter what he is a central figure and likely a target for Durham.
https://spectator.org/blowing-the-whistle-on-the-whistleblower/
Sending our soldiers to fight and die constitutionally requires the assent of both congress and the president – if either does not agree we can not constitutionally fight.
Hopefully we are all agreed that, that is how it should be.
We should not be sending our soldiers to fight, kill and die, because Dick Chenney or Max Boot, or Adm MacRaven thinks it is a good idea.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-opposition-to-endless-wars-appeals-to-those-who-fought-them/ar-AAJIkfR?li=BBnb4R5
This is from Sky News in Australia. Most of the examples are specific to Austrailia – however the problem is common across all anglo countries.
Whether the UK, the US, Canada or AU, they left has gone insane and seeks to silence all disagreement – even violently if necescary.
In the US no one is attacking Bush for having Ellen DeGeneris as a friend, but Ellen is not permitted to have even the most inconsequential polite relationship with Bush.
Gabbard is welcome on Fox, where she is treated with respect. but brutalized on left media.
I found it interesting – according to Bannon Tulsi Gabbard was considered by Trump for several foreign policy positions by Trump.
Though Gabbard has criticised Trump on foreign policy – her criticism is on the opposite flank of that of the democratic party and the same flank as libertarians like Rand Paul.
I also recently found an article noting that Trump is weakly approximating the foreign policy of Jean Kirkpatrick under Reagan – of “strategic disengagement” – an over simplification of that policy is we suck at nation building, and when we try – we get messes like Vietnam,
But no other country is any better – particularly the Russians and Chinese.
The the US stepping back and leaving a power vaccuum where china, Russia, Iran step in, is overally a GOOD thing – let those nations waste their treasure and blood on the impossible.
We strive stupidly to read every local conflict in the world in our own ideological terms.
We see everything as the US vs Russia, or ISIS, or China, or Iran,
When the local conflicts have very little to do with ideology.
In Vietnam at the start Ho Chi Minh was nominally a socialist – but early on Ho tried to tell the US not to get hung up over socialism, that his objective was Vietnamese nationalism.
Our presence drove the North Vietnamese into the arms of the Russians and Chinese.
Whether it is ISIS or the Kurds, or Asad, or Turkey, these nations and peoples and their conflicts have little or nothing to do with global politics. They have nothing to do with democracy vs. communism or Russia vs. the US.
Our wading into them tries to force fit our ideological values onto other peoples disagreements.
Interesting piece on where we might be headed.
For those who think this is Trump’s fault or that the GOP is going to come out on the short end of this:
Though out divisions have grown worse with Trump’s election – they predate that election,
They Predate Obama’s election.
The core problem is the destruction of fundimental western constructs by our education system – the entire system from kindergarden through graduate school.
There are videos on youtube explaining the constution – by people who have clearly never read it. Regardless starting slowly in the 60’s failed marxists in our colleges have slowly poisoned the entire education system. This has taken 50 years – but we have mostly replaced the class struggle that is at the core of communism with myriads of other forms of victimhood conflicts – race, sex, gender, orientation, religion (only some), disability, failure
Each of these – sometimes self imposed disadvantages are philosophically presumed by large swaths of the people to confer some moral superiority on those with the most victimhood chits.
If you do not understand how this MUST lead to hell – recall Jussie Smollet briefly.
When you inflate the social value of something – you will get MORE not less of it.
Further the philosophy of the left has no anchors – there are no actual principles. there are just competing naratives and the one gaining the most victimhood points at the moment claiming moral superiority.
Our founders fought for liberty – when they secured that – they stopped fighting.
Various forms of socialism fight for various pretenses of equality, these can never be acheived hence the violence never ends.
Egalitarian systems – from the french revolution through the present are inherently chaotic and violent. They always end with authoritarians – somethimes left, sometimes right.
But always violence and totalitarianism. Eqalitarianism breads chaos and chaos provokes a backlash of order. Whether order is restored by a bonaparte or franco, or musollini or hitler or castro or Pol Pot or Mao or Stalin or Chavez – order will be restored.
Chaos creates an authoritarian backlash.
Trump is not much of an authoritarian, but he is the backlash against the chaos of the left and Obama. Double down on chaos and lawlessness and the next authoritarian whether left or right will be much stronger.
Nixon was elected because of the violence in the streets in 1968.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/civil-war-begins-when-the-constitutional-order-breaks-down/
If you think the left is going to prevail in all this – I think you are engaged in wishful thinking.
The left can not possibly prevail – they can not govern themselves much less the country.
Even winning is losing.
Well Schiff is finally starting to release transcripts – so maybe we get to see what is actually going on.
Purportedly Yavonovitch’s is either released or about to be – that should be interesting.
We also got to here schiff idiotically pontificate for 15 minutes, praising Yavonovitch and others for actively thwarting the efforts of Trump to interfere with the foreign policy of the US.
Does schiff reallize that if what he is saying is correct – that Schiff is confessing to a basis for Yavonovitch to be fired for cause and for obstruction charges to be leveled at her.
The president of the united states makes US foreign policy – not ambassadors, not the house, not the sentate. Aside from what can be accomplished through control of money the congress has zero influence on US foreign policy.
The president can not by definition obstruct the foreign policy of the US government – he IS the foreign policy of the US government.
In uttering this Schiff is damn near parroting the nonsense used to impeach Andrew Johnson – except for one thing – Schiff does not even have a unconstitutional law being violated.
Schiff called attention to the efforts of Yavonovitch to thwart Trump’s efforts to get the Ukraine to investigate the interference in the 2016 election – That thwarting predates the 2020 campaign. Schiff called this Yavonovitches commitment to end corruption in the Ukriane.
Only democrats think you end corruption by thwarting investigations into corruption.
BTW Yavonovitch’s interference is extremely well documented.
Schiff also fixates on Yavonovitches efforts to thwart Guiliani.
Again US ambassadors DO NOT MAKE POLICY, they impliment it.
I am focused on Yavonovitch. Schiff mentioned several other lessor players – but schiff’s argument is always the same – Trump was thwarting career govenrment employees (all appointed by Obama) from carrying out the foriegn policies of Obama, when Trump was president.
Schiff is quite openly making the argument that he is impeaching Trump for changing Obama’s foreign policy.
Lots of things oddly tie together.
Mattis just released a book – that is highly critical of Obama and Bush and less critical of Trump, that argues very strongly for US as the policmen of the world. For US military intervention in every global conflict and for US military forces to remain indefinitely.
Mattis argues forcefully and articulately for this policy. This was the policy that Bush campaigned against but post 9/11 reluctantly adopted. That Obama ran against but also adopted as president, that Trump ran against, and that has causes a civil war inside the executive branch during his presidency. Trump too reluctantly gave “the generals” more time. But ultimately like americans has grown tired of “endless war”.
Whether it is Iran, or Syria, or Ukraine or myriads of other places, Though Trump has been incredibly slow at keeping his promise to get us OUT, he has firmly resisted the efforts of much of the executive to broaden the conflict.
This conflict that Schiff is now bring into the open has been core to the entire “deep state” war on Trump.
Flynn was framed to thwart his/Trump’s efforts to get us out of the bad deal with Iran.
That should have been implimented in days not years, after Trump was elected.
Recently we saw a “bi-partisan effort” of neocons to thwart any departure from Syria or Afghanistan. At this moment that effort appears to have been successful. Trump has received days of bad press and stupid attacks for moving some 50 US soldiers out of harms way, and at the same time had to back pedal on getting out of Syria.
Sorry, I am with Ronald Reagan – this is not our fight, it is way past time to leave.
Amb Jeane Kirkpatrick advanced reagan’s foreign policy of “strategic disengagement”.
Let the Russian’s move in when we leave – if they want their own vietnam, their own foreign policy disasters – lets not thwart them. Let Russia sow the wind throwout the world – for they will reap the whirlwind. And that worked.
Trump has attempted much the same, and been thwarted by the media, democrats and republican neo-cons at every step.
And Schiff’s hearings are exposing this.
It is no secret that from approximately the time Mueller was appointed Trump has wanted the meddling of democrats in the Ukraine investigated. Sporadically the Ukrainians have even done so. We have more than ample evidence that further investigation is justified.
Calling Ukrainian corruption and collusion a hoax is hillarious coming from those who sold us Russian Collusion for 3+ years.
Biden is now back to denying he knew anything about Hunter’s activities in Romainia, China and Ukraine – even though Hunter has contradicted that, and the NYT asked VP Biden to comment on Hunter in 2015, and the State department warned VP Biden of allegations of corruption involving Hunter in 2015 – all BEFORE VP Biden demanded Shokin’s firing.
This democratic narative is that they were fighting corruption in the Ukraine.
Do you fight corruption by turning a blind eye to your son profiting off your name as Russian Oligarch’s use that connection to profit off and corrupt the ukraine ?
Do you fight corruption by STOPPING (repeatedly – all the way through Yavonovitch) investigations into Ukrainian corruption ?
Is it not “concerning” to you that everywhere you turn in the Trump Russia farce – the Ukraine turns up ? DNC operatives working with Ukriane to produce ludicrously forged ledgers that got manafort fired, and started the Trump Russia nonsense. Ukrainian oligarchs owning the security company that is the only evidence of Russian involvment in the DNC hacking.
DNC operatives holed up in the Ukrainian embassy in DC during the election.
Everywhere you turn inside of the Trump/Russia hoax – Ukraine keeps turning up.
Yet, Sessions did not investigate. Mueller did not investigate.
But Trump, Guliani, Barr and Durham are investigating.
Yavonovitch and all these career diplomats – and you can add the WB to this list – were all honestly going about their duty to fight corruption in the Ukraine and prevent Trump from interfering with US foreign policy – as if US foreign policy was OWNED by Obama apointees,
Not the president.
Or one could ask why so many people who were involved in the US efforts to politcally corrupt the Ukraine and interfere in US elections, where involved in the efforts to thwart investigation of that misconduct ?
Contra Schiff’s idiotic monologue, Trump did not ask Zelensky to manufacture dirt.
He asked him to investigate credible allegations.
Whether Democrats like it or not, this country is entitled to know if their former president and former vice president and much of their staff are corrupt.
Schiff is investigating the wrong thing. Members of congress can not obstruct justice by engaging in partisan and stupid investigations – unfortunately.
What Yavonovich and all Schiff’s “star” witnesses were doing was exactly what trump is being accused of. Thwarting US foreign policy and interfering with a legitimate investigation.
Schiff is now doing the same.
We shall have to see where Durham and Bar get – though there might be clues in Horowitz.
Regardless even the hint of corruption in Ukraine during the 2016 election,
completely exonerates Trump and implicates the deep state and democrats.
One thing I find notable is that the left keeps ranting about Shokin’s corruption – as if he is the capo of some oligarch. Yet by all evidence after being forced out by Biden, Shokin has lived a quiet ukrainian middle class life of a retired bureaucrat. If Shokin was corrupt – he has nothing to show for it. Hunter Biden near certainly has made much more off Ukraine in 18months than Shokin has in his entire life.
So who is corrupt ?
Who was seeking to purge corruption in the Ukraine ?
Who was seeking to clean the Ukraine up ?
I am increasingly with Denis Prager.
If it comes from the left – it is a lie.
IF Adam Schiff praises someone – they must be a crook.
If Adam Schiff criticises someone – they must be a hero.
Yup, do not look behind the curtain, nothing there.
an FOIA request resulted in Emails and Memo’s between Burisma, and the Obama State department in February 2016. Burisma and its lawyers contacted the Obama state department and asked them to use their influence to end the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden.
Shortly afterward VP Biden told Ukraine to fire Shokin or lose $1B in aide.
Is there absolute proof that Hunter Biden or Joe Biden are criminally corrupt ?
No. Is this 1000 times more damning that anything you have regarding Trump ?
Damn Straight.
Lets try what is currently the known timeline.
In 2014 Hunter Biden and his partner Devon Archer a (former senior adviser to the John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign) in Rosemont Senneca are offered seats on the board of Burisma – owned by Mykola Zlochevsky who was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych – that would be the Russia affiliated Ukrainian president that Manafort advised who was overthrown by Hillarries Ukrainian Coup.
Other members of Burisma’s board.
Joseph Cofer Black, former director of the Counterterrorism Center of the Central Intelligence Agency (1999–2002) in the George W. Bush administration and former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism (2002–2004),
In Oct 2015 NYT ran a story on the Ukrainian investigation of Corruption involving Burisma, as well as that involving Hunter Biden. The NYT reporter called VP Biden and asked for a comment. That story was probably planted by Clinton to drive Biden out of the 2016 presidential race.
In Dec 2015 the State Department informed the Vice Presidents office that Hunter Biden was selling access to foreign companies claiming that hiring him would get them a voice with VP Biden.
In February 2016 Burisima lawyers contact the Obama state department asking the US to stop the investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden.
In March of 2016 VP Biden tells the Ukrainians to fire Shokin who is investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden – which they do.
There is more – alot more – but those are the high points.
All of the above is FACT.
Now please explain to me why the president of the united states can not ask the cooperation of the Ukrainians in investigating this ?
https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/
We have been through 3 years of Trump Russia nonsense that lead nowhere.
Not a single claim regarding Trump Russia has even had a tiny fraction of the factual basis for allegations against the Biden’s.
Absolutely Rudy Guiliani likely at Trump’s direction and definitely with Mike Pompeo’s blessing sought to persuade the Ukrainian’s to open investigations into the bidens and several other corrupt things that happened in Ukraine in 2016 that were efforts to influence our elections.
Do you have a problem with that ? If so why ?
Why can’t a lawyer and former prosecutor, the presidents personal lawyer, ask the Ukrainian government to investigate past criminal corruption some of which was used to falsely target his client ?
Why can’t Guiliani do the same as an unofficial representative of the state department ?
Why can the former US ambassador to the Ukraine actively attempt to thwart efforts to get Ukraine to open an investigation into corrupt act involving the US in 2016 ?
Why are we calling someone who tried to thwart investigations into corruption someone who was fighting corruption ?
Has anyone read 1984?
Why cant the president of the United States ask the newly elected president of the Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of corruption in the Ukraine involving americans ?
And if it comes to that – why can’t the president threaten to cut off aide if the ukraine does not do so ?
If we discount Adam Schiff’s unethical, defamatory garbage claim that Trump explicitly asked Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden – which NO ONE has testified to, there is no other allegation against Trump that ever if true would not be within his constitutional authority – even duty.
Yes, Ukraine and the US need to investigate lots of things that happened in Ukraine involving americans in 2015 and 2016.
NOW do so!
QUID PRO BRIBERY REVEALED
“ WASHINGTON (AP) — In a striking reversal, a top diplomat revised his testimony in the House impeachment inquiry to acknowledge that U.S. military aid to Ukraine was being withheld until the foreign ally promised to investigate corruption as President Donald Trump wanted.”
“ WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. envoy Gordon Sondland acknowledged telling a top Ukrainian official that U.S. security assistance withheld by President Donald Trump was unlikely to be delivered until Ukraine publicly met a demand for an “anti-corruption” statement, according to a new declaration from Sondland released on Tuesday… Sondland, who initially testified in October to a Democratic-led congressional impeachment inquiry of Trump, offered new details to lawmakers on Monday after his memory was “refreshed,” which appear to bolster the initial whistleblower complaint that led to the investigation.
Sondland’s testimony also corroborated that of other witnesses, who have said Trump sought to pressure the Ukrainians into conducting investigations that appeared to be aimed at helping his re-election campaign.“
(NBC News)— “ The timeline of events Sondland first outlined in his opening statement in October largely absolved him of any wrongdoing or of having any advance knowledge of a scheme to use U.S. foreign policy to promote Trump’s political interests. That characterization, however, was at stark odds with both the testimony of other officials and with written records obtained by the House in its impeachment inquiry. His new testimony makes clear that he had been well aware that releasing foreign aid was conditional to Ukraine launching the desired investigations.”
(NPR)— “ Sondland told investigators in his opening statement that he didn’t piece together the implications of the Ukraine strategy until later and that he opposed the principle of an American president asking for political help from a foreign government.”
(PBS)— “ Most of those who have testified before the House panel are from the ranks of the State Department, including recalled U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovonavitch, whose testimony was released Monday. Diplomats have testified to the mounting concerns in the State Department over Trump’s interest in having a foreign ally investigate Biden.
Volker and Sondland both testified they were disappointed after briefing Trump at the White House upon their return from Zelenskiy’s inauguration in May as a new leader of the young democracy vowing to fight corruption.
That pivotal May 23 meeting raised red flags when Trump told them to work with Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, on Ukraine issues.”
Still spining and misrepresenting.
I have been consistent from the start – quid pro quo is irrelevant.
What matters is whether reasonable suspicion exists.
We know know that Burisma’s lawyers asked the State Department to end Shokin’s investigation a month before Biden threatened Ukraine to get Shokin fired.
This is a FACT – it is MORE than a Quid Pro Quo. Biden knew Hunter was being investigated, that makes demanding Shokin’s firing a crime, an abuse of power.
About 1000 times more serious than you are accusing Trump of.
If Trump actually told Zelensky – investigate the Biden’s and the rest of what I mentioned, or NO AIDE, that would be LEGAL – according to law passed by congress.
So long as there is reasonable suspicion – and at this point I think there is possibly enough to CONVICT Biden of a crime, Trump is justified in using any of the powers of the president to compel foreign countries to investigate.
I would note that Trump did not EVER ask Zelensky to reach a specific conclusion.
Just investigate.
You have had no problems with unfounded investigations.
But you whig out when Trump seeks to start one with CLEAR justification ?
Please explain to me the actual evidence justifying Crossfire Huricane or Mueller ?
I can not even today find reasonable suspicion to BEGIN an investigation.
As to Trump’s phone call to Zelensky ? Keep Spinning.
What do you have to have before you admit that investigating Biden is JUSTIFIED ?
A confession ? We have that.
Evidence that VP Biden knew his son was being investigated – we have 3 separate instances from Oct 2015 through Feb 2016 where Biden was notified AND we have Hunter Biden saying he talked about his business with his father.
A request from Burisma to have the US Kill the investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden ?
We have that too.
The Prosecutor TESTIFYING that he was fired for investigating Biden ? Got that too.
We have listened to left wing nut talking points on Ukraine over and over.
They are not just DISPUTED – they are PROVEN wrong.
Why would Burisma ask the State department to end the investigation in Feb 2016 – if the investigation was “dormant” – Hunter Biden was scheduled to be questioned by Shikin the DAY AFTER Shikin was fired.
There is so much here.
Yet, you seem to think that Biden is somehow immune from investigation ?
Further, there was a LONG LIST of other things Trump wanted investigated.
You can like or dislike those. Which one do you think is an impeachable offense ?
Is Trying to get the FBI access to the server that was purportedly hacked so that the Crowdstrike report can be verified – is that a crime ?
Is investigating the forged Ledger’s that resulted in Manafort quiting the Trump campaign – is that a crime ?
No Sondland’s suplimentary testimony does NOT equate to a quid pro quo – even though that is NOT the standard.
In fact if you read Sondland’s testimony he specifically called Trump and asked him what he wanted from Zelensky and Trump said “For him to do the right thing”.
Sondland pressed Trump on asking the Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation and Trump responded “No Quid Pro Quo”.
All Sondland’s testimony demonstrates is that lots of things were discussed with lots of people.
You can not impeach Guiliani – nor is anything Guiliani requests or says in this matter a crime.
Is there anyone who has any doubts that Guiliani press Ukraine hard to investigate Biden ?
Or that he pressed them hard to turn over any evidence they already had of misconduct by Biden ?
I do not think we have Barr or Durham in this – but what If Barr or Durham asked the Ukraine for whatever evidence they had – would that be a crime ?
In your bizzare theory of the world – Biden is immune from investigation because he is a political candidate.
Weirder still – he is immune, but ONLY biden (or democrats) are immune.
Cross Fire Huricane is OK.
An investigation of Candidate Trump by the Obama administration, based on political garbage sourced to ACTUAL Russian assets – that is OK ?
Please explain to me how what you THINK Trump did is different from what Obama ACTUALLY DID ?
As best as I can tell the key difference is – Biden is probably guilty, and the allegations against Trump were so obviously bogus no one even tried to verify them.
What Sondland has testified is that linkage was discussed.
I have discussed killing my sister. I have not done so. I have not committed a crime.
Further Sondland’s testimony does NOT take that discussion very far.
I have not read it all yet, But I have yet to hear someone claim that Trump told anyone in the US government to link aide to investigation.
What has been testified is that Guiliani might have been going arround telling people that Aide was linked to investigations.
Well Guess what – perfectly legitimate (actually it would be legitimate if Trump as president linked aide to investigations, but we still do not have that).
What Guiliani does as a private party – even as the direction of Trump as his client as opposed to Trump as president, is not an abuse of power.
Myriads of US presidents have sent private envoys to negotiate with foreign powers.
One of the many reason is because they AREN’T Official.
Guiliani can meet with all the Ukrainians he wants. The Ukrainians may know well that he has the ear of Trump the president, But Rudy is still not “official”, he does not speak for the president or for the US government. If Guiliani strikes a deal Trump likes – Trump as president can accept it. But if Guiliani gets the Ukraine to agree to something – until Trump as president signs off on it, it is meaningless.
The same is NOT true of a US Ambassador. They CAN NOT negotiate freely, They CAN NOT say whatever they want – are you listening Marie Yavonovich ? When they speak they speak for the US and are purportedly following the instructions of the president.
And what they agree to is binding. They can not make offers that we back away from.
And this matters. Jimmy Carter – former president but Private citizen was sent to negotiate a nuclear deal in North Korea – I beleive by President Clinton – and he got a really good deal.
And Clinton disavowed the deal, which he was free to do.
Anyway you can demonstrate that Guiliani negotiated a million quid pro quo’s – it means nothing. You can prove that Donald Trump told Rudy to get a Quid Pro Quo from Ukraine – it means nothing.
Guiliani is a confident of the person who is president as a person – not as president.
He does not represent the US government.
This is also why what Clinton did with Christopher Steel, and less directly with Russia and the Ukraine is disturbing, but NOT A CRIME. She is NOT the US government,
BUT when Comey and the FBI used the information from Clinton – they violated the law, and they probably committed a crime. When they swore to the FISA court that the information constituted probable cause – they did commit a crime.
To abuse power, to falsely swear a warrant to act improperly under color of authority, you MUST be within the government acting as government.
Guiliani is NOT part of the government.
Trump directing Guiliani is NOT directing the government.
You do not have a quid pro quo (not that it matters),
If you managed to get testimony to support your every wet dream regarding What Trump might have done – you STILL will not get what you need.
There is a reason for shifty Schiiffs outrageous monologue.
Because THAT is the only version that would have been a crime.
And the part that would have been a crime, is not asking Ukraine to investigate.
It is asking Ukraine to MAKE UP dirt on a polictical opponent as president.
You do not have that, and you never will.
Whether it is Volker, Sonderland, Yavonovich Vindman or ….
There “concerns” are irrelevant. Their “disappointments” are irrelevant. Trump’s efforts to thwart whatever they or anyone else was doing are irrelevant.
The only legitimate US foreign policy is that of the president.
You are free to be concerned, to disagree, to be disappointed.
But you are NOT free to substitute your own for that of the president.
ANY president.
We have been through this over and over.
The constitution of the united states does not vest any executive power in anyone other than the president. All executive powers belong to whoever is president.
If you do not like that – change the constitution.
You keep trying to pretend that Guiliani’s involvement creates a crime.
It does not. In fact is makes abuse of power impossible.
BTW pretty much everyone has been aware for almost a year that Guiliani has been looking for corruption on the part of americans, including Biden, in the Ukraine.
Guess what ? That is legal.
Guess what else ? HE FOUND IT.
I would further note that John Solomon has been digging even longer than Guiliani.
Are you saying that the Press can not investigate Former VP Biden ?
Are you saying that participants in the political process can not investigate the misconduct – even gather dirt on other participants in the political process ?
If that is true why isn’t Hillary and Glenn Simpson and Tony Podesta, and …. in jail ?
Why isn’t Jimmy carter in Jail ?
Yes, on May 23 nothing that constitutes a problem happened.
Lets start looking at some actual crimes.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/04/rand_paul_on_whistleblower_at_trump_rally_media_do_your_job_and_print_his_name.html
Trump has asked the press to print the name of the whistleblower,
Rand paul has asked – Rep. Jordan has asked.
As have many others.
The name is already out their – anyone who wants to do the work can find out.
But the left wing media refuses to report on the whistleblower.
Trump has not ordered the WB arrested,
No one has murdered him
He is atleast as safe as someone wearing a MAGA hat outside a Trump rally.
The only people who do not know the name and the history of the Whistle Blower are the majority of american people.
The press refuses to tell us that we are dealing with someone who has been involved in the Ukrainian corruption in 2015/2016.
That we are dealing with someone who near certainly leaked classified information early in the Trump presidency – until he was removed from the White House.
Someone who ties nearly the entire anti-trump efforts of the past 3 years together in a way that makes it clear – there was and is a large conspiracy within govenrment.
So it is way past time for the media to report the truth.
Just as it is way past time for the media to report the truth on the Biden’s.
The actual documented evidence is that VP Biden blackmailed the Ukraine into firing Shokin not because he was corrupt – there is no actual evidence of that.
We once again have democrats destroying people because it suits them politically.
Remember “Benghazi was a spontaneous response to an internet video” – what happened to the person who produced the video. Like Shokin they were inconvenient politically so they were destroyed.
Biden was not merely aware of Hunters activities in Ukraine, but he was aware Shokin was investigating Hunter, and Burisma asked the US to have Shokin fired – just before Biden blackmailed Ukraine into firing Shokin.
More than a “quid pro quo” a crime.
The time line does not work. All of Sondland’s “concerns” are about things that happened 6 weeks AFTER the Phone Call, do not involve Trump and are while Aide is being released to Ukraine.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/04/trumps_true_crime_he_made_people_laugh_at_congress_141643.html
Jay;
This is a Ted Koppel story on the price of defamation – of lying about others.
In this case – that is a real price resulting an significant monetary damages.
You keep this Trump nonsense up.
Not only do you constantly defame Trump – without ever proving the allegations you make.
And in the long run most of those allegations have proven false.
but you also defame the rest of us – anyone who does not join you in loathing and insulting Trump.
For you it is binary – either we must join you in atacking Trump about everything or we are whatever vile insult you wish to tag us with at the moment.
Racist, mysoginist, Homophobic, hateful, hating haters.
You can atleast partly be forgiven – as you are not alone. This is the norm for the left, and has been for much of my life. Though it has been growing worse fast in the past decade.
To an extent Trump engages in much the same defamatiory rhetoric as you – hence the “human scum” remark.
Like George Will and many others I have spent much of my life trying to behave perfectly such that false statements about me would be trivially disbeleived.
I have learned something George Will, Romney and many others have not yet.
There is no acheivable level of good conduct that will earn the respect of the left or preclude them from defaming you. Facts do not matter, The moral integrity of your life does not matter, a reputation for decency does not matter.
And this is where I part company from the Will’s and the Kaisich’s and the Romney’s and many otherwise decent never Trumpers whose primary distaste for Trump is his rhetoric.
While I do not support Trump’s punch back twice as hard, approach, it is dangerous – especially for those not on the left and favored by the media,
we saw how this plays out at Charlottesville two years ago.
We the marchers “very fine people” – probably not, but they like all of us had the right to protest, without being beaten up. But the media painted marchers inside the confines of the march route that they are a permit for being attacked by left ousiders who broke through police barriers as somehow the perpitrators. And then when fleaing for all the violence a young mentally unstable marcher – having been pummeled repeatedly by protestors, loses it and does something stupid and the entire narative changes.
Not the facts – just the narative.
Similar things happen over and over.
In the Oberlin case from the video above, I suspect that the Gibson’s would have dropped the charges but for the efforts of the students and the college to destroy them.
How exactly do you run any business if the state will throw you in jail for selling wine to an underage student, and the students and college will destroy your business if you do not ?
Is the award to the gibson’s very high ? Absolutely.
But this nonsense MUST STOP.
Regardless, it is not possible to have civil discussions with people who are not civil.
That means you. That means the left. That means the media.
You think it is OK to not just insult politicians – most of us and the law give you a pass on that. But to insult everyone else. everyone who disagrees with you.
Is Trump doing much the same thing ? Sure – but he learned it from you.
In the end Will and other republicans that I respect who want the Mitt Romney version of Trump are wrong. That can not get elected, and for all their efforts they will still be called Nazi’s and haters.
Grow up. Make arguments with facts, logic, reason. When you can not do that – consider the possibility you might be wrong.
This is what actual political fraud and corruption look like.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/puerto-rico-senator-7-others-arrested-by-fbi-in-corruption-investigation
Another example of this kind of Nonsense.
I do not know Van Dyke, but his record pretty much precludes the ABA “not-qualified” rating.
Further the report delivered was defamatory and that is only tolerable if true.
When you negatively morally judge others, you are obligated to support your claims or the failure is YOURS.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/06/gop_critics_aba_faces_senate_action_after_suspect_vandyke_rating__141670.html
More of the Biden’s engaging in all the activities you accuse Trump of
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/06/joe-biden-frank-biden-horse-meat-ban-066394
Interesting thoughts on impeachment, Trump’s use of Alinsky, noting that this is not a fight about quid pro quo’s the biden’s foreign policy or the ukraine
That ultimately the objective of the attack on Trump is not merely about Trump, it is about securing the victory in 2020 of Warren or someone like her, the fringe left, American socialism,
When Jordan is asking about a transcript of a presidential call shared with a Georgetown Academic – what he is refering to is that Yavonavich was provided a compy of the trasncript AFTER she had left government.
Pussy Grabber Payback
Columnist Who Accused Trump Of Sexual Assault Is Suing Him For Defamation
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776050542/columnist-who-accused-trump-of-sexual-assault-is-suing-him-for-defamation
If she wants to sue – fine.
Given her subsequent remarks on news shows, and the absence of any corroboration of a story that should not be very hard to corroborate – it is not like she was reporting an event that happened 40 years ago, I think she has a much tougher case than Stormy Daniels tried, and ended up paying Trump’s legal fees.
Once an unprincipled scumbag, always an unprincipled scumbag:
BREAKING: @realdonaldtrump ordered to pay $2M in damages for misusing a charity’s money — using it to buy portraits of himself, pay legal settlements, and help his 2016 campaign.
You still do not seem to get – your not credible – please Provide a link.
I have a guess what you are talking about – and that would mean you have nearly every fact wrong – as typical, but absent a source I would only be guessing, and I do not trust people who have made false claims and accusations in the past.
As I thought – you can not get the facts correct.
Trump SETTLED with the NYAG.
A judges order in a settlement is NOT a finding.
It does nothing except formally compel both sides to do what they agreed to do.
Maybe the evidence against Trump was compelling and this was his only way out.
Or maybe he was just tired of paying lawyers lots of money to fight frivolous charges.
It is not possible to tell.
What this does is dispose of another one of the stupid lawsuits against Trump.
The Trump family will not have to waste any more time on this.
Trump is moving his official residence to FL, and he will likely move his foundations and many other entities. NY will lose, FL will gain.
It will be harder for the NYAG to engage in these types of harrasment actions in the future.
Penis Shriveling Info For Trump:
Bloomberg Net Worth: $52 Billion
Trump Net Worth: $0 Billion.
Forbes estimate for Bloomberg is 52B – and yet I did not hear all this screaming over emoluments or ripping people off or lining his own pockets when Bloomberg was Mayor.
Forbes estimate for Trump is 3.1B as of Sept 2019. So that would be 3.1B pinochios for you.
How long a nose is that ? Pterodactyl’s could be nesting in your nose.
Trump MIGHT be the richest man ever to be president – it is POSSIBLE that Adam’s or Washington was wealthier depending on how you adjust for inflation. Regardless both were extremely wealthy even by modern terms.
Trump is sufficiently wealthy that if he never made another dime, and he spent $15K per hour, he would still likely die a multi millionaire.
Regardless, the rumors that Bloomberg might enter the race are just evidence that the existing democrats can not win.
If Bloomberg wants in – that would be a vast improvement over the existing democratic field.
He is not nearly as nuts as the rest of them.
I am not going to handicap Bloombergs chances – he is welcome to enter the race, and the country would be less bad off if Bloomberg won than any of the other democratic contenders.
I do not think he was a great Mayor but he certainly was better than DeBlasio.
Yea bloomberg is going to get elected.
So Trump purportedly Blackmailed the Ukraine by actually giving them effective lethal military aide that Obama refused to provide. Aide that Russia opposed. Aide that allowed the Ukraine to thwart further Russian incursions into Ukraine.
But Trump is a Russian Asset and should be impeached for weakening Ukraine by actually making it stronger ?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/testimony-how-trump-helped-ukraine
Isn’t the press telling us that you can not try to determine who a whistlblower is.
And you certainly can not retailiate against them ?
It appears that former Amb. Yavonovich lied under oath in the secret house depositions.
Micheal Flynn is being destroyed for purportedly lying to an FBI agent – not under oath, under circumstances were it appears that the FBI is actually lying about whether he lied.
George Papadoulus went to jail for mistating a date by a small amount to an FBI agent for an event that occured a year prior.
Roger Stone is on trial for lying to congress about inconsequential exculpatory evidence that Mueller had confiscated before his testimony.
Yavonovich lied about communications with House democratic staffers that took place less than 2 months ago.
Has Washington Post no sense of irony ?
Snopes just fact checked the claim that Democrats have tried to impeach every republican president since Eisenhower.
The claim is false – because there was no effort to impeach Ford.
I had forgotten this.
FDR also ignored Churchill’s pleas to aide the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 because it would offend Stalin.
And of Course FDR interned tens of thousands of US citizens of japanese descent.
https://twitter.com/WildWoodward/status/1192670687577722880
More insanity on the left as protestors scream at Ben Shapiro that he is an alt-right nazi while he is attacking alt-right nazi’s.
SO in recently released congressional testimony US Charge D’affairs, in Ukraine testified that
Burisima was corrupt and everybody knew it,
That he personally barred Burisima from participating in USAID projects because of their corruption, and that he had to fight against backlash from the VP to do so
AND
That amb. Yavonovich and several others at the US Ukrainian embassy ACTIVELY acted to thwart Ukrainian investigations that touched on Biden or democratic interfance in the 2016 election.
We also have reporting that a reporter tried to run stories in 2017 that Eric Ciarmello was the source for several classified (and criminal) leaks early in the Trump administration, but he could not get his stories run.
You all keep telling me this is not true – but here is evidence from all over the world.
Rising standard of living results in the improvement of the environment – regardless of government.
President Skunk’s Smell Permeated His FOREIGN Political Malfeasance. He STINKS of foul Intentions:
“ WASHINGTON — The senior State Department official in charge of Ukraine told impeachment investigators last month that he was alarmed at President Trump’s insistence that Ukraine “initiate politically motivated prosecutions,” casting the effort as the kind of tactic the United States typically condemns in the world’s most corrupt countries.
George P. Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, testified that he regarded the push for investigations — spearheaded by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer — as “injurious to the rule of law,” and to decades of American foreign policy.”
Aparently in “Jayland” a prosecution is “politically motivated” if it is of a democrat or anything vaguely related to a democrat,
But it is perfectly fine if it is constructed from quadruple hearsay from unnamed and unverified russian sources and targets a republican.
Grow Up – every investigation done in congress – Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Clinton’s Emails, IRSGATE, …. is “politically motived”. It is ALSO legitimate oversight.
The big problem I have with the current house investigation – is that it is framed as an impeachment investigation without sufficient basis.
I do not give a damn that it is “politically motivated” – which you are in lala land if you do not grasp.
I fully expect – I even WANT house democrats to probe Trump every possible way they can.
Though I also expect the rules to be followed in the process.
I expect that House hearings will NOT be conducted like Grand Jury investigations,
Because they are not and that model does not fit – and because the house is completely unable to follow the grand jury model properly anyway.
I expect that the house will conduct all hearings – EXCEPT those few involving national security in PUBLIC, where we can all watch.
But I do expect and WANT them to conduct hearings.
I do not give a shit if Trump has lawyers present.
But witnesses that are government employees or former government employees, get lawyers from their cabinet department, and the executive branch gets to assert priviledges and the courts get to sort those out. And everyone on these comittees – left right, republican democrat, independent has the same rights and the same time and the same process to question or subpeona witnesses.
At the same time I FULLY expect that process to be POLITICALLY MOTIVATED..
Rudy Guliani was a US Attorney, a very successful Republican Mayor of NYC,
Who is George Kent to be spouting about “injury to the rule of law” ?
Regardless – “the rule of law” REQUIRES actually looking at the evidence.
It means following it where it leads REGARDLESS of political consequences.
Are you HONESTLY still buying this nonsense that there is nothing there in the Ukraine ?
Yavonovich LIED under oath – not because I say so, or someone else does., But because she explicitly testified that she did not do something that we have her own emails proving that she did. Further the lie was unnecescary. Telling the truth would have made her testimony look more “politically motivated’ – but it would not have altered any facts.
She lied to HIDE her political motivations.
And Yavonovich is a BIG DEAL – she was fired because she was actively interfering with both US and Ukrainian efforts to investigate misconduct in 2016.
EVERYONE grasps that Ukraine is possibly the most corrupt western nation in the world.
It was corrupt BEFORE Obama was elected, it was corrupt while Obama was president, it is STILL corrupt. It is POSSIBLE that Zelensky is actually going to do something about Ukraine corruption. But I am not betting on that.
Regardless, we have limited ability to fix Ukrainian corruption.
But we can and are obligated to look into our own corruption in Ukraine.
Everything associated with Burisma stinks to high heaven.
And the stench gets worse by the minute.
We now have US GOVERNMENT RECORDS that Burisma asked the State department to thwart Shokin’s investigation into them and Hunter Biden, and those records make lots of references to VP Biden.
And shortly after than VP Biden demands Shokins firing.
You and the press have told us that Shokin was corrupt.
Fine – show me some evidence of that ?
Shokin is not an oligarch, he is retired and is living the lifestyle of a retired lifelong ukrainian bureacrat – not someone living off graft.
You and the press say Shokin’s investigation of Burisma and the Biden’s was dormant.
Are you HONESTLY still saying that ?
Hunter Biden was to be interviewed by Shokin the day after he was fired.
There is a good reason Joe Biden gave the Ukrainians only 6 hours to fire Shokin.
The next day would be too late.
If Biden did not know this – he is the most incompetent VP in history.
We now have mulple sources – in the press, his son, and the state department and the office of VP confirming that they were informed of exactly what was going on.
Further VP Biden was the leader of the task force addressing (or causing) Ukrainian corruption .
You expect me to beleive that VP Biden who was on the Ukrainian corruption task force and wanted Shokin fired for corruption did not also know that Shokin was investigating Burisma AND his son ?
Jay, if you had the same evidence of corruption by VP Biden on Trump – the Senate would convict 100:0
Jay,
Please cut the crap.
While there is much more that needs investigating in Ukraine beyond Joe Biden
As an example Eric Carmiello keeps showing up in various other matters on the WRONG SIDE of curruption in the ukraine.
Increasingly the WB looks like someone whose ass was on the line who is looking to protect himself. Not an actual WB.
But the big deal here – though only a small part of the Ukraine investigations, and a small part of the call with Zelensky is
VP Joe Biden.
If you are still claiming there is “nothing there” you are delusional.
Many people in prison today were convicted on far less evidence than we have against Joe Biden right now.
You are free to continue to beleive he is innocent – he is legally entitled to that presumption.
But we are 10,000 miles past any argument that investigating him is an improper political hatchet job.
Absolutely there are “political motivations” involved – and that is definitely a reason for heightened scrutiny. It is why there is an IG who investigated the Clinton email investigation, and why he is investigating the Trump/Russia investigation.
There is mountains of evidence of political motivations all over everything that democrats, republicans, the Trump administration and the Obama administration and congress have done over the past 10 years.
What matters is whether in each instance there was also a legitimate foundation for those actions.
This is what SCOTUS got wrong with the Census decision (and got right over the immigration EO’s).
Motivation does not matter. While it is a reason for scrutiny and concern. The fact that you benefit politically from doing something does not ever prohibit you from doing it.
Benefiting personally in MANY instances – particularly where another person can act in your stead, is usually illegitimate and sometimes criminal.
But the fundimental question is NOT was there a political factor.
The question that maters is was there are legitimate justified foundation for the action.
Thus far I have serious doubts that the investigation of Trump/Russia ever reached the standards necescary to get a warrant, or to deploy spies or informants.
But I am prepared to see what Horowitz finds.
Though I hope that he gives the 4th amendment some teeth.
Conversely by the most government unfreindly reading of the 4th amendment, investigating VP Biden’s conduct in the Ukraine is not merely legally justifiable – it is NECESCARY.
I honestly hope we find that VP Biden is criminally INNOCENT.
But we are well past whether he is politcally corrupt.
We have listened as you tear the Trump’s new assholes for actually trading real value for real value – as they have been doing for decades, while turning a blind eye to the OBVIOUS fact that whatever oportunities Hunter Biden got – he was not qualified for any of them, and the only reason that he got them was because his father was a senator or vice president.
That the “value” those hiring him expected – was Hunter’s connection to his father.
Depending on exactly how that was done – it might have been completely legal.
But it is still ACTUALLY corrupt. Exchanging a Hotel Room for money is NOT corrupt.
Not unless you are obviously getting something else of significant value beyond the hotel room.
““`President Lying Sociopath At It Again
Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a key witness in House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, communicated via her personal email account with a Democratic congressional staffer concerning a “quite delicate” and “time-sensitive” matter — just two days after the whistleblower complaint that kickstarted the inquiry was filed, and a month before the complaint became public,
Yovanovitch TESTIFIED under oath that she has received this email, but that she had not responded to it, and that she had asked the State Department to handle it.
Yet we have an email REPLYING to that email from Schiff’s staff.
This is much more of a lie that what has Micheal Flynn facing Jail, or sent George Papadoulis to Jail. Neither of them were under oath at the time. Flynn was ambushed he thought he was discussing security procedures, not being interviewed as the target of an investigation.
Papadoulis was not allowed to review his own records before answering and convicted merely of getting dates wrong.
I do not beleive Yavonovitch should be jailed or even charged.
Neither should Flynn, Papadoulis, Van Zandt, Stone. Manafort, Gates,
You bemoan political motivations – guess what, you are neck deep in them.
Goose meet Gander.
One legal standard for all.
“Drop the Latin! “Quid” & “Quo” are distractions. Trump is guilty of Bribery and Extortion. Art II Sec 4 says “The President . . . SHALL be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, BRIBERY, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Lawrence Tribe
And another career State Department official confirms Trump bribery-extortion:
From George Kent’s testimony, transcript released yesterday:
“Potus wanted nothing less than President Zelenskiy to go to the microphone and say investigations, Biden and Clinton,” Kent testified. “Basically there needed to be three words in the message, and that was the shorthand.”
“Kent told investigators that that was his understanding of what Trump wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to say in order to unlock U.S. military aid, as relayed to the official by others, including those in direct contact with the president.” [AP]
Bribery and extortion have specific legal meanings. You do not get to make them up.
Further they pretty much never apply to actions taken by those INSIDE a government.
When a DA says plead guilty to X and I will not charge you with Y & Z and you will get a lessor sentence – that is bribery and extortion, atleast as much as anything you are accusing Trump of.
Typically Bribery is giving money to a PERSON in government to obtain a government benefit you are not entitled to.
You can not bribe a country. If you could all US foreign policy would be a crime.
Extortion is much the same – it is the threat of use of force to obtain a personal benefit that you are not entitled to.
Again we are not dealing with a personal benefit.
We are not dealing with obtaining something that should happen anyway.
So long as there is a legitimate basis to investigate – YOU ARE SCREWED.
Quid Pro Quo does not matter, nor can there be bribery or extortion.
Biden wanted Shokin Fired, and he explictly threatened to withold US funds to do so.
You are constantly pretending that there are different standards for republicans than democrats.
What Kent “understood” is irrelevant, Claims of “shorthand” are irrelevant, Claims of
‘speaking in code” are irrelevant.
Though I always wondered how it is that republicans speak in code or use dog whistles to communicate with each other without Democrats being able to understand,
and yet the only people who can find the secret message are democrats.
My wife actually bumps into this all the time in criminal cases.
The police record phone calls, and then explain to juries how the speakers do not actually mean what they are saying – they are actually speaking in code.
There was a famous 9th circuit case a couple of years ago where the police recorded two people talking about bringin their tools over to a house to do some work, or leaving their tools at the house. Problem was that turns out one was a carpenter and the other a home owner seeking repairs.
Regardless, you do this all the time. You stretch the law, and the meaning of words, you are certain that your guesses as to other peoples intentions are correct.
An act is legal or illegal – regardless of your intentions of motives.
And BTW EVERYTHING government does, Especially EVERYTHING the president does is “politically motivated”.
Casting Kent’s words with dark connotations – does not make them crimes or high crimes and misdemeanors.
You are just upset with differences on foreign policy.
You can spin things multiple ways.
It is more plausible to say that Kent and Yavonovitch were engaged in obstruction of justice.
There is plenty of legitimate basis to investigate.
That makes efforts to thwart that investigation criminal obstruction.
BTW, Trump is at 50% approval on Rassmussen.
Many polls show that support for impeachment in swing states is really poor – 20 pts below opposition.
I beleive a democratic poll just surfaced that has Trump beating every single democrat head to head in the electoral college.
Cockroaches swarm… Deniers Deny…
“Giuliani Associates Urged Ukraine’s Prior President to Open Biden, Election Probes
Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman pushed then-president Poroshenko to announce probes in return for U.S. state visit” [WSJ]
“ The request came months before Trump’s highly publicized July 25 phone call with the country’s current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko met in late February at the offices of Ukrainian general prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko in Kiev, the Journal reported.
Lutsenko reportedly said in March that he was investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, but found in May that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
The reported meeting came months before Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, during which he urged Ukraine’s current president to investigate Biden and his son. The call is now at the heart of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Trump.”
Wow, some alleged “crooks” who committed the same crime as Rosie O’Donnell,
who Guiliani talked with a couple of times, and who he got some information on Ukraine “pushed” the former Ukrainian president to investigate credible allegations of misconduct by numerous people including Biden, people from the DNC and probably the “WhistleBlower” during the 2016 election.
Jay, You really do not seem to grasp that proving that somebody “Pushed” someone to do something that they should have done without being pushed really does not get me all outraged.
And No Jay – there is no “finding” that the Biden’s did nothing.
There have been off and odd investigations into the Biden’s for a couple of years.
As well as continuous interfereance by the US. First by Biden and then by Yavanovitch.
YOUR Witnesses have testified that Yavonovitch was actively engaged in STOPPING Ukrainian investigations into the 2016 Election
BTW a Ukrainian court has already FOUND that there was interference in the US 2016 election by the Ukrainian government.
Absolutely there are problems with all of this because Ukraine is so corrupt that you can not trust anything.
But that gets you nowhere.
You can not trust the Ukrainian prosecutors when they say they are investigating something.
You can not trust it when there is a claim they are not.
You can not trust the Ukrainian courts when they say they found corruption.
You can not trust them when they say that they did not.
HOWEVER, we have actual evidence completely FROM THE US
We KNOW that Joe Biden headed the Joint US/Ukraine task for investigating corruption in Ukraine. We KNOW that Eric Comeillio was part of that task force.
We know that immediately after Burisma hired Hunter Biden and Archer Devon that Joe Biden changes the status of Igor Kolomoisky. from PNG – not allowed to come to the US because of a long long history of Corruption, to suddenly being able to get a Visa.
We KNOW that the NYT Reported that Burisima and Hunter Biden were being investigated in the fall of 2015.
We KNOW that the reporter contacted Joe Biden for comment and got none.
Regardless, that means Joe Biden was aware of the allegations.
We KNOW that The State Department contacted the VP’s office in Dec. 2015 and told them the Hunter Biden was engaged in “influence peddling” and needed to be shutdown before he caused VP embarrasmenet, and the VP’s office responded that they were “too busy”. ‘
We know that Hunter Biden told Joe Biden of his business dealings in Ukraine.
We KNOW that Burisima asked the state department to stop the Investigations of Burismia and Biden in March 2016.
BTW that confirms that as of March of 2016 – a few weeks BEFORE Biden demanded Shokin Fired, that Shokin was actively investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma.
We KNOW that in April of 2016 that VP Biden told the Ukrainians they had 6 hours to fire Shokin and they did fire him.
We KNOW that Hunter Biden was scheduled to be interviewed by Shokin THE NEXT DAY
There is ALOT more that we know.
All of the above is from US sources.
All of the above is from records provided by the US government, by US law firms, through FOIA requests or volunatarily.
None of the information above comes from Ukraine.
There is lots that also comes from Ukraine.
Are you aware that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were publicly threatened by Igor Kolomoisky just before the NY AG started to investigate them ?
So it appears we have a NY Us attorney doing the bidding of a corrupt ukrainian oligarch.
If you had a tiny fraction of this on Trump – he would be in jail.
Ultimately I do not think Biden is guilty of a crime.
He is corrupt in ways that are legal.
I think he is unequivocally guilty of a serious ethics violation.
Once his son joined Burisma he should not have had anything to do with anything that touched on Burisma, Hunter or Kolomosky.
His demand to fire Shokin if not criminal was highly unethical.
We have gone two years of constant investigations – and what you keep digging up is evidence of DEMOCRATIC corruption.
And All the above is just about Biden – who was only a few words in the transcript.
Trump spoke several paragraphs about things he wanted Zelensky to cooperate with Barr on that were NOT about Biden or any other 2020 presidential candidate, but WERE about the 2016 efforts to smear Trump.
But again in your world Republicans can not investigate the corrupt and possibly criminal efforts of people to “get them”.
There are many things I do not like about Trump.
But digging into what happened in Ukraine in 2016 – I am 200% behind that.
Digging into the corruption in the Obama administration – I am 200% behind that.
Firing large portions of State, FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA – I was behind that long before Trump.
And please quit Trying to make some big deal about the fact that so called “experts” in various areas “disagree” with Trump.
These are the same “experts” who brought us Vietnam, or the endless mess in afghanistan, or Libya, or Iran – over and over and over. Or Syria, or Iraq.
If Trump disagrees with these people – even if he is not right, he is at the very least less wrong.
I would note that the more were learn about “the Whistleblower” them more it looks like he is trying to “get Trump, before he goes to jail himself”.
And yes, he needs to testify. Because there are a large number of questions he needs to be asked UNDER OATH Questions that have alot to do with Ukraine and leaks and 2016, and interference with investigations.
Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, and Guliani are irrelevant to impeachment.
If they threatened to assassinate the prior ukrainian president – that would not implicate Trump.
Most of what I know about Parnas and Fruman is that they appear to be bad people who have pissed off even worse people, by providing Guiliani with information on corruption in the Ukraine.
As to Guiliani’s actions – as a private citizen, as the lawyer for Donald Trump, or as an unofficial emesary of the president, he was free to do whatever it was he did that has pissed you off.
I do not think you have Guiliani for anything beyond foreign policy that the official US foreign policy establishment was trying to thwart.
But even if you get Guiliani on tape saying “Investigate Biden or lose $1B in aide”.
He can do that. Any private citizen can.
Just as John Kerry can go to Iran and tell them to ignore Trump.
“ But even if you get Guiliani on tape saying “Investigate Biden or lose $1B in aide”.
He can do that.”
No. Not as An emissary of the President.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
“He can do that.”
Bravo – now you are starting to get it.
He CAN Say that – it would be perfectly legal.
I can say that.
ANYONE can say that.
But he can not DO that.
He has no power to back up his threats.
So they are just words,
they are not the official position of the US government.
which is precisely WHY presidents send private citizens to do their bidding.
Because they can say things diplomats can not,
they can negotiate deals diplomats can not
and because even after negotiating a deal – the US can walk away.
Carter negotiated a deal with North Korea that Clinton walked away from.
All the ranting of these assorted people from state, is just complaining because Guiliani was saying things that they either could not, or did not agree with, and getting away with it.
Because Guiliani does not officially speak for the US.
He is merely someone who has the ear and possibly the confidence of the president.
But anything he says can be completely disowned.
He does not speak for the president or the united states.
He speaks for himself.
You are seeking to impeach a president for something probably every president since Washington has done.
Those Brainwashed Trump Supporters, no matter how persuasive the evidence of his malevolent incompetence, who continue to suck Trump’s metaphoric penis do it because they like the taste.
Jay, that’s just stupid. No one is “brainwashed.”
First of all, there is no “Trump cult,” certainly not as powerful and malevolent as the “Trump-hating cult.” It’s just a rationalization that Trump haters use, to justify to themselves that he is “illegitimate.” Democrats no longer accept the results of any election that they don’t win.
I believe that the hatred of Trump voters is going to backfire on the left. Already, most Trump supporters stay quiet, and do not broadcast their reasons for supporting his policies, due to the vitriol and outrage that any show of support gnerates ( Look at how Kurt Suzuki was savaged online, simply for putting on a MAGA hat at the Rose Garden reception for the Nationals).
As this sort of treatment causes more and more Trump voters to “go underground,” it causes more and more Trump haters to believe that everyone thinks just like them.
And then, they freak out, when pro-Trump candidates are elected, because they “don’t know” anyone who voted for one.
The hate and intolerance of the left has already backfired – it is a major factor in electing Trump.
Further moving forward the question is not whether it will continue to generate a backlash, but just which driving force is larger – the backlash from the hatred and intolerance of the left, or the anti-trump emnity the left generates.
The country is increasingly divided. Those widening divisions started long before Trump.
What is increasingly obvious is that the driving force behind that division is NOT differences in policies or disagreement on issues. It is just hatred of anyone who disagrees over anything.
While I do not think that Jay is ideologically reflective of the extreme left.
In terms of outrage, propensity to violence, demeanor, levels of hatred, Jay is indistinguishable from the most extreme member of antifa.
He is actually distinguishable from those on the extreme right – actual nazi’s and the like because even they are NOT has full of hate and bile as Jay or the left.
Trump baits the haters. MOSTLY he is fairly careful about it. MOSTLY he says things that require the left and the media to really stretch to turn into racism. mysogyny …
Again likely deliberate.
Switzerland just voted to refuse to grant citizenship to any immigrant who has not repaid all the public aide they have been given.
This is FAR more draconian than anything Trump has proposed.
And Trump is being called racist for asking immigrants to prove that they will not be indigent when they arrive.
Trump is called racist for calling MS-13 rapists.
Over and over Trump speaks the mind of a large body of americans – and the left calls him a hateful hating hater – and when they do massive numbers of americans hear – they mean me.
The left does not know of anyone who does not share their views because exactly like Jay they make it perfectly clear that they loath anyone who disagrees, and would excoriate and malign anyone who did.
So all those arround them who disagree keep silent.
Outside the bastions of the left, real people can have real discussions about issues and politics.
Priscilla, Ron – would you dare express the views you express here in a public venue with 100 Robies and Jay’s ?
I wouldn’t.
I can say what I think among conservatives, among libertarians, in places where those on the left are present even numerous but not dominant. But in any environment where the left has control, dissent is silenced. I would not dare speak up. I would be disowned, cast out, lose jobs.
Even here – I can disagree with you, and with Ron, sometimes passionately, but it does not become personal.
EVERYTHING is instantly personal with those on the left.
And not merely the far left – I do not think that Robby or Jay are next to Antifa in ideology.
But they are barely distinguishable in that they insult rather than argue.
I would suggest reading the federalist papers – malevolent incompetence is NOT an impeachable offense. The founders rejected that.
Regardless – the evidence of “malovolence” is – you do not like Trump’s policies, and he is attempting to implement them. That is no different from Obama.
The constraint on the winner of an election implimenting their policies is the constitution – not your dislike of their policies.
As to “incompetence” – in most every area of government we are doing better than under Obama. More rapid rise to standard of living absolutely proves that OVERALL Trump is less incompetent.
So in the end the “evidence” is that you are not happy.
We all understood that the day after the election.
And of course you must go beyond maligning Trump to maligning everyone who does not fully agree with you.
Regardless, – you can call your self left, right, moderate,
Read your own posts – you are intolerant and full of hate for anyone who does not agree with you.
The evidence against Biden just grows – as Schiff pretends there is nothing there.
He is not even pretending to conduct an actual inquiry.
I would ask those who think that Trump was barred from doing anything that had a political benefit for him or his party and might cause political harm to his opponents or their party – how by the same terms Schiff’s actions are not even more improper ?
The impeachment is clearly improper, and purely politically motivated.
There is no crime – even if you accept every claim against Trump as True – and many are laughably not.
If the credibility of the allegations against Biden are not a proper justification defense – then how is schiff justified in investigating Trump and how was the Obama administration justified in investigating Trump ?
While I doubt that the Senate will take any of this seriously – if they do, The republicans witness list is going to be called.
Judicial watch has just released Eric Ciaraella’s white house visitor logs from 2015 and 2016 and it is a whose who of the Trump Russia investigation and the Clinton UKraine collusiuon.
To Adam Schiff – in January 2017 Politico thought that Clinton/Ukraine collusion was plausible enough to do a long story on it.
We also have even more contact between Burisima’s lawyers and top people in the state department.
We have links between Eric Ciaramella and the Steele Dossier.
And the icing on the cake – Christopher Steele is now saying that Borris Johnson is a Russian agent.
Many of the allegations made by Republicans about democratic corruption and foreign collusion need to be proven – but there is more than enough evidence to warrant investigation.
But if the tin foil theories of democrats ever had credence – that died long ago.
Is everyone who disagrees with you a “russian asset” ?
Wow! the internet does not forget.
Here we have Adam Schiff sounding “reasonable”
Except – he is now doing everything he accused Republicans of having done wrong – on steroids.
And he is defending the conduct of Steele, the FBI, DOJ that we have subsequently found was corrupt.
Finally he is defending as reasonable investigations into a political opponent where ultimately nothing was found.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1193511411965665280
Veterans Day Reminder
“As a Veteran of the United States of America, I too earned my spurs on the battlefield, where as @POTUS earned his BoneSpurs from a quack doctor – General Jim Mattis”
Gen. Mattis deserves our grattitude for his service.
We should also weigh his experience when considering his oppinions.
His recent book is severely critical of 2 of the past 3 presidents and mildly critical of a 3rd.
It is LEAST Critical of Trump.
More importantly all of Mattis’s criticism’s should be taken through the lens of his values.
His books quite litterally offers a world view of the united states as the world’s policmen.
That americans should be prepared to intervene in smaller conflicts throughout the world, regardless of narrow versions of american interests and should accept that we might have to station troops in those place indefinitiely.
Mattis is an intelligent person and an able commander – and his arguments should be considered seriously.
At the same time – neither his intelligence nor his service make him correct.
Regardless, that view of the role of american military power is NOT shared by the overwhelming majority of americans.
I also find it interesting that Mattis is especially critical of Obama and Bush – who were both elected opposing that view but governed much closer to Mattis’s model than Trump who was and remains opposed to that view.
Regardless, it is possible for reasonable people to have reasonable discussions of different positions, without slurs or insults, by making arguments.
Whenever I read you citing Mattis or Boot or Walsh or …, I find it dubious that you have the slightest idea what any of those actually argue for.
I do not think you care what Mattis argues – so long as it is critical of Trump.
I do not think you have a clue what Max Boot’s prefered policies are – so long as he is critical of Trump.
I do not think you care about Joe Walsh’s utter lack of integrity – so longs as he is critical of Trump.
I do not think you care what Trump’s positions are on any issues – they are in your world wrong, and ignorant by definition because they are Trump’s.
That is a very dangerous way of dealing with the world.
You could actually get what you want – you could end up with Gen. Mattis’s world or Max Boot’s, or Joe Walsh’s.
There is alot I do not agree with Trump on. But Mattis, Boot, or Walsh are NOT net improvements.
GOP SWAMP CONTINUES OOZING
“KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Two political supporters of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secured a potentially lucrative oil and gas exploration deal from the Ukrainian government soon after Perry proposed one of the men as an adviser to the country’s new president.
Perry’s efforts to influence Ukraine’s energy policy came earlier this year, just as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s new government was seeking military aid from the United States to defend against Russian aggression and allies of President Donald Trump were ramping up efforts to get the Ukrainians to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden.
Ukraine awarded the contract to Perry’s supporters little more than a month after the U.S. energy secretary attended Zelenskiy’s May inauguration. In a meeting during that trip, Perry handed the new president a list of people he recommended as energy advisers. One of the four names was his longtime political backer Michael Bleyzer.
A week later, Bleyzer and his partner Alex Cranberg submitted a bid to drill for oil and gas at a sprawling government-controlled site called Varvynska. They offered millions of dollars less to the Ukrainian government than their only competitor for the drilling rights, according to internal Ukrainian government documents obtained by The Associated Press. But their newly created joint venture, Ukrainian Energy, was awarded the 50-year contract because a government-appointed commission determined they had greater technical expertise and stronger financial backing, the documents show.”
So ?
If the facts meet the standard of reasonable suspicion – then lets investigate!
I do not know all the facts here – and neither do you.
I would prefer that the US government stayed completely out of these types of deals.
I do not think the US government should be advocating for US businesses in foreign contracts. I think it is dangerous and politically corrupting of OUR government.
But I am not going to get my way – and the vast majority of people DO NOT want the washingtonian foreign policy that I do.
Most americans SUPPORT the US government aiding American businesses in getting foreign contracts.
I think that is a very bad idea. But I do not gather that you do – but you are free to correct me if I am wrong. If you tell me that you have a washingtonian view of US foreign policy where our govenrment should stay out of advocating for US businesses – then we can join in condemning both the Bidden’s and Perry.
But again – I have no reason to beleive that you care in the slightest other than because you think this is bad for Trump.
From the facts in your won article – purportedly the Perry affiliates who won the Ukrainian contract are actually skilled in the bussiness they are receiving contracts for.
These are not a bunch of no skilled drug addicts with fathers in high government office.
That Perry is close to people who really know the oil and gas business – should not be surprising – he was the governor of Texas and the Secretary of Energy.
So Jay – do you have evidence that these two associates of Perry can not deliver on their contracts ?
BTW I would note THEY are paying Ukraine for oil and gas leases.
NOT the other way arround.
It is possible they are underpaying – though even that is not certain.
If as the article notes they actually have more expertise int he field – they will bring the Ukrainian oil and gas to the market much quicker and Ukraine will receive more money – and potentially more jobs and greater economic gains than a higher lease price.
The point being a single number does not indicate whether a contract is a good deal or not.
But if you have evidence that these two do not know what they are doing, that this is just political corruption similar to that of Hunter Biden and Devon Archer beiing put on the board of Burisima with NO energy experience – then by all means put it forward.
I will be happy to see Trump and Perry and their associates thoroughly investigated where there is the same degree of evidence of obvious corruption.
MAYBE that is the case here – but your news article not only does not reach the bar, it actually emphasizes the problems the the conduct of the Biden’s.
You constantly seem to think that a political motive or benefit from an action makes that action a crime – except where it is a democrat acting with that motive.
If Rick Perry had 10 equally competant contenders that he could choose to pick from to bid on a Ukrainian contract, it is not a crime for him to choose the one that offers him the most policitical benefits.
But it would at the very least be highly corrupt for him to push on the Ukraine someone with no skill.
Maybe your article is lying – and these two Perry associates are incompetent.
I should think the Media should be able to ferret that out if True.
But lets do a head to head comparison.
Hunter Biden brings no value to Burisima except his political connections – in fact we now have memo’s and emails strongly suggesting that he was hired as an insurance policy to prevent US and Ukrainian investigation of Burisma.
Hunter was paid handsomely, and the only value he offered was political influence.
These two Perry associates are PAYING the Ukraine for oil and gas leases.
If they do not have the skills to convert what they boaught from the Ukraine into oil and Gas, they will lose money hand over fist. If they are not competent – they are screwing themselves.
They appear to have used political influence – but in the end they are BUYING not selling, and they must deliver real value not political influence to profit.
They are pretty much the “anti-biden”
You have not found a republican example of similar corruption.
You have found an example that shows how much worse the corruption of Biden is. –
Another Veterans Day Reminder Of Trump’s Sleaze Bag Inclinations:
“ A New York judge has ruled that President Trump must pay $2 million in damages to settle claims that the Trump Foundation misused funds. The money will go to a group of charities, and the foundation is in the process of dissolving.
The case is tied to a televised fundraiser for veterans held by Trump in Iowa when he was running for president in January 2016. Trump had said the funds raised would be distributed to charities. But according to court documents, the Trump Foundation improperly used $2.82 million it received from that fundraiser.
According to the judgment, that money “was used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation,” which is unlawful.” (NPR)
More Fake News
This is a settlement.
It is What the Trump Family agreed to to end the case.
It is not an admission of anything.
It is not a finding of anything.
The only thing the Judge “ruled” was that the settlement agreed to by both parties should not implimented.
There is no “judgement” there is an order to impliment the settlement that both parties agreed on.
It is likely this has something to do with Trump moving to FL.
As he can move the family foundation and have far less to do with NY Courts in the future.
You and the left as a whole make this COMMON error all the time.
The vast majority of cases SETTLE.
As an example Burisima SETTLED – TWICE with the Ukraine – they paid a bunch of fines.
But there is no admission of guilt.
We have had to listen to the garbage from the left claiming that settlement exhonerated Burisma and Biden. Now you are claiming that a US Court settlement is somehow a finding of guilt.
NEITHER are true. You can not conclude guilt or innocence from a settlement.
You can only conclude that both the govenrment and the party they went after are happy enough with the outcome to have agreed to it.
I would be surprised if every single member of the Trump Foundation was not also a member of Trump’s 2016 campaign staff.
If this was a fight about what hat people were wearing when they disbursed funds it was ludicrously stupid.
The Trump Foundation is a PRIVATE foundation.
Unlike the Clinton foundation.
It owes a DUTY only to a small number of people in the Trump family who are the beneficiaries of the Trust.
The Trump Foundation is NOT like a charity, it is a FAMILY TRUST.
It is a means of taking already taxed money and transfering it to future generations without getting taxed twice.
As a private Trust the foundation is free to do almost anything it wants with its money.
HOWEVER Some things that it might choose to do, may create tax liabilities.
Contra your articles Claim TF could provide Funds to Trump’s political campaign.
But there MIGHT be tax consequences of doing so.
There are potentially other factors – including duties to beneficiaries – but those would require a beneficiary to raise a claim.
I would further note that YOU are essentially claiming there is a campaign finance law violation here.
I do not beleive that is the case – but even if there was – these types of campaign finance law violations are NOT crimes. You do not seem to grasp that everything that you are not permitted to do by law is not a crime – otherwise nearly all the obama administration would be in jail.
It is almost unheard of to have a criminal prosecution of a campaign finance law.
The only instance I know of anyone ever going to jail for a campaign finance violation was Dinesh D’Souza – who pissed off Obama, and therefore the US DA SDNY shit all over D’Souza – and later Trump pardoned him.
D’Souza did the same thing Rossie O’Donnell did – he helped several people to donate more than they were allowed to donate.
Which is what the Ukrainians associated with Guiliani allegedly have done.
The Clinton Campaign collected over 60M in donations that were over the legal limit.
No one went to jail.
Generally what happens is the campaign returns the excess money or donates it to charity.
Pretty much what you have here.
This guy has taught philosophy classes at Berkeley since 2013. Divide and conquer with propaganda at the education level. So I would like to hear this idiots thoughts about the benefits he receives due to individuals living in rural America, like the food he eats.
https://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/uc-berkley-professor-calls-rural-americans-bad-people-who-have-made-bad-life-decisions
The key issue is not this professor, but that whether verbalized or not, what he wrote is shared by much of the left.
Red america delivers substantially less GDP than blue america. Hillary noted that, as have other posters here.
What they fail to grasp is that this is the NORMAL way that working free markets function.
Free markets meet our most fundimental needs efficiently and at very low cost.
In the 18th century 90% of human effort went to meeting needs that now consume only about 20% of our effort. That is a tremendous success. That leaves massive amounts of human resources to persue less fundimental needs.
Prices are always highest for those things that are less fundimental.
I would specifically refer to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Humans MUST meet the most fundimental needs – food, water, shelter, or we die.
If those are not met 100% of our effort will be directed to meeting them.
When they are met – we will direct excess resources to meeting higher needs – less fundimental needs. The more efficiently we meet lower order needs the more resources we have to target higher order needs.
Some recent UN Study noted that humans become more concerned about the environment and more willing to work towards cleaning it up, when they have an income over $5000/year.
I have argued here repeatedly and the evidence shows that as we become more prosperous all the things that government regulations purportedly give us are accomplished automatically BECAUSE we want them and can afford them.
It is not regulation that brings about all the benefits we attribute to government – it is prosperity. Without prosperity all the regulations in the world will not make us safe or better off.
The professor is a near perfect example of “intellectual yet idiot”
If he thinks that Rural america is so bad – he should try living without it.
I would bet that Nebraska farmers can survive and thrive longer without ipads, than Berkeley can manage without food.
But far too many purported intellectuals – atleast partly victims of modern education, beleive obvious nonsense.
Sometime ago Jordan Peterson answered a question on Global Warming.
His answer was brilliant. He said the science is completely irrelevant – though we had better hope that it is wrong, because it is completely impossible to do what the left wishes to do to reduce carbon emissions.
“One Child Nation” is now available to stream from Amazon.
It was incredibly significant to me – because I adopted my daughter from China in 1998.
What is depicted is what happens when government attempts social engineering.
And the One Child Policy in China was tiny compared to the much broader consequences of policies to reduce CO2.
I found OCN heart rending and fascinating – because so much of it runs counter to what we were told as part of the adoption process.
It also made an attempt to depict the scale of the effects of the One Child policy.
about 120,000 chinese “orphans” were adopted though foreign adoption.
338,000,000 abortions were performed over the same period of time.
An enormous percent of these were involuntary abortions, a large percent of them were 8 or 9 months. If by some miracle a family managed to have a 2nd child and that child was female, millions of those children were murdered or abandoned to die after birth.
We are talking about killing more people than currently live in the US over about 40 years.
We are talking about killing more people than died in all the wars in the entire history of the world. We are talking about 3 times more people than were killed by all opressive socialist regimes in the 20th century.
The most dangerous thing that can happen is for the purportedly smart people in a country, who have no “skin in the game” to decide what is best for the rest of us, and to use the power of government to bring that about.
It is irrelevant whether the problem they choose to address is real, serious – even critical,
over and over through history some of humanities darkest moments are when some faux intellectuals gained power and imposed their ideas on others through force.
Whether it is Bell vs. Buck Eugenics in the US
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough”
Oliver Wendel Holmes.
There was only 1 dissent,
and Bell Vs. Buck has never been overruled.
Adolf Hilter cited Bell as well as other eugenicists and eugenics laws in the US as the foundation for his early laws that ultimately led to the extermination of not just jews, but homosexuals, the handicapped, and the mentally deficient.
Excellent article by Sharyl Attkinson that gets to the core of things.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/470420-the-president-not-diplomats-sets-official-foreign-policy
Presidential candidates offer voters their foreign policy platform.
If they are elected they as president get to decide what US foreign policiy will be.
The constitition gives the President unbeleivably broad latitude in foreign policy.
Likely because our founders did not consider foreign policy all that important.
Washington’s farewell as a warning to future presidents to be friendly to all but to make promises to none.
To the extent our founders cared about US Foreign policy – they gave congress control of funding.
There is a huge public tiff going on regarding the rules for impeachment – what is an is not impeachable, and whether or not due process is required.
While I think the constitution is clear that house most vote to conduct an impeachment inquiry – they now have.
But beyond that the process in the house (and the senate) is up to those respective chambers.
I think it would be incredibly wise for the house to be investigating a compelling claim of misconduct – our founders quite clearly did not think that impeachment should be used for anything so trivial as this. But they put in place no enforcement mechanism to constrain the house in understanding what constitutes an impeachable offense.
But there are 3 reasons the house should not impeach over just anything – whether it can or not.
Voters, the future and the senate.
I think the current house democrats are on the wrong side of all three and the consequences for them and the country will be bad.
What was revealed (that we already knew) is that much of the “foreign policy establishment” in bnumerous areas disagreed with Trump.
Oddly, that is the perogative of the house, and the senate, and to the extent the constitution allows they can put those disagreements into law and constrain the president.
But the “foreign policy establishment” can not.
Nikki Halley has done an excellent job of expressing something that everyone in the executive – starting with Comey, and Yates, and McCabe on Day on of the Trump presidency should have understood.
Members of the executive who disagree with the president can:
Attempt to persuade,
Resign
or do what the president asks.
That is all. Only congress and the courts to the extent the constitution allows can compel foreign policy different from that of the president.
Yesterday’s witnesses have served our country for a long time.
And each should be fired for cause.
Adam Schiff can publicly stand up to the president opposing the president’s foreign policy. And he has the power of a single vote in the house to change it.
And he can impeach the president over foreign policy differences.
But members of the foreign policy establishment (or the DOJ, or CIA, or ..) can not.
They can attempt to persuade, resign, or do as they were directed.
All other choices should cost them their job.
We spent yesterday learning what we already now – that those in the “deep state” oppose Trump’s policies, and have acted within government to thwart them.
That is not their place.
And the most odd part of yesterday was that as strong as their opposition to Trump was,
both witnesses concurred that Trump’s ukrainian foreign policy was more tho their liking that Obama’s
bama ?
Very Odd ?
If we are impeaching Trump over foreign policy conflicts with “the deep state” and “the deep state” likes Trump’s foreign policy better than Obama’s – why did n’t they thwart Obama’s and why didn’t we impeach Obama ?
“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”
An excerpt from a speech given this week by Bill Barr.
“Engaged in a war to cripple by any means necessary, a duly elected government”
True.
I have not listened to Barr’s speach though your clip sounded excellent.
I do not understand either the left or democrats or the media today.
Politics and politicians have always had a bit of a disconnect from truth – both parties.
We accept that as normal.
But we have gone way over the top, and we have gone way outside of politics
As repugnant as I think schiff’s conduct is right now, he is a politician in congress, he is answerable to voters, and his actions will determine his own reputation, he is fair game for brutal criticism, and he is defining new norms that will effect congress in the future.
I am NOT opposed to this “faux impeachment” – I think it is stupid, will likely backfire one way or another, but congressmen are not constitutionally barred from being stupid.
I do not think house democrats are obligated to provide Trump or house republicans “due process” or any of the other legal trappings we associate with “fairness”.
And Senate republicans can respond in kind if they choose.
I think that is extremely unwise and a very bad precident that will haunts us in the future
and further brutally coarsen existing bitter divisions.
But it is inside the bounds of what the consitution allows,
In fact the house and the senate can remove the president – on purely partisan political grounds. But it is very stupid to do so.
I am not looking to save congress from its own stupidity.
But political actions that are legitimate for elected officials ARE NOT legitimate for the rest of government.
House democrats are making much of the policy gulf between Trump and carreer forign service people. They are parading them in front of the Intel committee with “bombshell” after “bombshell” proving incontrovertably that Trump was at odds with carreer foreign service people over foreign policy and that as they constantly thwarted him in various ways – in John Kelley’s words “”saving Trump from himself”, Trump increasingly relied on his own outside diplomatic channels.
This is legal, and not even that unusual. But it is NOT the prefered way to conduct foreign policy.
HOWEVER – no matter how respectable these carreer foreign service people are, no matter what their past accomplishments, No matter whether Trump’s prefered policies are wise, or effective, it is the “resistance” by those inside of government to the elected president that is absolutely wrong. certainly justifying firing, and possibly justifying criminal prosecution.
House democrats can legitimately rail against Trump’s foreign policy, They can via their powers as representatives attempt to thwart that policy.
Members of the executive branch MAY NOT.
I further find this whole tiff quite odd because – pretty much universally these carreer foreign service officers are telling pretty much the same story.
1). They “feel” disrespected by Trump going arround them.
2). They were “deeply concerned” about Trump’s foreign policy.
3). Universally they all say Trump’s policies have been BETTER than Obama’s.
This is what Democrats and the media think is a compelling argument ?
Well I decided to check in and see Priscilla is back from a short break. Hopefully I can get this to post as it took three+ minutes just to get to the comment routine.
Yes Priscilla you are right about the resistence. But damn, Trump is his worst enemy. Yesterdays testimony with Yavonovitch was going nowhere. The House GOP members were actually keeping their powder dry since her testimony was inconsequential. Then Trump post his asinine tweet and it was then a case of “witness intimidation and tampering” and the dems had the news headlines for the day. A number of right centered news reporters said that GOP house members on the committee made different responses to the tweet , but the most accurate was ” Oh shit, not again”.
If and when Trump loses in 2020, he will have no one to blame other than himself. He provides the fuel to every spark that turns into a fire.These tactics from the left would fizzle out in weeks, if not days,.if Trump did not throw jet fuel on every one that comes up.
To further refresh your Trump-think memory, after Obama was elected— on the night of his inauguration the GOP elite gathered In a D.C. restaurant to strategize how to UNDERMINE HIM!
‘Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan… After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything.” (PBS.org-Frintline)
What’s different now is that the LOUDEST PROTESTS to Trump’s inept criminal debauchment of the presidency are coming from Conservative Republicans, dozens of them, from former high level experienced government and military officials, from credentialed conservative columnists and writers —who continue to WARN you of his deranged presence in office, to no avail obviously. Reasoning with a cult mentality is an exercise in futility.
You’re the Enemy.
You seem confused.
Republicans in the house and senate.
Republicans in private life
Are free to “undermine” democratic presidents.
As are democrats free to undermine republican presidents.
Elected members of govenrment – are LEGALLY free to weild the power of their office for political purposes.
They are judged by voters in elections.
The member of the executive branch of govenrment – republican, democrat, are NOT free to undermine the president.
Just as each congressmens staff is not free to undermine that congressmen,
Just as the permanent staff of the congress is not free to undermine anyone politically.
Judicial clerks and secretaries are not free to undermine judges – and judges are not elected.
In fact the under secretaries in a cabinet department are not free to undermine the cabinet member – even though they are not elected.
Just as the store clerks at JC Penny are not free to undermine the store manager – or the CEO.
Do so and get fired.
Do so in govenrment and you might be prosecuted.
Eric Carmiella is the near certain source for two early Trump administration classified leaks.
Purportedly he is the Whistle Blower – but whether he is or is not, shouldn’t classified leaks be investigated ? shouldn’t those responsible for them be prosecuted ?
Obama prosecuted all kinds of people for leaking.
Obama investigated journalists for publishing leaks.
Obama spied on congress, and journalists and political competitors.
Has Trump done any of these ?
Why is it that you think Trump is authoritarian and Obama is not ?
Every single one of these “#resistance” witnesses so far (as well as Sec. Def Mattis)
Even though EACH has been critical of Trump
Even though EACH has been concerned about his actions and foreign policy and endeavored to thwart it.
Each and everyone of them has PUBLICLY (and all but Mattis under oath) stated that Trump’s policy was MUCH BETTER, than Obama’s.
If this is “deranged presence in office” – Please Sir can I have some more ?
This point is particularly damning.
You can not distinguish betweeen “Trump” and “deranged”.
To you and to far too many on the left, the two are a tautology.
If Trump did it – its wrong, deranged. crimininal.
You do not even need to know what Trump did – only that Trump did it.
If you want to impeach you need an act that is objectively wrong, and that is unique to Trump.
You have neither.
Your argument is “Trump did it, therefore it is wrong”, not a crime was committed and the evidence shows Trump committed it.
AND this purpoertedly criminal act is unusual – it is not something that almost ever president since Washington has done.
Or atleast it must be unusual – UNLESS you are prepared to say that every prior person who did the same was also wrong
and that would be more credible had you leveled that criticism at the time.
God, No!
We can debate whether Trump’s tweet was wise.
But it was NOT witness tampering – nor was the stupid exchanged between Credico and Stone despite what the Obama Judge and DC Jury said.
First, Yavonovitch would not have been aware of the tweet but for the fact that Schiff made an issue of it.
Next – as is typical of Schiff he took part of the tweet out of context.
Regardless, Tweeting that Everywhere Yavonovitch went, things turned “bad” is NOT witness tampering. In fact it is TRUE. Whether it is meaningful – i.e. whether correlation means causation is independent.
Generally there does not seem to be much reason to beleive that Yavonovich is not a dedicated public servant.
That is NOT the same as beleiving that she is a good one.
Aside from the few false statements she made in her “basement bunker” testimony
she is a credible witness.
The question is whether she is a useful one.
Policy disagreements ARE NOT crimes.
Going arround carreer diplomats who are thwarting the presidents policies is NOT A CRIME.
I have repeatedly here argued the Republicans are making a mistake by fixating on the absence of a “quid pro quo”.
The ONLY thing that is relevant, is whether Trump used the power of the president of his office to seek an investigation of ANYONE without reasonable suspicion.
Whether he used threats, coercion, withheld money, begged, pleaded, used back channels is all irrelevant.
There is ZERO doubt that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate a bunch of things – all related to the 2016 election. I think we are all agreed on that.
I would hope that we all agree that you do not become immune to prosecution because you are running for office.
Seeking an investigation of the political opposition is disturbing. It is a basis for scrutiny. But it is not prima fascia a crime or even bad conduct.
If it was then Obama and Biden should be in jail, aong with half the DOJ/FBI.
We have fought over wether probable cause existed for the FISA warrant on Carter Page for several years. You would think that by now people would understand that it is NOT the political status of the person being investigated that determines the investigations legitimacy.
It is the degree to which existing evidence supports an investigation.
If you do not understand there is a reasonable basis for every investigation that Trump asked for form Zelensky – then you are either hyper partisan and blinded by ideology or living under a rock
Dave, please fill out an application to head up Trumps spin team because jo one can do it better than you have here.
Now, are you totally incapable of understanding my position I have expressed many times here? It is not whatnyou, Priscilla, Jay or I understand from these hearings. We already know how we are voting. The dems found out there were millions that did not know what Quid Pro Quo even meant. So they are given a gift by Trump with “witness tampering”. You know, I know and millions know that is not witness tampering.
BUT, BUT!!! The democrats are only trying to change a handful of votes in a few states. That is their play book. They are playing electoral vote roulette.
So when I comment, I am commenting about their playbook. I am not commenting on the issue because most all political playbooks have nothing to do with issues. They are all designed to capture just a few votes of those voters that have no sense of the laws, but believe politicians when they speak.
I do not wish to pretend to know your positions perfectly, but that does not mean I am blind to it.
I just do not agree. Or more correctly, I do not care about the same things your do, nor think the same things are important.
You are likely correct about Democrat’s strategy – but in my view that has failed.
Democrats have tried to peel off Trump voters. Outside of some understandable success with suburban women which DOES fit in with your thoughts, they have mostly failed.
Some never Trumpers, are still never trumpers – but less.
Trump has been making significant gains with minority voters.
He is not going to win them – or even come close.
But Democrats are going to be playing defense on even larger segments of the electorate than in 2016. Small swings towards Trump among blacks and hispanics will make things miserable for democrats in 2020.
We are still trying to accurately guage what is going on in the rust belt but the preliminary indications are in MOST states Trump is stronger. Trump MIGHT lose PA,
He probably will win Minesota. He will likely win New Hampshire.
Most importantly though some of the battle will remain in the swing states that Trump won or nearly won – the battle is expanding – not mostly to states Trump won, but to states Trump lost.
If Democrats have to defend several states they won, that will make it harder to win states they lost.
But the playing board and the demographics is probably not the most decisive factor in 2020.
Who comes out to vote in what numbers is most critical.
I get conflicting claims over voter participation – either it is way down or way up.
It can not be both.
Still the big deal in 2020 will be whether more republicans come out to vote that democrats.
NOT women or minorities.
This is partly why this faux impeachment is so important.
Democrats promised this to their base. They are “delivering” – but it is going horribly.
So in 2020 does the left base stay home in despair or does it flood the polls in droves.
I have been predicting that Trump Outrage must eventually fade.
I do not mean it goes away, I just mean it shifts from activism to despair.
I have been wrong about this so far. The outrage has been sustained longer than I would have beleived possible. That BTW is a horribly bad sign for the country.
Sustained outrage on the scale that we have now is matched only by the revolution and the civil war, and MAYBE vietnam.
Kavanaugh was a disaster for the left. I do not think it demoralized left voters,
but it absolutely energized the right.
I am still trying to make sense of 2018 – Republics did well int he Senate and very nearly did incredibly well. But they did badly in the house.
It is near certain that Kavanaugh was a major negative for democrats in the senate.
But it had little effect on the house.
So how does impeachment play in 2020 ?
It will take time to see the impact on the Senate. If there are actually articles of impeachment voted out of the house – something I still think may not happen.
How the senate behaves will effect 2020. And we do not know how the senate will behave.
I have little doubt that House Democrats have already done significant damage to themselves in 2020. Democrats could lose the house. Probably not, but I expect they will lose seats. Unfortunately not the ones they need to lose.
If Senate democrats behave as House Democrats and as they did in the Kavanaugh hearings – any Dreams that Democrats have of retaking the senate die.
But still the most critical thing in 2020 will be the respective turnout of differnet groups.
Another unmentioned factor in 2018 – that we do not know how important is,
is that Trump’s victory came from voters who do not normally vote.
A version of Nixon’s silent majority. It is likely that those voters did not come out to vote in 2018. They are Trump voters, they are NOT republicans – which will be important to republicans in 2022 and 2024. There are several million trump voters that are NOT republicans, and do not normally vote.
What are they going to do in 2020 (it seems incredibly likely they are voting for Trump)
What are they going to do in 2022 and 2024 – who knows.
Absolutely Democrats are TRYING to appeal to Trump voters in those swing states.
BUT they do not know how. The only democratic candidate of consequence with any hope of connecting with those voters is Biden – and I think this whole impeachment mess has done more damage to Biden than Trump.
Regardless, Warren does not speak to these voters, Schiff does not speak to these voters, Nadler does not speak to these voters, Pelosi does not ….
Once upon a time there were democrats who did – not today.
And republicans have a future problem – because Trump speaks to them, but Republicans do not.
It is honestly quite wierd that Trump speaks to these people.
It makes no sense that a Billionaire would appeal to them.
Micheal Bloomberg does not stand a chance in hell with these voters, nor does Tom Steyer.
But Trump DOES.
And focus groups are not changing that. Nor is dumbing down the rhetoric.
Frankly I think that is backfiring. But that is part of the problem with democrats.
And we get that here all the time.
We get all kinds of pseudo intellectuals – our politicians or posters here, who are sure of how smart they are and do not understand why the stupid masses can not be nudged into doing and thinking as they should, and then they blame ‘ignorant voters”.
One of the lunatic parts of “Trump/Russia” was that at its core changing future voting required Trump voters to beleive THEY had been deceived by Russians.
BTW that is a core problem with the entirety of Democrats hostility to free speach and desire to control campaign finance.
The foundation of that is that money and hate speach drive stupid voters to vote for the wrong candidates. And if you can just prevent voters from hearing the messages that the left does not like then they will vote accordingly.
The “stupid voters” are not all that stupid. The are sometimes wrong.
But treating them as if they are stupid – backfired in 2016.
Democrats have NOT learned anything from 2016.
There CORE strategy is to sustain the outrage of the left quarter of the country in the hope outrage at trump exceeds the backlash of voters tired of being called stupid, hateful hating haters.
Focus group testing dumbed down language in the hopes of persuading voters is not going to work.
Democrats now have TWO big problems going into 2020, rather than the only one they had in 2016.
The first is they are STILL name calling – not just their oponents but everyone who does not 100% agree with them.
I can not understand how Hillary could be so stupid as to go after Gabbard – not only did that boost Gabard, but it eroded her and the democrats Trump is a Russian asset narative.
If everyone is a russian asset – no one is a russian asset.
The second is that though they were weak on this before, the past 3 years have destroyed the democrats moral authority.
While #metoo hit accross the political spectrum, the big damage was to the left.
Because it exposed that the left is no different – possibly worse morally than the right on a core issue.
Trump/Russia and now faux impeachment are shredding what little moral authority democrats have left.
I am repeatedly defending – in the legal sense what house democrats are doing.
They ARE free to ignore due process,
The courts are NOT going to and should not intervene.
You and I differ a bit on the constitution. You fixate more on its details.
That fixation is much like that of fundimentalist christians fixation on the litteral inerancy of the bible.
I absoltuely share with you an originalist/textualist method of interpretting the constutition.
But the constitution is NOT the foundation of govenrment or a moral authority.
The constitution RESTS on the moral authority of individual rights.
The authority of the law, and the authority of the constitution, and the authority of the house ULTIMATELY rest on a MORAL FOUNDATION of individual rights.
We are not in 100% agreement on how to translate those foundational moral principles into constitutions and law – if we were we would all be libertarian.
Jay and Robby claim I silence them. I do not. But I do confront them with the moral failure of their arguments. And not just failure in my view, but failure or atleast self contradiction in their own view.
I harp over and over that “you can not use force without justification” till everyone’s eyes gloss over.
But almost everyone KNOWS that is true. I am not making a new or unusual argument.
or one that has been rejected as false.
But I am making an argument that large numbers of us have “dodged” or pretended is true but not near absolute, not foundational.
We want to beleive that we can do all these things that appeal to us, that we beleive are good – moral, and that we can violate foundational principles to bring them to fruition.
Anyway, my point is that Moral authority does not come from god, or the constitution, or our laws, though are laws and constitution strive to be moral and to have moral authority.
Moral authority comes from FOUNDATIONAL respect for individual rights.
We know that what Democrats are doing in the house is WRONG – immoral.
It does not matter whether it is constitutional or legal.
And lots of ordinary people grasp that.
Civility is where we part company.
It is also where I am at odds with Will, and Goldberg and many other libertarians and republicans that I respect.
Every Republican since Eisenhower – except Ford has had some democrat introduce a motion for impeachment.
Every republican politician has been called a Nazi – or now a Russian Asset (or Both).
Nor is this confined to Republicans. Hillary Clinton, Joy Behar, Juan Williams, and even a few on the left that I respect are going after Tulsi Gabbard.
About policies ? No! About being a Russian Asset.
This is just complete ludicrous nonsense.
And if you think it started with Trump you are delusional.
Being respectful and nice in the face of political nastiness did not help Dole, or Bush or McCaine or Romney.
Sorry Ron. “No More Mr. Nice Guy”.
No more turning the other cheek to lies and outrageous defamation.
I would like a world were political parties did not misrepresent their opponents platforms (or their own). but that is politics.
I would like a world were politics was not all about juevenile insults. but that is politics – all the way back tot he founding.
But we have gone beyond lying about policies to lying about the people, to lying about facts, to lying and defaming not just the politician but everyone anywhere near them.
This is not the exception – it is the norm. It is not just politicians who are doing it, but the entire left, the media and to too great an extent most democrats.
If that is “the new normal” – and it has been increasingly so for atleast the past decade,
Then the victims of the slurs and insults are entitled to stand up for themselves and to attack their accusers.
With respect to Yavonovich, she had two very easy ways to avoid Trump’s ire, that would have been moral and ethical, and consistent with a career in government service.
Impliment the policy of the president of the united states whether you like it or not.
Resign.
Yavonovich chose a third way.
That inherently makes her political – in the partisan sense. It means she is subject to the same types of criticism that Adam Schiff is.
Facts, not feelings.
We are agreed that Trump’s conduct will help determine the results in 2020.
IF Trump loses he will have no one else to blame.
Well no one, except a media that is 94% negative – far worse than under any other president.
No one except those who illegitimately tried to thwart him.
Again – Schiff and other elected democrats for all their lunacy can legitimately excercise the power they have to thwart Trump.
But those in the executive CANNOT.
The actions of Page, Strzok, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, …..
are at the very least immoral and unethical and justifying termination for cause.
They are certainly more serious crimes than anything that Stone, or Papadoulis, or Flynn or Manaforte has done.
But I do not think Trump will lose in 2020.
I do not think it will be close.
This faux impeachment is a hail mary by democrats – and a bad one.
Deval Patrick entering the race, Bloomberg, the rumblings about Hillary are all because democrats are not going to win.
I do not know whether Biden can win the primary.
But he does not stand a chance in a general election against Trump.
You can beleive Biden committed Crimes in Ukraine, China and Romania, or not.
But you can not escape the fact that Biden’s clean image, most every feature that distinguishes him from Trump has been seriously damaged – and he will not recover.
Further this “faux impeachment” is a disaster for Democrats.
It is so bad they are focus group testing the words they use in the hopes that somehow describing facts using different adjectives will make them more damning than they are.
Barring some secret revelation that has not yet occurred and is highly unlikely this fizzles.
We all already know all the relevant facts.
We also know the worst likely findings.
That is not going to result in a Senate vote to remove.
As things are I think democrats would be unwise to vote on an actual impeachment resolution.
A hundred Pundits crying “bombshell” does not make for an explosion.
“The democrats are only trying to change a handful of votes in a few states. That is their play book. They are playing electoral vote roulette.”
Yes, that is the game. Trump currently is leading or tied with the Democrat front runners in the battleground states, but it only takes one or two or possibly three of them to flip a Trump reelection into a Trump defeat.
If they can get 51 votes to convict in the Senate, they can say that the majority of the Congress believes that Trump is guilty of high crimes. Even if they can’t get enough GOP votes to make a majority, they have planted the seed of doubt in the minds of a lot of voters. The only way the Dems lose is if they nominate a crappy candidate.
Yet, they seem prepared to do that.
IF the game is to flip a few republicans in the Senate – then Democrats have learned nothing from 1998.
It is not the “narative” that matters,
It is not the right words that matter,
It is not the vote in the house or the senate that matters.
It is whether voters are convinced.
People are not going to decide this is legitimate based on a vote count in the senate or what democrats say in political adds.
They will decide based on facts.
The mueller investigation was a disaster – not because of the details of the report,
The report itself was anti-climactic.
Yes, there was still the faint hope of those ont he far left that Mueller had a secret “trump card” up his sleave. But that how did not (atleast not justifiably) rest on Mueller eloquently spinning in a 500 page report.
What matter is that he found nothing.
We sent out a pit bull with a horde of “angry democrats” and as partisan as they were – they found nothing – beyond trying to spin a narrative.
Most of us do understand when there is no substance.
This impeachment will near certainly end the same.
“wheres the beaf” ?
Further the incredibly biased and lawless way that the inquiry is conducted is all the more damaging.
This will end. Trump will not be removed,
He will near certainly be re-elected.
When he is he must immediately CLEAN HOUSE.
He needs to fire people in droves. It does not matter if he can not replace them.
He needs to fire everyone he can do so easily, and even those he can not.
It does not matter if he can not get to the Eric Carmiella’s.
What matters is that the upper echelons of government are removed.
Trump removed Yavonoch. Which was appropriate. His mistake was replacing her.
Taylor is not as bad as Yavonovich – but that is NOT a ringing endorement.
No ambassador is better than one you can not trust.
Leaving the third tier minions in place is better than not having an appointment you can trust.
People who default up to responsibility – even when highly partisan DO NOT TAKE RISKS, if they did, they would be ambassadors, or leaders. not 2nd and third tier staff.
They can be counted on to stamp visa’s and probably moan, but they are not going to interfere.
Trump did not need any of these people in the Ukraine (or elsewhere)
One of the things I was happy about Tillerson was that he cut the state department RADICALLY.
If you cut the head off – you may have to pay the massive body of the “deep state” but mostly they will stay out of your way.
Yavonovich is a US ambassador. If she is this easily intimidated – how did she get that job ?
Foreign policy is not ban bag. Foreign countries threaten all the time.
We just finished years of investigation of the murder of a US ambassador.
Ambassadors are expected to deal with situations like Benghazi where armed terrorists are roaming the embassy – or Vietnam were numerous efforts were made to overrun the US embassy.
Yavonovich intimidated by a Trump Tweet criticising her past record ?
I am all in favor of speak softly and carry a big stick.
And that is NOT Trump.
But an ambassador who can not take criticism is not qualified.
Is the entire US all a bunch of snowflakes ?
What happened to the people who raised the flag at Mount Suribachi ?
What happened to the people at Bunker Hill or Valley Forge ?
Dave You responded to me by starting out ” Yavonovich is a US ambassador. If she is this easily intimidated – how did she get that job ?”
Where did I say she was intimidated? Read what I post!
I said Shiff has changed the Democrat message from Quid Pro Quo to witness tampering and intimidation. The left wing voters were unable to understand QPQ and that was flying over their head. So he jumped on the Trump Tweet wagon and is using that for a new message. You might want to check some AP stories and some left wing news sites and listen to their propaganda about how that tweet could be used in a court of law for tampering.
Now dont give me a 25 paragraph answer as to why it could not be. I know that! But most of those listening to left wing talking heads do not.
And again, it is only 300,000 or so voters Shiff is trying to influence with this hearing. The other 140M are not his audience when it comes to 2020.
Ron – Chill,
Every reply I make to a post of yours is NOT an attack on you.
You noted that Schiff said Yavonovich was being intimidated.
I do not think ANYONE is saying YOU think Yavonovich is being intimidated.
I said if Trump’s Tweet intimidated Yavonovich she is too much of a snowflake to be a US ambassador.
That was a criticism of HER and SCHIFF – not you.
Dave,thanks, but it is impossible to determine ones intent in internet communications much of the time. When I say 1+1 is 2 and you respond it is 3 because others are talking about it being 3, then how should I respond when that clarification was not made in your comment? I can only respond to the words written since we have no face to face interaction for clarification.
Since my comments are mostly about tactics for elections when it comes to democrats, those will generate many rebuttals from you since you comment based on current electoral facts, not the tactics to change the future electoral facts.
So if you could start comments when the response is different than the original comment by saying something like, ” I understand, but the facts held by X are different. They….. ” this will clarify you are not responding to my positions on subjects.
Thanks
Wrong analogy.
You say “1 + 1 = 2”
and I respond with
“2 + 1 = 3”
and then you claim I am disagreeing with you.
We do not agree perfectly – or even close.
But our disagreements are small and civil.
Further MOST are matters of emphasis.
1 + 1 is 2
and
2 + 1 is 3
Which of those facts is more important – often we disagree.
So what ?
When I agree with what you have said and how you have said it,
I try not to respond with 1000 words saying the same thing.
If you make one good point, I try to look at the same or related information and make another.
That is not disagreement.
Intent is ALWAYS hard to fathom.
It is ten times harder on the internet.
And you will note that I try really really hard NOT to make judgments based on intent.
I will be happy to debate balance of Trade with you – I think you are Trump are WRONG.
At the same time I must admit that Trump’s actions – which I do not agree with in Trade have NOT tanked the economy and frankly are not going to.
And that thus far – though I do not like his means, he has come very close to getting the ends that I want.
Regardless, I am NOT going to impeach a president for implimenting a policy that he campaigned on and was elected on that is at the very worst not doing significant harm,
and might actually be doing some good – even if I disagree with it.
And I can continue to argue with you over the minutia, Trump remains WRONG one trade, and I can come up with myriads of facts to support that.
But in that same world of facts – even though he is wrong, the harm is just not all that great.
And I am not going to make myself into Jay, over small disagreements.
Jay wants Trump gone – “though the heavens may fall”
That might be fine – if we were actually talking about justice being done.
But we are not.
The “Deep Staters” want Trump gone so that they can retake ownership of their domains.
God forbid that the people should have a say in government.
Or that anything short of unelected experts with a long track record of failure should set policy.
Jay and the left want trump gone – solely because they hate him.
That is pretty much it.
That is actually worse – or more accurately sadder.
With respect to election tactics:
We find out who is right in November – MAYBE.
The whole mess is complicated and if Trump wins it will be impossible to find a SINGLE
cause, the same if he loses.
Clinton lost for a long list of reasons – any one of which might have flipped the election.
None of which was Russia.
But had Hillary won, we could say exactly the same of Trump – that he lost for a long list of reasons – any one of which could have flipped the election.
No Wikileaks – Clinton probably wins.
No Access holloywood tape – Trump probably wins New Hampshire and Minesota, and maybe Nevada.
You can go down a long list.
Clinton’s biggest mistake was hubris. She did not believe she needed to defend the rust belt.
She quite litterally was trying to run up the popular vote by campaiging in California.
You do that when you are REALLY 20pts ahead. Not when you are 2pts ahead.
I do not know what is going to happen next year.
You don’t.
We are both reading tea leaves.
It is fun.
It is one area of discussion here where there is not likely a right or wrong – because we can not know the answers. We can only guess.
So we disagree about election tactics – no one is hiring either of us to run their campaign.
I think I am shit for election predictions – but I have thus far read the tea leaves better than 538.
I do not think I am any good at it.
But I do not think ANYONE is.
Much of the time – I do not think you are wrong. I just think that you see only part of the picture, or that you think the wrong part is important.
I copied the quote about “I do not have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you”, deliberately.
Everyone fixates on approval ratings.
Trump’s current approval is much HIGHER than on election day 2016.
Trump does not have to be liked or loved or approved of.
All he has to be is less dangerous than the other guy.
By virtue of being the incumbent and not having blown up the world – that is already true.
I think incumbancy is even more of an asset for presidents.
I do not think Trump would EVER have defeated any incumbent.
He is too much of a risk.
As president Trump has NOT proven to be incredibly presidential.
But he has also NOT wrecked anything.
He has not started new wars, his conflicts with world leaders are small and have the support of lots of americans – if not the elite and the deep state.
He is a C+ president – following two D- presidents and facing a bunch of F candidates.
I know many people who love Trump – they are absolutely voting for him.
I do not know if there are more than in 2016 – there appears to be, but despite the chaos and ranting, it is EASIER for Trump supporters to be open about that than in Nov. 2016.
He won and he is defending his people.
I know SOME people who hate Trump – and as Jay said would vote for Karl Marx to get rid of trump. Every one of those voted for Clinton.
But 50% of the country is left. These are people who MOSTLY do not like Trump.
But an awful lot of them may go into the voting both and say – 4 more years of Trump ?
I know what they looks like – a giant food fight in the media and government,
but a stable and growing economy, probably no new endless wars, trade skirmishes but no actual trade wars – I can hold my nose and vote for that.
But wealth taxes and M4A and free college and free everything, and a green new deal and …
Hell no! even the small possibility that some of that might happen, that the economy might weaken. Hell no!
I thought that the Mueller report was the turning point – and it should have been.
I though that the left and democrats just could not get any bat shit crazier.
But I was wrong. This faux impeachment is the hail mary of all times.
I know that view is not shared – but Biden is done.
He can no longer beat Trump in the rust belt. ‘
He probably can not make it to the general.
And the longer the impeachment lasts the worse it is for Biden.
And the remaining dwarves in the Democrats stable – have driven themselves so far left in the primary that Trump is going to have zero problem painting them as stalinists in the general.
Attack adds against Trump will not work – it is close to impossible to drag his negatives lower.
We all know him. We do not need the media to define him for us, and we are not going to pay attention – just as we are not paying attention to faux impeachment.
But all his opponents – they can be fixed, defined and destroyed, and they have all provided the ammunition.
Are you going to even listen to some attack add on Trump with lists of offensive things he has said ? Why ? You know what you are buying. It might not be the svelt luxury car you hoped for, but it will get you where you want to go – faster and better than the old car you traded in.
As to these new democratic cars – we do not know if they are lemons – and meany of them probably are. The best we can hope for is that they were lying during the primary.
That is not where you want to be against Trump – vote for me, I lied in the primary, I am really a moderate, When trump is going to be saying – if you buy me, you know exactly what you are getting, and you know that I will cross hell or high water to keep my promises – so do you want what I am offering ? Not what others are claiming about me.
I think that is a “biggly” winning hand.
But next november is a long way away.
Lots can happen.
And the Horowitz report is due any moment.
Yes, the democrats are fixating on messaging. They have always done so. They are better at messaging than republicans.
But in the end the world is about facts.
Most of us recognize consequential lies and criminal acts.
We do not need them “explained” to us. We understand the difference between a “bad act” and a good one without carefully tuning the words being used.
We do not need “naratives” to distinguish between things that are crimes and those that are not.
there is a “narative” that voters – particularly Trump voters are stupid.
Even I am not willing to trust government to pure democracy – there have to be some checks on emotions run amuk.
But in general I find that “trump voters” AS A WHOLE are no more “stupid” than the college educated elite of the left.
Anyone trying to sell socialism today should be suing their college and high school for a shitty education.
We wasted 3 years on this “Trump/Russia” collusion nonsense that was an OBVIOUS farce from the begining.
No one – not here or anywhere has ever explained why:
A multibillionaire would risk EVERYTHING to create a backchannel to Russia to get really crappy Social Media adds.
But again a major problem with the left – as well as some others.
Too many view Trump as corrupt, devious AND stupid.
It is always “stupid” to presume that successful people are stupid.
That is very rarely the case.
People who succeed in business – even inherited family businesses ARE NOT STUPID.
People who DEMONSTRATE success in multiple domains – NYC residential Real Estate, NYC Comercial Real Estate, Casino’s and Gaming. International Real Estate, Hotels, Television, Pagents and Politics ARE NOT STUPID
You may not like them. They might make occasional mistakes. But no matter how you try to paint there actions – they are NOT prone to catastrophically and obviously stupid choices.
Jordan Peterson – who BEFORE becoming one of the leading lights in “the intellectual Dark Web” was one of the most cited clinical psychologists in the world. Noted that based on Trump’s multiple domains of success his IQ is at a minimum 135.
That is NOT STUPID.
My point is that if you are selling a narative about Trump that REQUIRES that Trump is STUPID – the STUPID person is you. We can debate honest/liar corrupt, devious, or whatever other adjectives you wish – but not stupid.
This is NOT about my FEELINGS about Trump – I have no need to beleive Trump is smart.
But I am not going to buy whatever the left is selling if it rests on assumptions that are LUDCROUSLY STUPID.
The Trump/Russia nonsense has ALWAYS rested on LOTS of STUPID assumptions.
If you want to see how to conspire with Russia without being STUPID – look at what Clinton did with Perkin’s Coi, Fusion GPS and Steele.
Do not use the russians for something they suck at, that you will get in trouble if you are found out. Use them for what they are good at – manufacturing dirt. And do it all through multiple levels of cuttouts so that you can easily deny you were working with Russia.
Nor is this Trump/Russia collusion STUPIDITY the most egregious example of IYI – Intellectual Yet Idiot.
Frankly I think that if you are an educated adult today and you beleive ANY Malthusian narrative – Peak Oil, CAGW, Population Bomb, …. ANY then you are STUPID.
Oddly the people who buy this nonsense are the IYI’s – they are NOT ordinary people – who may not be able to debate TSI and alpha particles, but understand that the world is NOT going to hell, as well as the actual upper eschelons of intelligence.
Jordan Peterson has an excellent response to some student on Global Warming.
While he does not directly address the science, he basically says – if you beleive the Malthusian claims – then give up, commit suicide, because if the malthusian claims are true – we are going to hell, there is no possible way that we can do a tiny fraction of what warmists claim is needed in time to avert catastrophic disaster. It is just not happening.
We are already WELL PAST the time at which the artic was supposed to have melted down, and myriads of other disasters were supposed to have manafest themselves.
Whether it is Trump/Russia or CAGW or any of myriads of other things.
Why is it that IYI’s are drawn to STUPID and often conspiratorial theories ?
And why is it that the “great unwashed” are actually LESS susceptiable to this nonsense.
Why are we conducting a farce of an impeachment over what is at its core differences of oppinion on Foreign policy. WORSE STILL – SMALL differences.
Pretty much every Schiff Wittness has actually testified that Trump’s foreign policy has been BETTER than Obama’s.
Why are we fixated over this investigation of Biden ?
Biden’s public remarks are ALONE sufficient justification for an investigation.
Do I hope that it is done well and without bias ? Sure. But after Crossfire Huricane and Mueller I have little hope of that. And we do have the problem that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world – so we really can not trust ANYTHING from them.
Not if it implicates Biden, not if it implicates Manafort or ….
Does Trump have political reasons for all the investigations he wants ?
Absolutely.
But you have to be a complete idiot to think that potential crimes can not be investigated if there is any political value to the results.
Dave, I understand you have much greater faith in how informed voters are today than I do.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/06/27/american-voters-are-ignorant-but-not-stupid/#80a24fc7ff17
This was written in June, 2016. If you dont believe voters pick candidates based on criteria that has nothing to do with politics, but are based on beliefs fed to them by political parties and candidates that say and manipulate information to meet the needs of voters, how do you explain Trump getting the GOP nomination?
These same voters are the ones the dems are addressing. They convince 100,000, those 100,000 talk with friends, workers and others. They comment on social media. The false narrative is now believed by 500,000. They do the same. Now the dems have 2,500,000 believing their false facts.
You dont believe this happens. I do. Otherwise Fox News and MSNBC would not have the millions of followers believing their false crap “reported” each day.
My argument is not that ordinary voters are geniuses.
It is more that an awful lot of the highly educated are stupid in comparison to ordinary people.
I do not think I know a single person with a high school education and a job who gives a shit about CAGW.
Are they informed ? Nope, Do they understand the science – clueless.
But despite all that lack of knowledge and education and information, they have something you tout – common sense.
I cited the Jordan Peterson response – while he couched it in intellectual terms, the argument was still fundimental, basic really easy to understand.
We had better hope to hell that CAGW is a fraud, because if it is not we are doomed.
Not only WONT we do what is “necescary” – we can not. If you ever bother to listen to what warmists want it will kill millions – possibly billions of people and wreck the lives of those that are left.
It is like trying to cure a hangnail with arsenic.
Do average voters understand the science – nope.
Nor are they capable for formulating or articulating Peterson’s argument.
But somehow that very argument is intuitively part of who they are.
Maybe it is because they are NOT so smart.
I do not want to sell you the great unwashed.
I am merely pointing out that the massive numbers of IYI’s we have today are WORSE.
In the midst of the Obama administration people HERE were claiming that calling democrats socialists was like calling republicans Nazi’s.
Today an incredible number of purportedly highly educated people are rejecting the system that has transformed the world positively in ways that have absolutely never been seen before. Who in their right mind can look at 150K years of near zero progress – It too 150K years to double the human life span, We did it the 2nd time in a bit more than a century.
Through to the mid 18th century 99.99% of humans spent almost all their time working dawn to dusk and later if possible just to avoid starvation and death. Today americans in poverty carry in their pockets a machine that Gene Rodenberry was not able to dream of in Star Trek – a fantastic camera, video recorder, global personal communications device high quality music and movie player, translator, bank account manager stock market manager calendar, clock, health monitor, ….. all in one. Not a “tricorder” but an infincorder.
And it is just a casual part of the lives of pretty much everyone.
Even a billion chinese who were dying by the 10’s of millions 70 years ago, have smart phones today.
And that gadget is just one part of better life.
We have tried socialism. It fails. Socialism lite. It fails.
Anyone paying the slightest attention to history, the real world, facts, ….
Can not possibly think socialism is in any form better than free markets.
Based on the real world evidence available to each of us with our own eyes – we should all nearly be anarcho-capitalists. We know what works and what does not.
Even if you pretend Nazi’s were not socialists – Socialism has still murdered more people than pretty much everything else combined over the entire history of humanity.
Do the great unwashed fully grasp that ? Nope.
But they do know they have heard the free this and free that story before, and it never worked out quite like they were told.
And yet College educated idiots with masters degrees, and significanly above average IQ’s are buying bad retreads of nonsense that has NEVER WORKED and rejecting an economic system that nothing else has ever come close to.
Are free markets perfect ? No.
You and I can fight over whether they need government regulation, but you must atleast admit that the answer is not crystal clear obvious. Free markets work so incredibly well for EVERYONE that the only question is how little government do they actually need.
And yet millions of highly educated people fail to understand things that your average dishwasher does.
No I do not fully trust the people to govern themselves.
There is good reason to beleive that democracy as a form of government is NOT truly superior to monarchs or less representative governments.
But the one thing that makes representative government succeed is free markets.
Trump was not supposed to win in 2016.
Why did he win ?
What has changed that will change whether he wins in 2020 ?
Many things have changed – none of the 2020 Democrats are Hillary Clinton
That cuts BOTH ways. None are as corrupt as Clinton – no matter if Biden is caught with his pants down – he is just not in Clintons league.
But NONE of them have the political stature of Clinton either.
None of them are as historic as Clinton.
Despite the fact that Clinton ran too far to the left, every single current candidate is running far to the left of Clinton.
Some of the most important factors – mistakes of the left, that resulted in Trump’s victory, not only haven’t the democrats learned. They have actually doubled down on.
I keep saying that impeachment was a hail mary pass.
I am honestly surprised that Pelosi went forward on it.
She knows better than this.
If I recall democrats picked up 22 house seats in 2018.
There are 91 DEMOCRATIC seats that are purportedly in play.
Andrew Yang just told the democrats to shut up about Trump and impeachment or they are going to lose the election.
For three years an unparalled phalanx has been marshalled to knock out Trump.
Not only have they failed – but Trump has accomplished more in those three years than I think any recent president has in 8.
The ratings on the impeachment hearings are in the tank.
No one cares. Republicans are trying to paint the process as unfair and Schiff as a bully.
They are failing – because no one cares.
No one gives a shit about the revenge of the policy nerds.
Purportedly 51% of the country favors impeachment, but according to atleast one poll – 66% of those in swing states oppose, think this is a farce and a waste of time.
I am surprised that Democrats have been able to use absolutely nothing to foment outrage among their base and way too much of the country for 3 years.
And if they are able to continue that for another full year MAYBE their will defeat Trump.
But this impeachment was an act of desperation – and it looks like an orchestrated one.
Democrats and the media do not have the moral authority to carry the country.
This impeachment nonsense is nearly done.
There is some debate over what McConnell will do with it in the senate.
I am not sure. I think that it is possible for Senate republicans to use the impeachment trial.
There is arguably some benefit to republicans to dragging it out.
Further republicans get to make the rules in the senate.
All Republicans would have to do to make life miserable for democrats is vote to conduct the trial using the rules of federal procedure – No hearsay.
Republicans and Trump can put Biden and house democrats on trial.
They can make this into an inquiry into the “deep state”.
I do not know what they will do. The politics is complex – there are many senate republicans in tight races that need to start their campaigns.
But there are several democratic senators running for president.
And they can not leave the senate during an impeachment to campaign.
Thank you Spin Doctor. But you avoided the question.
That was ” if the voters are informed and vote based on policy, why did we end up with Trump”
You believe voters were informed when they went to the polls and chose Trump over Bush, Rubio and Cruz. I say the voters care less about policy. They voted for Trump, whose primary agenda during the nomination process was bullying, put downs, obnoxious personal attacks and locker room talk.
You give Trump a C+ now. I give him a B, but an A in policy and F in presidential behavior. I support his deregulation, tax reforms, immigration policy, trade policy and most of his foreign policy. I do not support troops defending Syrian oil fields. I weight policy 75% and behavior 25%. And I place 80% of the deficit on congress because they do the budget and have done nothing to reduce cost. Just think what the deficit would be if interest rated were at historical averages.
So Spin Doctor, please just tell me why you think the voters are informed. Please leave out the Clinton, impeachment, Russian and other spin that occurred after Trump nomination.
IMO, Informed voters would not have nominated Trump ( or Clinton). Informed voters would not support Warren or Sanders.
I have not claimed voters are informed or that they vote based on policy.
Either as individuals or generally.
I am claiming that the narative that Trump voters or the unwashed or those voters except me and my friends or less educated voters make worse choices is WRONG.
Further there is a presumption in your question that Trump was an error in judgement on the part of voters.
Given a choice of Hillary and Trump – I think voters inarguably made the right choice.
I get more conflicted when you add Johnson. On the one hand Johnson is better ideologically, and he would not have been as outrageous.
On the other I do not think that even Garry Johnson or Rand Paul could have accomplished as much that I favor as Trump has. I do not think that Rubio or Cruz or Bush could have accomplished as much of what I want as Trump has.
So did voters make the wrong choice with Trump ?
I CONSTANTLY argue principled purity here. And that is who I am.
I constantly argue that compromise is a tool NOT a principle.
But I actually think I am more willing to compromise and more accepting of imperfection than most of the rest of you – right or left.
I could not vote for Trump in 2016. I probably will not be able to do so in 2020.
But I can live with him. I am ecstatic that Hillary did not win. Of the 2020 choices probably only biden is not worse for the country than Hillary – though for ideological rather than corrupt reasons.
I accept there is alot wrong with Trump. I share some of the same complaints about him as you and even Jay.
But I do not expect perfection. And Trump’s flaws are substantially smaller than his accomplishments.
Further Despite all the accusations of corruption and lawlessness and being the most investigated president in US history, no one has found a crime.
Trump’s conduct in office has been incredibly LAWFUL – especially as compared to Obama’s.
But apparently completely disregarding the law and constitution to put in place policies that have no legitimate foundation – is acceptable, if those policies please the left.
While getting rid of lawless policies lawfully is somehow lawless according to the left.
Voters do not get to pick from all theoretically possible choices.
They can only pick from the names on the ballot.
On the democratic side between Sanders and Clinton – I do not know what the right choice was, as it was a choice between incredible corruption and complete lunacy.
I MIGHT have picked Sanders – but only in the hope that he was less dangerous.
Sanders IDEAS are far more dangerous but Sanders himself is ineffectual while Clinton is incredibly good at getting what she wants, and therefore would likely do more damage.
One the Republicans side, I did not vote for Trump in the Primaries.
And Republicans had a good field. At the same same time I am not nearly as convinced as you that voters made the wrong choice.
I think no matter what republican was nominated the left with the help of the press would have declared war on them. But not even close to as openly and overtly as they did to Trump.
I think that the left and the press and the “deep state” would have sabotaged and undermined any republican contender – but not nearly as much as Trump.
I think we would have heard all the same things, all the same attacks against ANY republican. I think that Have Cruz or Rubio or Paul or Bush defeated Clinton, that we would have faced the same bitterness, the same outrage by the left. But at a lower decibal level than with Trump.
On the flip side there is not a single republican candidate – even ones that I am more aligned with ideologically who would have AS EFFECTIVELY delivered things that I want.
Every Republican would have been similarly undermined by the “deep state”, the media and the left. The absence of the extreme degree of public outrage over Trump might be unusual, but the actual oposition is not.
Dave “Voters do not get to pick from all theoretically possible choices.
They can only pick from the names on the ballot.”
They had 10+. Then they had 5. Enough un-informed reality show voters to give us Trump.
You say they are informed.
I say those voters were the least informed in years.
As I noted Rand Paul is much closer to my ideology.
Lets say Rand somehow got elected – or Cruz, or Bush or Rubio.
Do you think we would have tax reform ?
If you do, do you think it would be better or worse than Trump’s ?
Do you think we would have better Trade deals – that one is more important to you than me.
USMCA is probably not a quantum improvement over NAFTA – which was actually a good deal. But it is still an improvement.
Further I do expect a deal with China. As well as one with the UK sometime next year.
Do you think Paul, Rubio, Cruz, … would have managed that ?
PPACA has been fairly effectively castrated. It remains only as a token shell.
Much of that happened as a consequence of its design failure and happened before Trump.
But Trump has hastened its destruction.
Would that have happened under Rubio ? Cruz, Paul Bush ?
We are SLOWLY unwiding from the mid east.
Again – would that have happened under any other republican ?
We have put incredible numbers of federalists on the bench.
Again do you think we would have gotten that from Rubio ? Bush ? ….
Trump is actually removing something like 5 regulations for every new one passed – that is not the 20:1 he promised. But that has NEVER happened before.
Waters of America is GONE. Paris is GONE, the Iran deal is GONE.
Would these have occurred with Bush ?
The economy is doing 50% better, unemployment continues to go down which is purportedly economically impossible.
We are actually negotiating with NK which has not happened since Truman.
Illegal Border crossings are DOWN, They are now running 1/5 what they were at peak under Trump and about 1/4 what they were under Obama.
What has changed ? Prospective illegal immigrants know the loopholes have been closed.
They car going to get caught at the border, be held for 90 days and returned to the country they came from. They are NOT getting in for several years while the system muddles along glacially.
I have absolutely no doubt that if Rand Paul was president and given free reign to do as he pleased, that the results would be much better than Trump.
But in the real world – neither Paul nor Johnson would have ACTUALLY accomplished as much of what I want.
Most Presidents in 8 years are LUCKY to accomplish 2-3 signature agenda items.
In 3 years Trump has accomplished dozens.
NEXT, The left and the press have “jumped the shark” on Trump.
The MSM approval ratings are LOWER than Trump’s. That has never happened before.
Fewer and fewer people use traditional sources. More and more people are usijng multiple independent sources for information.
AGAIN would that have happened under Rubio, …. ?
I am going to stop – but I am far from done on the subject.
There is only one way in which Trump terrifies me – and that is what if a Bernie Sanders type was elected AND was as effective as Trump ? That would be a disaster.
But there is a major difference. Trump accomplished nearly all of what he has done WITHOUT congress mostly using executive power to REDUCE government. To FOLLOW the law and constitution.
Point well taken! And that is why I support Trumps policies for the most part! I have said that multiple times. But who know what Paul would have done.
But two things need to be considered involving un-informed voters.
1. Did those voters know all this would happen with MAGA and personal attacks?
2. Did voters know once Trump is defeated that little of this will remain 18 months after he leaves office?
China trade goes back to unfair trade within 6 months.
Taxes go back up beginning the next fiscal year.
PPACA on steroids begins in 2-3 years with Medicare for all
Climate controls go back into effect within 6 months
The only thing that will remain from most of Trumps actions will be the judges placed.
Did voters know ?
Nope.
They can’t know.
They gambled as they always do
Democrats, republicans, does not matter.
There is no way of knowing what a politician will actually do when elected.
In this case that gambled worked out.
You can credit that to luck.
or you can decide that voters accurately perceived Trump was trustworthy.
Regardless, in 2020 – the same voters are NOT taking nearly the same risk.
That is why Trump can expect the vast majority of his 2016 voters once again
as well as those that wanted what he promised, but did not beleive him and stayed home.
The court changes are going to effect the next generation.
At the current rate there will likely be very few seats for Trump’s successor to fill.
Democrats and republicans have been fighting and slow walking confirmations for a long time. The result was a growing backlog with each new president.
Trump is already 50% ahead of judicial confirmations for Obama’s whole first term.
By inauguration day 2021 Trump will likely have confirmed more judges in 4 years than Obama did in 8. Further there will be almost no vacancies. Trump’s successor will only be able to fill retirements.
It is highly unlikely that Trump’s trade deals are going to get walked back.
Democrats would have to have an incredible year in 2020 to reverse the tax changes.
Even then that is unlikely, it near certain would negatively impact the economy.
The BIG reason that the platform democratic candidates offer is not happening is democrats are not suicidal.
You may not get them to publicly admit it, but they understand why the financial crisis occurred, why growth sucked under Bush and Obama and why it is better under Trump.
They are going to try to do some reversals. It will take time, and they MIGHT succeed.
And their efforts and even success will be good for republicans – just as PPACA flipped 3,000 federal and state offices red.
You are not going to see M4A – because it can not be paid for and everyone knows it.
PPACA was an economic disaster, M4A does more damage in 1 year than PPACA does in a decade.
If democrats want to turn MA, CA, and NY red – then can pass M4A.
Trump’s reversals on climate have been symbolic.
Obama’s actions on climate have been symbolic.
Almost no country has done anything meaningful – because it fails and they know it.
Germany tried and ended up burning more not less fossil fuels.
California is self destructing over Climate nonsense.
Frankly CAGW (like Trump/Russia) has no credibility.
It is below the bottom in the list of things voters want.
But if democrats want another Trump to be elected – they should go for it on CAGW.
Republicans took over the house and Senate BECAUSE of the “successes” of democrats in the one year that Democrats controlled everything.
I am far less worried about democrats reversing Trump.
You are not hearing about illegal immigration right now – because it is down by 500%.
Do you think democrats can survive if they undo that ?
Nothing will get republicans elected faster than Democrats succeeding when they get power next.
What do you think will happen if a democrat is elected and the market drops, growth drops and unemployment rises ?
If Trump is defeated, and democrats rush in and reverse every policy of Trumps AND everything else stays the same – growth stays the same or improves, unemployment continues to improve, standard of living continues to rise, then none of this argument matters.
Socialism would be wonderful – if it works.
But it doesn’t. If you want Trump’s policies for purely intelectual reasons – everything is pointless.
If Warren can deliver M4a and free college and sustain 3% growth without spiking unemployment – then I am voting for Warren.
I do not fear Warren because what she promises will work, but because it wont.
As we become more prosperous it SLOWLY becomes possible (unfortunately) to afford more socialism.
Btu we would need a massive amount of growth to afford M4A or …. without significant negative consequences.
Dont get me wrong M4A etc are ALWAYS bad ideas. But they aappear less bad when the economy is strong enough to absorb them without blatantly obvious harm.
“You give Trump a C+ now. I give him a B, but an A in policy and F in presidential behavior.”
I am not going to quible with that.
” I support his deregulation, tax reforms, immigration policy, trade policy and most of his foreign policy. I do not support troops defending Syrian oil fields. I weight policy 75% and behavior 25%. And I place 80% of the deficit on congress because they do the budget and have done nothing to reduce cost. Just think what the deficit would be if interest rated were at historical averages.”
All this sounds like Trump has done VERY WELL in your estimation – better than any of the other Republicans likely would have. And that means Voters got it right on the whole.
If your standard is perfection No president will ever pass muster.
Everything you would like to see Trump do better at – so would I.
But what would be different about a Cruz, or Bush or Rubio or Paul presidency ?
I suspect we would still face massive outrage and press attacks and deep state interferance.
But at a level half way between what it was under Obama and what it is under Trump.
But we would not have seen the sudden outburst of civility.
I think we would have seen some of the policy accomplishments of Trump.
But not all of them. Maybe one or two might be done slightly better,
But the net would be similar to trump, but only about half as much accomplished – if that.
You give Trump a B. What is the last president you would give an A ?
Clinton ? Reagan ?
I suspect the only difference between are grading is grade inflation.
I am undecided on whether Trump is doing better than Clinton. I suspect in the end I am going to rate Trump better than Clinton – but we have to get all the way to the end first.
It is even possible – but unlikely that I will rate Trump better than Reagan.
He would have to get very serious about defict reduction in his 2nd term.
AND bring growth up to atleast 4% – one would likely lead to the other.
Regardless Trump is better than Obama and the Bushes.
And if you are giving Trump a B – why do you think voters made a bad choice ?
Do you think that Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Bush would have done better ? Sanders ? Clinton ?
The question is NOT does Trump have faults.
It is taking the good with the bad did voters make the right choice ?
I can not say with certainty.
But I can say the results do NOT support the ignorant voter thesis, or the duped voter thesis.
If you give Trump a B – you are giving those who elected him a B too.
Dave, I dont think the 35%-40% of the GOP voters in primaries that provided to support early to get Trump the momentum and locking out the money to others before super Tuesday got it right, I think they got lucky. Most of them were not voting for anything, they were voting against D.C. and would have voted for almost anyone with a name. They found it in a braggart and bully. That energized another group that rarely voted and that sent Trump forward.
Sometimes its better to be lucky than smart. Ask many voters, especially those under 40, anything about politics and they will just regurgitate the media talking points, Ask them a specific question why USMCA is good and they would flounder like a fish out of water.
I am not trying to argue details of primaries.
Though I would respond the same as the claims that just because Trump won the electoral college he did not win.
There are rules. You construct your strategy to conform to the rules.
I do not beleive the electoral college favors Trump, or the 2016 primaries structurally favor Trump.
I beleive that Trump set his campaign strategy to produce the best results with the rules as they were.
Could Trump have beaten Clinton in a straight popular vote contest ?
Maybe – but assume he couldnt, Trump’s strategy would have been different.
Would Trump have won with a different primary process ? Maybe not, but don’t assume.
Constantly we are told Trump is stupid. That is NOT the evidence. Trump sometimes says stupid things – though even their I am less sure that they are as stupid as I think.
I keep citing the 2 men running from the bear story. I think it is important.
Trump is NOT trying to be the most popular president ever.
He appears well aware that things that hurt him, often harm his opponents even more,
Getting through the process wounded is a victory when your opponent is dead.
Regardless, Trump was not my choice. I would have picked almost any other republican, and did vote for Johnson.
But as president I am less unhappy with Trump than Obama, or Bush, and Clinton and Bush.
Happy ? nope. But less unhappy is a good thing.
We do not live in a pure meritocracy. Nor do we well define merit.
Myriads of people who appear to be better educated and more intelligent by traditional measures, do not do as well in life as those slightly inferior to them.
Very very few people succeed based mostly on luck. No one succeeds multiple times based on luck.
As I said regarding the election – Clinton got several bad breaks – SO DID TRUMP.
Clinton also got several good breaks – SO DID TRUMP.
Luck would have been a factor if most of the breaks went one way or the other.
THEY DID NOT.
Absolutely a different mix of breaks would have changed the outcome.
But neither the left or the right are entitled to have most of the breaks go their way, and they usually don’t.
Trump beat Clinton (and the GOP field) because he was smarter than they were.
In the sense of Einstein ? No. In the sense of reading the tea leaves and understanding what was needed to win – absolutely.
Trump’s list of SCOTUS appointments was brilliant. It got him the votes of religious conservatives who were just not going to vote for a multiply divorced nearly athiestic, guy who dated porn stars. Or even if it did not win their votes is stopped them from openly opposing him.
Trump also from the start agressively targeted blue collar voters in the rust belt.
Everyone knew that is what he was doing.
And yet we discounted it and were shocked when it worked.
That was not “luck” that was knowing what you are doing.
Nor do I think that other posters here, or democrats understand how significant it is that Trump has kept his campaign promises.
Despite press three times as relentilessly bad as Obama’s – the previous high water mark.
Trump is STILL polling above Obama at this point in his presidency.
We have jay and other going “liar liar liar”
But what many voters see – is promises kept, improving standard of living, and that in the end over Trump/Russia – Trump was right, and those calling him a liar were wrong.
I did not expect this Faux impeachment post Mueller.
I really thought democrats would finally realize their credibility was shot, and try to figure out how to fix things. Not double down.
This is a losing fight and I beleive it will have a very high cost.
“That which does not kill me makes me stronger”
Nietsche
‘When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
Emerson
Blah blah blah.
Revisionist Barr bullshit.
After the Liar in Chief was inaugurated;
-Senate controlled by REPUBLICANS
-House controlled by REPUBLICANS
-SC investigation opened by Rosenstein, a REPUBLICAN
-SC was Mueller, a REPUBLICAN
So take your false revisionist history & shove it.
The Senate did not investigate Trump.
It investigated misconduct by DOJ/FBI
The House did not investigate Trump
Horrowitz did not investigate Trump
Mueller investigated Trump – and found nothing.
House democrats are actually making it worse.
I do not care what party Comey or Rosenstien are.
Or Page or Strzok, or Lynch, or Yates, or Brennan or Clapper or Carmiella or ……
All that matters is whether their conduct was justifiable.
Absolutely Trump’s remarks are more outrageous than many of those attacking him – though there are some pretty outrageous things that have been said about Trump AND anyone who does not join you in a full throated Trump condemnation.
But you get to voice your opinion on that in the election.
All those you listed – and many more.
Particularly those NOT elected, and part of the executive, regardless of party,
who ACTED (regardless or their more temperate words) to thwart the president,
are immoral, unethical, and probably illegal.
That is True whether we are dealing with Trump – or Obama.
I think that Flynn was correct regarding our intelligence agencies, and Iran, but he was too outspoken and he was at odds with Obama and he was FIRED over that.
And that was appropriate.
The president sets policy. If you work in the executive – follow or resign, then you can speak as you wish.
If you want to publicly criticize or privately thwart the president – any president from inside government – then get elected.
As revolting as I find Schiff – and numerous other elected democrats, They atleast have the legitimate authority to act in the way they are doing.
Barr’s remarks are about the obligations of unelected public servants.
They do not have anything to do with party, whether the conflict is over politics is not relevant.
The unelected bureacrats – regardless of party do not run the government
they do not decide our policies.
VOTERS DO – constrained by the constitution. And they do so through ELECTED representatives – including the president.
Why is it that you think the party affiliation of a person acting unethically, immorally and possibly criminally matters ?
I have attacked Rosenstien relentlessly. I do not think Rosenstein is politically motivated.
I think (much like James Comey, but less santimoniously) he thinks of himself as more moral than the rest of us. And to a large extent he actually is.
But he has no moral foundation, and absent that it is to easy to persuade yourself that good is evil or evil is good or that misconduct is necescary.
Regardless, Rosenstein debated wearing a wire on the president.
He did so in front of a large number of people, and some of them have testified, and though Rosenstien portrayed that as a joke – they all claim he was not joking.
Roger Stone was just convicted of “witness tampering” for his “jokes” with Randy Credico.
Credico ADMITS that HE is the one who introduced the mafiosa references to the exchange – not Stone. Credico testified that this was NORMAL joking that went on between him and Stone, and that he was not “threatened” in anyway.
And Yet Stone was convicted based on that “joke”.
There was also a circular firing squad going between Credico, Stone and Corsi first with each trying to claim to have the inside connections to Julian Assange and Wikileaks and then latter trying to finger the other as the link.
But the FACTS are that NONE of them had prior knowledge, none of them knew what Wikeleaks was up to before the press did.
They were all posturing. Mueller established that.
And yet we have an Obama Judge and a DC Jury convicting Roger Stone for not telling Congress that the three of them were all engaged in a dick measuring contest with each other over something that DID NOT HAPPEN ?
Since when do we send people to jail for not providing congress or prosecutors with false evidence ? Especially when the prosecutors already have that evidence and know it is bunk.
This is little different From Barr prosecuting Schiff for his fake version of the Trump phone call.
Yet, in left wing nut world – those you do not like – can not even tell jokes or engage in competivive banter in emails, and must provide congress not with the facts – but even with private false bravdo.
Nor is this nonsense confined to republicans.
Democrats who do not toe the line are similarly victimized.
On many issues Tulsi Gabbard is too far to the left for me.
But she is sane among current democratic presidential candidates.
She thinks Trump is a war monger – when most of the left thinks he is a coward.
And she understands that a country without secure borders is not a country.
And for this she is called – without any evidence a Russian asset.
We should all be falling off our stools laughing at those who spray this kind of nonsense.
But we are not – Hillary is suplimenting her “vast right wing conspiracy” – with a vast network of “russian assets” trying to thwart her.
Despite the fact that the one US politician most deeply in bed with and most indebted to Russians in Hillary.
But these nonsensical incongruities are beyond your ability to grasp for some reason.
Purportedly Robert Mueller and James Comey are/were Republicans
I do not care what party you are part of.
I do not care what party the president is part of.
If you seek to investigate ANYONE – the president, a candidate, or some person on the street, you MUST have reasonable suspicion to open an investigation, and probable cause to get a warrant. If you do not you are abusing your power.
Obama, Trump, Comey, ….
If you are unhappy with the presidents policy choices and you are part of the executive branch – whether you are James Comey or Yavonovitch.
You can resign or you can impliment the presidents policies.
Even if the president asks you to do something illegal, or unconstitutional – you must resign.
Every member of the executive is not empowered to set government policy as they please.
Do the job or resign.
If you wish to #resist – resign, speak out, run for elected office.
The word “republican” does not appear anywhere in Priscilla’s comment.
It does not appear in the extract from Barr’s speech she quoted,
I would bet it does not appear in Barr’s speach.
The only “revisionist history” is yours.
While there are sometimes patterns to misconduct that follow party,
conduct is immoral – regardless of party
conduct is unethical – regardless of party
conduct is illegal – regardless of party.
Jay, although Trump is popular with Republican voters, I don’t believe that he is very popular with Republican politicians or bureaucrats, so I don’t think that your point is well-taken.
In any case, Bill Barr was the AG for Bush 41, and has said that he returned to public life, because he believes that there needs to be a return to constitutional governance. In other words, he is a patriot who may or may not like the President, but he can see that things are pretty f’ed up right now, and that someone needs to try and clean things up.
What history has he “revised”? Are you saying that there is no “Resistance,” and that Trump’s enemies have not tried to sabotage his administration??
So apparently Schiff is now making new rules up as he goes.
Schiff yeilded 45 minutes of time to Nunes as he was required to do.
After using a minute or so, Nunes yeilded time to Rep. Stefanick to question the witness.
Schiff immeidately interrupted and refused to allow Stefanick to question Yavonovitch, claiming that only the ranking member or the House Counsel was allowed to question the witness.
That is false and a violation of centuries old house rules.
Most of us have watched house hearings and seen ranking members or any other member yeild their time to other members.
While the majority and the minority each only get fixed amounts of time in a hearing – and there are always lots of questions about the clock.
Both the majority and the minority are permitted to use that time as they please.
Schiff seems terrified of Stefanik, I assume because she is a millennial woman, and, according to the Democrats, no millennial women support Trump. She also happens to be a smart, focused questioner, who identifies contradictions in witness testimony.
So, Schiff will do anything necessary, including changing committee rules on the fly, to make sure that this sharp young woman can’t ruin his precious little Schiff Show. Unfortunately for him, she has been able to do so, despite his autocratic, arbitrary rules.
The problem that I think the Democrats have is that they are trying to impeach Trump based on who he is, rather than what he has done. This has been their argument against Trump from the start…that he is unfit for the presidency because he’s a jerk, or because he has been an unfaithful spouse, or because of any number of personality- related issues….
And, all of those things could be true, but most Americans understand that a president should not be impeached for being an inarticulate jackass. Anyone who finds him to be intolerable can simply vote for the Democrat, or some other candidate, in 2020 ~ less than a year away.
I can only assume that the Democrats don’t have confidence that they can defeat him in a fair election, so they would prefer to take him out now, or at least try to bring down his approval numbers, by having these nonsense hearings.
There are rules, there is law, there is the constuttion.
But ultimately ALL of these rest on a foundation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”
Possibly the most important expression of western liberalism ever made.
The rights of the individual are the foundation of society and protecting them is the CORE responsibility of government.
If the constitution fails to do that – the constitution is wrong.
If the law fails to do that – the law is wrong.
If the rules fail to do that – the rules are wrong.
If the government fails to do that – “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”
Schiff and house democrats can do whatever they wish.
When they fail to respect individual rights – whether those of Stefanik or Trump – or even the rights of actual nazi’s, they lose moral authority, and they lose the power to govern.
I have no wish to save democrats from themselves.
Schiff can continue this farce as long as he wants.
It is not Trump that is being undermined.
“You’re the Enemy.”
Jay, I have to hand it to you…you do not try and sugar-coat your anti-Trump extremism.
So, anyone who voted for, or plans to vote for, Trump is the enemy? We’re talking 68,000,000 people at a minimum. Maybe more now, maybe not. It’s hard to tell, but let’s roughly say that, of the voting public, it’s roughly half. Maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less.
First of all, you are being hyperbolic and incendiary. You are claiming that friends and neighbors are “enemies”, just because they support a candidate you personally detest.
Losing an election, at least in democratic republic, should be a temporary disappointment, not a pre-condition for civil war. Do you want to see Donald Trump, along with his family and supporters, hung in the public square? How about lined up and guillotined? Forced into labor camps? Maybe kept alive and harvested for their internal organs, as the Chinese do with the Uighers?
All because the Democrats don’t believe that they can put forth a candidate who can beat Trump?
“So, anyone who voted for, or plans to vote for, Trump is the enemy? ”
No, anyone who does not knee jerk condemn absolutely everything even vaguely Trump related – is the enemy.
Nor is that all – Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein , certainly no Trump supporters – are the enemy.
Anyone that can be perceived in anyway to thwart whatever the left’s political objectives of the moment are is “the enemy”
Disagreement with the left over an issue is not merely error – whether the disagreement is over fact or even just oppinion, disagreement is EVIL.
It is not 68M Trump voters that Jay is slurring it is 75% of the country.
It is everyone who is not foaming and frothing over whater has piqued his outrage at the moment.
I do not think Jay is ideologically all that far left.
But he has absolutely adopted the strategy and tactics of the most extreme left.
And what really drives Jay and the left bonkers is that Trump has SUCCESSFULLY done pretty much the same thing. He is using the strategy of the left against it.
Though Trump is quite openly much more tongue in cheek about it.
Trump will call Kim Un “rocket man” until progress is being made, then suddenly he becomes a “wise leader”.
DACA is going to SCOTUS – but Trump has made it clear from the start that he does not want to see DACA go. He is fully prepared to sit down with democrats to provide REAL legal protection for “dreamers” – but he expects that DACA will be PART of broader immigration reform – including better border securtiy and a wall.
Obama could have gotten a deal on DACA anytime during his presidency.
Trump has been ready to deal on DACA from day one.
It is only the left that is unwilling to compromise.
Worse still the left does not give a shit about “dreamers”.
The objective of the left is NOT to fix problems in our immigration laws.
It is to NOT address the problems so that immigration remains a political weapon, where they can paint opponents as heartless.
Democrats inability to “beat Trump”. Is actually an ideological flaw within the current democratic party.
I keep telling people that the conflicts in the GOP are NOT a civil war. Republicans avoided a civil war. In the late 20th century the “social conservatives” held the GOP hostage – much like the extreme left is doing to democrats. You could not get through a GOP primary without taking positions that would make social conservatives happy and make you unelectable int he general election.
SOME republicans like Reagan and Bush I negotiated that successfully.
Most did not. Regardless democrats mostly successfully weaponized (as they should) the GOP’s problem with its far right flank.
But in the 21st century social conservatism has collapsed.
Social conservatives have lost the “culture war” horribly.
So badly that they are defending against a ludicrously stupid backlash.
Regardless, Trump could not have won a GOP primary until recently because he could not get past social conservatives.
The Tea Party during the Obama administration was a reflection of the re-alignment of the GOP. A power shift among numerous GOP factions.
A waning of social conservatives and a rise of fiscal conservatives and to a lessor extent libertarian republicans.
The “freedom Caucus” not the “moral majority” is the power within the GOP.
Yes often that is the same people. BUT it is NOT the same policies.
Trump is NOT a Tea Party Republican, But he was able to synthesize a GOP platform that included most republicans offended few, and appeal to a voiceless block of democrats.
Trump ran on something close to a modern version of Pat Buchanon’s platform from the 80’s
What Bannon is calling economic nationalism.
Enough of republicans – aside from NeoCons who are migrating back to the democratic party – good riddance, Trump has unified Republicans – or atleast minimized their internal conflicts sufficiently to win elections.
At the Same Time democrats are doing the opposite.
It should be obvious at the moment that you can not get through the democratic party without appealing to the far left – the democrats version of “the moral majority”.
And if you get their support – you have no chance with 75% of the country.
Biden is still alive as a candidate because there are enough democrats who grasp that running Bernie or Warren is going to be Mondale or McGovern all over again.
Biden needs to fade – because he can no longer win either the parties nomination or against Trump, and if democrats want any hope of not losing to Trump embarrassingly badly in 2020, they need a replacement for Biden – and that is not Warren or Sanders, and they need to resolve that quickly. I am not sure who the Biden replacement would be – but unless they get in soon, and Biden drops out soon – they have no chance. So long as Biden owns most of the more “moderate” democrat votes, Warren or Sanders or someone like them will win – and then lose badly.
But my point is not especially about the specific candidates.
It is that democrats are being held hostage by their far left wing – much as Republicans were in the late 20th century. Except the democrats problem is possibly worse.
Both parties have a version of the same problem – they need a candidate that appeals to the party base – which is not that close to the center of the country (though today the republican base is closer to center than the democrats base) AND they need to be able to shift to the center for the general election WITHOUT alienating the party base that they MUST have to win the general.
Neither party can win a national election without getting out their base – not moderates, in very large numbers. AND neither party can win unless they can peel off enough votes from the center.
BOTH parties LOSE votes on their extreme flank as they move towards the center.
BOTH parties have to find the off center position that maximizes their vote count relative to the dynamics in the other party. Today that problem is much worse for democrats.
The current “strategy” of democrats is to have a candidate that appeals to their left wing and count on amplified anti-trump outrage to buy votes near the center – or atleast get Trump leaning centrists to stay home.
The long term problem the GOP has is that a substantial portion of Trump voters are just excatly that – TRUMP VOTERS. They are NOT republicans. I beleive there are supposed to be 9M Trump voters in 2016 – that is 1:7 that have not voted before, or if they did voted democrat.
Those people are for TRUMP, not the GOP. The next GOP candidate – Cruz, Rubio, Bush, … is going to have to figure out how to hold those voters.
Regardless. Trump has either transformed the GOP for a long time to come, and atleast partly in some ways I do not like. Or the GOP is going to be in trouble without Trump.
Conversely Democrats have a problem because the next Republican candidate – will not be Trump. The attacks that have somewhat worked against Trump are already diminishing in effectiveness.
Democrats have cried wolf far far far too much.
Trump is not a Wolf, He is not a nazi, or a racist or a homophobe or a hatefull hating hater.
Atleast not any more than the average american is
And the left has lost the understanding that you MAY be able to successfully smear a candidate, but when you move to smearing most of the electorate, you are screwed.
“So, anyone who voted for, or plans to vote for, Trump is the enemy?”
Anyone who continues to support and plans to vote for Trump is the enemy.
Many who voted for him now express remorse. Like TeaParty Conservative Joe Walsh, yesterday:
“ I say it again, because I think it’s important to say it often: I apologize for helping to put Donald Trump in the White House. I apologize for the role I played in putting a pathological liar, a malignant narcissist, & a wanna-be dictator in the White House….I’m truly sorry.”
Walsh is accurate in his assessment. Those, like you, who continue to support this malignant cancer on the nation are the ENEMY in the same way Southerners who supported the war with the north were enemies of America, and had to be neutralized.
The stakes are just as high now. Divisive Donald is responsible for ratcheting up the anger now engulfing the nation. He’s the main irritant, dangerously lowering civility of discourse across the board, destroying bipartisanship within crucial government agencies, politicizing it with appointment and insult. When in your lifetime have members of the CIA, FBI, DOJ, State Department, Military been driven to such OUTSPOKEN criticism of a US President, such public complaint about presidential ineptness. When in American history has a President been as boorishly insulting of those same US agencies, and of people working for them — never!
Yes- you are the enemy, enabling a low life like Trump to remain in power. Shame on you.
Jay “When in American history has a President been as boorishly insulting of those same US agencies, and of people working for them — never!”
The difference today from years ago is the 24/7/365 communication we have as well as the internet.
You may call me nuts, but i firmly believe that the spook agencies did in JFK since he was not supporting them for a number of reasons. Oswalt was not working alone, nor was the one who shot Oswalt. I believe he was shot since they believed him to be the weak link in the assassination team. So in my belief, there was at least one time earlier that the spook agencies had had enough of a president they did not support. In this case, assassinations are much more difficult, so creating other methods to eliminate the threat are required.
But anyone that believes the country is not divided equally by both the left and right only needs to read your comments hear and your name calling and boorish comments about anyone who does not toe the left wingliberal agenda led by Pelosi.
Ron, I’m not a liberal lefty anymore than Roby is one.
I’m a Centrist Never Trump voter.
But I’d vote for Karl Marx to get rid of this scumbag.
Even if it’s a fuck-head progressive like Warren, she can’t do 1/10th the damage to the nation Trump has already done.
Get with the program.
Eliminate Douche Bag Donnie.
If the Dems elect a dummy, we can gag, and gang up on her/him for one term. Then elect someone better in 2024.
And if you refuse to voteAGAINST Trump, youre a grumpy stubborn old fart who deserves a miserable future.
“Ron, I’m not a liberal lefty anymore than Roby is one.
I’m a Centrist Never Trump voter.”
It has been sol long since you have posted a fact, logic or an argument that I think all of us are entirely clueless of your ideology – short of your deep Trump Derangement Syndrome.
“But I’d vote for Karl Marx to get rid of this scumbag.”
I am sure you would, and unfortunately many others would too.
And all that means is that you are completely clueless.
I know that was just hyperbole – but still READ MARX.
He is not a good person. He IS everything bad you think about Trump.
Regardless I have no doubt you would put the country into a recession, a depression or a war to “get Trump” – by any means necescary.
You can not even articulate – using FACTS what is wrong with Trump.
Has he F’d up the economy ?
Has he started numerous wars ?
I have LOTS of problems with Trump,
As I have said many times he is a C+ president.
At a time in which we have had a string of D presidents.
And your idea of what we should do is elect someone who if taken seriously would be an F- president and hope that they are only a D ?
“Even if it’s a fuck-head progressive like Warren, she can’t do 1/10th the damage to the nation Trump has already done.”
What actual damage has Trump done ?
You do not get this – it is people like YOU who have bitterly divided the country – NOT TRUMP. I have little idea what your personal politics are – but your methods are right out of Alynsky or Antifa. And those are WRONG – EVIL completely independent of ideology.
This impeachment farce we are watching – or mostly not watching, is a plea for help from the idiots on the left. A hail marry. A desparate hope that somehow Schiff is going to come up with a tape of Trump saying “Putin – here are the US nuclear codes”
Because you have nothing. All that is left is the desparate hope that there MUST be something there.
It is beyond your ability to admit that you have been wrong.
That Trump did NOT colliude with Russia, that Russia had ZERO consequential effect on the election. That actually blackmailing Ukraine to investigate Biden would not merely be legal it is fully justified by the facts that we know.
It is possible that the Biden’s are innocent.
It is more likely that they are corrupt but unprosecutable.
But it is NOT rational to conclude they are immune from investigation.
There is no “only republicans or Trump can be investigated” clause in the constitution.
“Get with the program.
Eliminate Douche Bag Donnie.”
“My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Is Trump the right person to do that ? Not a chance.
Is he the best choice among republicans and democrats ? Absolutely.
“if the Dems elect a dummy, we can gag, and gang up on her/him for one term.”
Yes, we know – you would be happy to return to the Obama years,
More wars, failing M4A to replace the failing PPACA. higher taxes, lower growth higher unemployment, especially worse conditions for minorities.
The return of the egregiously stupid “waters of america” nonsense.
Imposing more of the idiocy in California on the country as a whole.
You would be happy to make everyone miserable, just so you would not have to read another Trump Tweet.
“Then elect someone better in 2024.
And if you refuse to voteAGAINST Trump, youre a grumpy stubborn old fart who deserves a miserable future.”
So not voting for a more miserable future makes you deserve a more miserable future ?
The incivility of out founding fathers was FAR MORE BITTER than today.
So no the answer is NOT never.
Andrew Johnson was impeeched for firing a member of his own cabinet.
Jay is as usual ignorant of history.
The country is divided – it is NOT divided equally
An enormous number of us – Just want to be left alone.
That is what we ask for of govenrment
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Adam Smith
THAT is what we want.
Guess what – we have the RIGHT to that.
Those who seek to “thwart this natural course” to “force things into another channel” who seek to reshape society BY FORCE through government – those are OPRESSICE AND TYRANICAL.
Smith had no knowledge of Jay or the left.
He was not thinking about Trump but of his own times and circumstances.
Nothing has changed.
Those who want government to do more than it may do morally are “oppressive and tyranical” – it is THEY who divide us.
I do not want screwed by govenrment – whether it is labeled right, left or BIPARTISAN.
I want govenrment to LEAVE US ALONE.
I am in a war not of my own choosing, whit those – posters here, and the left and democrats and even sometimes republicans, who are sure that more action by government will bring about utopia.
I would prefer this conflict was conducted civily – with facts, logic reason.
That appears impossible.
I would prefer that it was atleast conducted with words.
If one side will not use fact, logic, reason – the other is not going to do so for long.
Fallacies are error – but they are both seductive and effective.
And I am not going to get bent out of shape because Trump behaves like that on the left.
But it is increasingly likely that things will get worse.
Some democrats openly speculate that Trump will do something really stupid if he loses the election.
The worst thing Trump is likely to do ask ask for a recount in close states.
I am more worried about what happens when Trump wins – especially when he wins “biggly”.
We are in the midst of a 4 years long hissy fit from the left that has periodically been violent.
Violence is likely coming. I think it has already started.
People will not tolerate violence very long.
They will look to someone strong to keep order.
That is how we got Nixon.
Jay, as Roby has said to me many times, we live in different political universes. Although, I would guess that even Roby does not consider me an enemy of the state! But, whatever, you are entitled to your opinion, fact-free as it may be….
But, you have decided, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, that a free and fair constitutional election should be overturned by career bureaucrats and certain members of the intelligence community, who do not agree with the president’s agenda, and who almost certainly were plotting to overthrow him, from even before his inauguration. This includes James Clapper, who perjured himself to Congress regarding NSA surveillance of American citizens, James Brennan, a former card-carrying member of the Communist Party, who lied about spying on members of the US Senate, and, of course, James Comey, who conspired with both of these clowns (and probably Obama) to spy on and lie to Trump.
So spare me, Jay, if I don’t have the respect for these guys that you apparently do. The rank and file of the FBI and CIA may include great people, but their leadership thinks that they answer to no one but themselves.
I suppose you consider, Michael Flynn, a 3- star combat general, who was an assistant director of national intelligence , the director of intelligence for CentCom, and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama, an enemy of the state?
What is your opinon of J. Edgar Hoover? Great guy, because he headed the FBI?
I think that you have allowed yourself to be completely brainwashed by anti-Trump propaganda. I don’t fault you for considering Trump a less than honorable guy, because he has said and done some less than honorable and ethical things in his lifetime. As Ron has said, he would not invite him into his home for dinner. And I often find his behavior to be undistinquished, and occaisionally boorish.
But I have seen nothing from Trump as president that begins to compare to the dishonest, unethical, and outright illegal behavior of his political enemies.
You have done a good job demonstrating the dangerous and biased nature of these “career public servants” on the left.
But this is NOT a new problem – and all of these “deep staters” are not on “the left”.
Frankly I am not all that sure they are that partisan.
In local politics NO PARTY bucks the police. Democrats, Republicans alike.
NO ONE is going to run on policiing the police.
Our police are a political force unto themselves.
They are not democrat or republican.
They are the party of the police. And you do not mess with them.
We have the same thing in the federal government.
Iran has been a mess for a very long time.
In semi-modern times we can blame the british.
In fact we can blame the british for Forking up the entire mideast.
But we can not escape the fact that a US led coup against an elected democratic government resulted in total disaster.
Was the CIA left ? Right ? I do not know. I do know that they were WRONG.
Or vietnam, or vietnam, or vietnam, or vietnam – forget our military – which certainly had its problems. the DOD, the CIA the foriegn service fracked up vietnam over and over and over by the numbers.
Where were these career government people when the iron curtain collapsed ?
Tienamen square ? 9/11 ? Sadam and WMD’s ?
Where was Mueller on Richard Jewel or the Anthrax letters ?
What of Ruby Ridge or Wacco ?
The list of FAILURES of these people – the Yavonovich’s the Taylor’s the kents, the William’s, the Brenan’s the Clapper’s is near infinite.
Nor does party matter,
Was Dick Chenney’s policies for the mid east what we needed ?
I can fill millions of pages with evidence of govenrment failure.
I do not care if you are on the right or the left.
A career in government service is NOT something that should confer a sense of nobility, integrity or trust.
These people have forked up over and over, without respect to party LONG BEFORE TRUMP.
DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!!!!
Still selling Joe Walsh ?
I guess if Jack the Ripper claimed to be a republican and was anti-trump you would be for him.
regardless, by defining enemy as you have – YOU have CHOSEN to make everyone who disagrees with you about pretty much anything – the enemy.
When you can not figure out how to disagree with someone without slurring and insulting and without labeling them as an enemy YOU are the problem.
Words do have meaning.
Enemies are people that we feel justified in using violence against.
By labeling someone an enemy, that is a preliminary to using force – violence against them.
It is also a warning to them to be prepared to be attecked with violence rather than words.
Re-elected Trump is not even slightly dangerous. We all know exactly what we will get.
We might not like some or all of that – but the nation will survive – even thrive.
Electing Biden will probably not be dangerous so long as he does one thing radically different from Trump – so long as he DOES NOT keep his campaign promises.
If any of the democrats actually win the election especially if democrats once again have the situation they had in 2009 with complete control of the federal government,
Just as in 2009 – except more so THEN we are in danger.
PPACA was an expensive mess. Pretty much everyone is griping about healthcare.
That would have some meaning if we have not just gone through a massive expansion of government intrusion in healthcare. But we have.
The left wants to reward failure with MORE and BIGGER failure.
The odds are against democrats actually doing much of what they promise.
And that is a very good thing.
At the same time, it is near certain that any democrat – including Biden will result in government being an increasing drag on our standard of living.
Maybe it will only drag us back down to 1.8% average growth.
But to people who do not have massive disposable income – that is a BIG DEAL.
So yes “the stakes are high”.
And Trump for all his flaws is your best shot at avoiding disaster – or atleast not increasing the oportunities for disaster.
Trump could do much better, but there is not a democrat running who is not highly likely to do much worse.
“Divisive Donald is responsible for ratcheting up the anger now engulfing the nation.”
Anger you created – long before Trump.
“He’s the main irritant”
No he is the lymphocyte attacking the infection – the left.
“dangerously lowering civility of discourse across the board”
The danger for the past two decades atleast is from the left.
The incivility is from the left.
It is people like you who have been running arround calling everyone who disagrees with you a “hateful hating hater” for decades.
Trump is a reaction to that – not a cause.
Once in a while Trump mutters about silencing others.
Only rarely and despite actually having power he never does anything.
The left actively shuts people down all the time.
Even you here want to silence everyone who disagrees with you.
You do not have to make a credible argument if you can just silence anyone who disagrees.
“destroying bipartisanship within crucial government agencies”
The job of government agencies is not to be BIPARTISAN, it is to be NONPARTISAN.
Trump has brought out into the sunlight the FACT that they are not even close to non-partisan.
We do not have Trump acolytes tweeting anti-warren texts and plots to leak classified information and to thwart her by any means necescary on their government issue phones.
“politicizing it with appointment and insult.”
Presidential appointees have ALWAYS been political – they are expected to be.
There are even fairly well developed laws regarding exactly how political appointees can be in different positions. There is as an example NO LAW restricting the political activity of the president (and Vice President), While Congressmen can conduct political activities but NOT from their offices, Inside the whitehouse there is a political staff – Conway or Poulffe or Rove as an example, and a non-political staff such as the NSA. And different rules for each.
“When in your lifetime have members of the CIA, FBI, DOJ, State Department, Military been driven to such OUTSPOKEN criticism of a US President, such public complaint about presidential ineptness. When in American history has a President been as boorishly insulting of those same US agencies, and of people working for them — never!”
Absolutely agreed, and they all should be fired.
If you are a member of the executive branch of government – you follow the directions of your supperiors – including the president. When asked – and Trump has allowed for lots of relatively closed door criticism, you are free to offer your oppinion, your advice your recomendations. But once decisions are made – you impliment them.
If you can not you resign. If you can not for legal or constitutional reasons, you resign and speak out – what you may not do is undermine the decisions of the president or your superiors.
That is not merely true of the executive branch of govenrment – it is true of every branch of govenrment and government at every level as well as private employment.
You are NEVER free to thwart the will of those with legitimate authority – and Trump is the pinacle of legitimate authority in the executive branch.
If you do not like that – you change it through elections. Not through #resistance, insubordination etc.
BTW I would note that nearly EVERYONE of those “carreer government employees” that is actively thwarting Trump has said that Trump is doing BETTER than Obama on every issue.
Taylor, Kent, even Yavonovich, have all TESTIFIED that Trump’s ukrainian policy (and/or other policies) are better than Obama’s.
Mattis’s book bitterly attack Bush and Obama and is only mildly critical of Trump.
While that is NOT the standard. It is not the consensus of career government employees that determines US government policy. It is our elected officials implimenting the policies that VOTERS directed them to do.
Lincoln did not say
government of the people, by the career government employees, for career government employees”
The phrase is “public servant” not public master.
This is not Xi’s china.
“Absolutely Democrats are TRYING to appeal to Trump voters in those swing states. BUT they do not know how.”
Bingo.
Most swing state voters, no matter how they may personally dislike the President, recognize that he is trying to get Congress to enact his agenda, he has not assumed dictatorial powers, he has not behaved, or threatened to behave, in an unconstitutional manner, and he has been reasonably successful, especially given the intensity and relentlessness of the Resistance.
So, given a choice between Trump and a far left candidate who promises government controlled healthcare, the end of private insurance, confiscation of firearms, the abolition of border enforcement, etc they’ll either hold their noses and vote for Trump again, or they won’t vote at all.
An awful lot of those “swing state” voters – especially the “blue collar democrats” that were not voting that Trump got to vote Republican actually do LIKE Trump.
And they like him specifically because he stands up to the people who have been calling THEM Racist, homophobic, mysoginist Nazi’s.
It is really really weird, But Trump is a billionare with an awful lot of the tastes and values of some very working class people.
Biden has some strong appeal to working class people – he can somewhat pull off being “one of them”. Bloomberg can not, Clinton can not, No one else on the democratic stage can.
They are NOT the majority of voters, but they ARE the reason that 3 swing states flipped and nearly a 4th. And again – these voters LIKE Trump. They really think he is one of them.
And very oddly I think he actually is “one of them”. Trump maybe ridiculously rich but he lives like a blue collar worked who won the lottery – I mean gold toilets ? Really ?
Voters who “like Trump” do not make up the majority of voters, or of Trump voters.
But they DO make up the difference between winning and losing swing states.
Trump’s “biggest” threat is the erosion of his already weak support among soccer moms.
He can afford these voters to sit out the election. He can not afford to have them vote for a democrat.
I do not grasp the “Authoritarian Trump” nonsense.
Trump is agressive, he pushes HARD but despite the ranting of democrats – he DOES NOT go outside the law., He does not overstep his actual authority.
In the instances where he does more than I think the law or constitution allows he is still well inside the bounds of past common presidential actions. He does NOT rule by the pen and the phone.
BTW this does not surprise me even a little. It is a natural consequence of being successful at business. Just as keeping commitments is critical to business.
Jay, Robby, even Ron do not understand this, but Business, particularly small business, and though Trump Enterprises is not small it is still a “family business”. may dance arround in gray areas, but they are mostly very good at avoiding actual criminal conduct.
They do not LIKE the law as it is, but they follow it – going as grey as they think their lawyers can protect them but no further. They are intuitively good at that. Just as they intuitively understand what promises they make that the MUST keep.
What he HAS done is undo the lawless actions of prior presidents wherever possible.
We are fighting in the court over DACA right now.
Trump is not opposed to DACA. But he is opposed to it as a unilateral presidential act. Lower courts have ruled DACA unconstitutional. Lower courts have also ruled that Trump can not undo the unconstitutional executive action of a prior president – which is Bull Pucky.
SCOTUS will have to sort it out.
If they bless DACA they will have vastly empowered the president to go arround congress AND made the policies of one president have the force of PERMANENT LAW.
That is really bad.
I am concerned because of Roberts idiotic position on the census.
The legitimacy of the acts of the executive are what matters – are they within the powers of the executive by law or constitution or not. Inquiry into motives of non-criminal actions have almost no place in law. They are certainly completely outside the domain of judges.
Roberts assertion that Wilbur Ross did not provide a reason that Roberts beleived is horse shit. ROSS’s personal motive are irrelevant. His constitutional and legal authority is al that matters.
But then we are dealing with the same nonsense over the Ukraine.
The fact that Trump might politically benefit is irrelevant.
Presidents and parties politically benefit or are harmed by EVERYTHING they do. That is the point.
Roberts “got it” regarding Gerrymandering. Absolutely the party in power is going to game the system to the extent possible. But it is not the business of the courts to interfere, to judge motives. The only part he got wrong is that it is not the domain of State courts either.
State courts can decide about Gerrymandering in non-federal elected offices.
But federal elections are the domain of: The state legislature, and the US Congress.
Not state courts, not state constitutiuons, not state governors. If you do not like that CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION
Robby, and the whole left and most democrats have told us that PPACA was wonderful, that it is not ludicrously expensive and that it has worked well for millions of people.
So why after such a short period of time are most democrats looking to throw it out ?
We were told that Republicans can not get rid of PPACA because voters love it.
Then why are Democrats trying to get rid of it ?
Why is it not MORE legitimate to get rid of PPACA and went back to the prior mess that for all its many faults worked better ?
Why is the only permissible direction for change to more government control and ever greater failure ?
President Blubbering Idiot at it again, attacking another female govt official:
He just attacked Jennifer Williams, an aide to VP Pence and career foreign service officer who was testifying before the Impeachment Committee (more witness tampering by Divisive Donnie?) calling her another Never Trumper out to get him, without any evidence of that.
What are the odds of the VP defending her against the charge: somewhere between zero and one?
“Trump tweeted Sunday that Williams (“whoever that is,” he said) should read the transcripts of both his calls with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, referring to the now-infamous July 25 call as well as the April 21 call. The White House released a summary of the April 21 call on Friday. “Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!” Trump added.”
Sounds like extremely appropriate criticism to me.
I personally do not care whether there was “linkage” between Ukrainian aide and the long list of investigations Trump was after.
That said, to date NO ONE has testified to direct knowledge of “linkage”.
Which is really really odd. Because you can not have linkage without being direct.
If Trump “obliquely” related aide to investigating corruption – that is NOT linkage.
Absolutely Trump sought investigations into corruption in Ukraine.
I WANT investigations into corruption in Ukraine.
Ukraine is GROUND ZERO for the whole Trump/Russia collusion nonsense.
Ukraine was Putin’s puppet prior to Hillaries Ukrainian coup, and subsequently became Hillary/Biden/Obama’s puppet.
YES that should be investigated.
I and I am fully prepared to deny Ukraine aide in order to get that.
I am not sure how we ensure that Ukraine non-corruptly inverstigates its own corruption.
We are talking about one of the most corrupt places in the world.
Just because they were Putin’s bitches in the past and Hillary/Biden/Obama’s bitches more recently, does not mean I think they should become Trump’s bitch.
I want honest answers. I do not know how to get those in the Ukraine.
But I know that we do not get those by burying our heads in the sand.
As to Jennifer Williams’s
I do not give a shit about her oppinion of what is appropriate.
Something is not immoral, illegal, or unusual because someone testifies that it is.
I want to know the FACTS, not the feelings, or oppinions of witnesses.
Thus far Schiff has ZERO facts, and is even doing poorly on the feelings and oppinions front.
Williams (and all these witnesses) should confine their testimony to what they know DIRECTY. Not their oppinions.
None of this would be admissible in court – because contra Adam Schiff it is NOT evidence.
It is just an educated form of GOSIP.
FACTS, LOGIC, REASON.
Not feelings, and oppinions. Witnesses are supposed to keep those to themselves
“ Sounds like extremely appropriate criticism to me.”
Does it? Not surprising from a Trump Cult Stooge.
What evidence is there any of those he mentioned are or were ever Never Trumpers?
Specifically the woman witness he was trying to demean -she’s a Pence hire, who was vetted by GOP employees of the VP.
Trump’s an evil lump of excretion; keep defending him; it’s your right to contaminate yourself in his effulgence; you’re doing an excellent job of it.
“ Sounds like extremely appropriate criticism to me.”
>Does it?
Yes
>Not surprising from a Trump Cult Stooge.
More insults rather than arguments.
>What evidence is there any of those he mentioned are or were ever Never Trumpers?
You see never Trumpers everywhere in government – why can’t Trump ?
Why is it you never have to prove anything,
but everyone else most prove everything ?
Would it be a “lie” if Trump did not quite perfectly characterize Williams ?
Is everything that does not suit you a lie ?
I have no idea what Williams politics are – I do know that there is not yet evidence of a meaningful connection to Pence. There is nothing to indicate she is fundimentally different from Vindman or Ciaremello.
I do not personally feel a need to attack. But she should resign. If she is unwilling to support the foreign policy of the elected president – she does not belong in the executive branch.
She can go to work for Adam Schiff, where she can publicly rant through the loudest megaphone she wants whatever concerns her.
>Specifically the woman witness he was trying to demean -she’s a Pence hire, who was >vetted by GOP employees of the VP.
I have not seen evidence of that. What I have seen is that she is another IC officer on loan to the NSC, that she is tied to Pence – in the same way Vindman and Ciarmello are tied to Trump. I do not think Trump has some responsibility to defend Vindman or Ciaremello.
>Trump’s an evil lump of excretion;
More slurs, no evidence, no facts.
> keep defending him; it’s your right to contaminate yourself in his effulgence; you’re doing an excellent job of it.
Jay, you burned your own credibility long ago.
You wonder why this is going nowhere – because no one beleives you.
And with good reason. Not because of something I said or did, or Trump said or did,
but because of your own words and actions.
Rep. Jordan keeps stressing that none of these witnesses has first hand knowledge of anything.
But there is much more they share in common.
I beleive EVERY SINGLE ONE has claimed that the Biden mess in Ukraine was disturbing.
George Kent agreed, and said that the US SHOULD ask Ukraine to investigate corruption in the Ukraine involving americans, and that it definitely had occured – though aside from noting that the Burisma mess stunk – BTW pretty much everyone knows that Burisma is corrupt – and BTW tied to RUSSIA.
None of the witnesses delivered a full throated defense of Trump.
But they all actually defended his policies – in the Ukraine and elsewhere.
Kim Un just called Biden a “rabid god” and Trump said that was wrong.
Interesting – because you are deluded just as Kim Un is – you see rabid dogs where there are none.
I am trying to figure out who Jennifer williams actually is – because I neither Trust you or the press.
As best I can tell she is a member of the NSC – just like Eric Carmielo – and we know who he is.
She is an aide to VP Pence in the same sense as Eric Carmielo was an aide to Trump – Trump likely never heard of him until recently.
I have no evidence at this point that Williams has any consequential relationship to Pence.
Other than being one of hundreds that are on his staff rather than Trump’s.
I do not expect Pence to defend someone he does not know.
Beyond that – as best as I can tell Williams provided no factually useful testimony, and I have no problem firing her for testifying to oppinions on policy that differ from the presidents.
If she is an ACTUAL aide to VP Pence – then she is trivial to fire.
If she is just another of these deep staters assigned from CIA, NSA, DOD to the white house, then it is harder to fire her – though she still was obligated to testify to FACTS not oppinions,
regardless she should be sent back where she came from.
Overally she is a reflection of the problem of the “deep state”.
Regardless, Williams knew what she was doing.
If you work for the president and you go public with differences of oppinon over what is apprioriate POLICY, then you should not expect to keep your job long.
Trump should have tweeted “Your Fired”
I have said for a long long long time – Trump needs to fire a significant portion of the whitehouse atleast.
One way of getting people to conform their behavior to the actual rules, is to assure that they are afraid of being fired.
There is a place for dissent in the executive branch – it is behind closed doors.
Executive priviledge exists so that the presidents advisors can tell him what they think – even stupid and possibly illegal ideas, without any retribution beyond possibly being fired.
What executive privildge means is that neither congress nor anyone else can investigate what is SAID behind closed doors in the whitehouse.
ONLY the ACTIONS of the president and his staff are subject to congressional oversight.
Ron: Trump at work today
Jay 😂😂😂😂. .I bet I could find a tweet to place in each hole also!
Good cartoon,
Almost accurate.
What immediately came to my mind was exactly the same cartoon – except Trump is standing on Biden/Pelosi/Schiff’s chest.
He is shooting himself in the foot – absolutely.
But he is shooting them in the heart.
There are two people in a wood, and they run into a bear. The first person gets down on his knees to pray; the second person starts lacing up his boots. The first person asks the second person, “My dear friend, what are you doing? You can’t outrun a bear.” To which the second person responds, “I don’t have to. I only have to outrun you.”
Absolutely a small vote shift will change the election.
But the only people listing to AND BELEIVING Schiff are already not going to vote for Trump.
The primary effect this has had one Trump supporters is to MOTIVATE them to vote FOR Trump.
Yes, there is an issue for those in the middle.
But you seem to think that the media and the left are credible.
I have said repeatedly – that when you make false moral accusations against others, the consequence is damage to YOUR reputation, integrity and credibility.
I have also said REPEATEDLY, that there are limits to SPIN.
Honestly most people actually understand what witness tampering it.
They understand what bribery is.
Despite the claims that too many people do not understand latin, they know what a QPQ is.
Or more importantly – ignoring the LABELS entirely, they KNOW that the testimony thus far DOES NOT show anything outrageous, egregious or criminal.
Outside of the Far left most people actually understand that Trump might want to investigate Biden.
They might not understand “reasonable suspicion”.
But they do understand that there was just a 3 year long investigation of Trump on a FAR flimsier basis, and that if Trump can be investigated by Obama, Comey, … Then Biden can be too.
There is some actual real damage to Trump in this.
But the damage is that by investigating Biden he makes the investigation of him appear more legitimate than it actually was.
Ordinary people MIGHT not be able to grasp that there IS “reasonable suspicion” regarding Biden, and there was NOT “reasonable suspicion” and certainly not “probably cause” regarding Trump.
Regardless, democrats and the left are very stupid if they think that using the right adjectives is going to change the facts.
No one needs Adam Schiff to explain what they are hearing to them.
Shockingly, a congressman from New Jersey…New Jersey!!…has continued to speak out against impeachment. He does describe himself as a blue dog Democrat, which surprised me, because I didn’t even know that blue dog Dems still existed (maybe he’s the only one?).
I don’t know much about this guy, but I agree with what he says here. The impeachment charade is tearing the country apart, over nothing, and for no reason other than the pursuit of power. There’s an election in less than a year. If Democrats were serious about governing, they would nominate a good, moderate candidate, identify policies that would address the issues that Americans care about, and try and win the election fairly.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrat-against-impeachment-calls-out-party-for-fracturing-the-nation-with-investigation
But, who am I kidding? They are not serious, their policies are way far left, and they apparently don’t think that they can defeat Trump in a fair fight. At least, not with the crappy candidates that they have now.
Trump demands So Korea pay US $5-Billion for our protection.
So Korea ignores him & cuddles up to China:
“The defense ministers of South Korea and China have agreed to develop their security ties to ensure stability in northeast Asia, the latest indication that Washington’s longstanding alliances in the region are fraying.”
https://news.yahoo.com/china-signs-defense-agreement-south-005403276.html
Oh Lord of the Anti-Trumpers, Pray Tell what is wrong with asking others to pay for our military security when they are very well positioned to do so?
And before beginning your anti-Trump comments, please remember that China, due to asinine trade deals since the early 90’s, can bury us economically in just a few months by cutting all trade with us and banning any Chinese made product from entering this country.
Every nation in asia has relatively strong ties to the US – and near certainly will continue to do so in the future.
Every nation in asia is also going to seek the best relationship it can with China.
You are engaged in a stupid game here.
The United states is currently the largest market for South Korea. It is not going to do anything to jeophardize that.
At the same time China is a potentially enormous and growing market – South Korea and other nations are not going to ignore that.
As to your baseline assertion – that is just false.
Trump has improved US relations with all of Asia EXCEPT China.
We have better relations with Vietnam today than under Obama,
Vietnam has played a significant role in the negotiations with North Korea.
We have better relations with Japan.
There are many reasons for the improving relations – but one of the more significant is Trump’s efforts to bring North Korea to heel. All of Asia wants that – Japan, South Korea, Vietnam – everyone.
No president has done SQUAT to try to resolve issues with North Korea for 75 years until Trump.
Things are going slow. They may even fail for now.
But there is no hope of success unless you try – the last attempt to deal with North Korea before Trump was by Bill Clinton.
Even China has helped us deal with North Korea DESPITE our Trade Conflicts.
Most of asia also supports our efforts to counter China – though they are less likely to do that openly.
You may recall early int he Trump administration several collisions between US Destroyers and merchant vessels.
These were likely orchestrated by China, regardless they were a diredct result of two Major Asia policy changes by Trump.
First Trump reversed Obama Policy of not sending US warships into the international waters of the South China Sea. This was a huge deal as it strengthened all the other nations in asia, by weakening China’s control of the south china sea.
This is going to be a HUGE area of conflict in the future. China – which has not been a consequential naval power for over 5 centuries is striving to become a naval power.
This is critical to their ability to project power throughout asia.
If you want to – there are many many papers by defense analysts regarding asia, and one of the major focus’s is that if the US does not check China’s rising naval power in Asia that is going to have negative consequences for the US and for the rest of Asia.
We are already seeing Japan substantially growing its naval forces, as well as Taiwan.
The weaker posture taken by the US – particularly under Obama has left them feeling vulnerable to China.
While Trump has REVERSED the US’s non-confrontational status with China, At the same time he has been encouraging Taiwan, Japan, South Korea to strengthen their own defenses.
I think that is wonderful.
After leaving Kurds to be slaughtered because US troops should be brought home Trump notifies Congress that more US forces are going to Saudi Arabia, bringing their overall numbers to roughly 3,000.
“These personnel will remain deployed as long as their presence is required to fulfill the missions stated” says the Trump spokesperson.
The mission is to insure Trump investments with Saudis remain in good standing…
Jay where you been dude? Your twitter feed is really behind times. This comment you posted should have been made about 800 comments ago since this happened Oct 9th or 10th.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/trump-admin-sending-thousands-more-troops-saudi-arabia-n1065051
Pray what is wrong for Mafia enforcers asking successful bar and restaurant owners to pay protection to keep their businesses safe when they can easily afford to do so?
Looks like Trump made South Korea an offer they could refuse…
Actually, Ron- I think we should withdraw all troops from So. Korea. Let China incorporate both Koreas into sub-states. Both North & South Korean nations would adopt Chinese-like communistic governments, & the Short range NK nuke threats would disappear. China is already North Korea’s main trading partner, dwarfing US import-export dollars by mega-$billions yearly.
And I applaud Trump’s guarantee in October that “Saudi Arabia is paying for 100 percent of the cost, including the cost of our soldiers” for the military assistance we’ve been providing since then. Any word yet on how much we’ve been paid so far, or is it going to be another ‘Mexico will pay for the Wall’ scenario?
But you’re right- no matter what Trump does it’s tainted and diminished, contaminated from his touch. Character is destiny – his is indelibly tarnished in excrement. If the GOP was truly patriotic they’d flush him for a more acceptable candidate— but instead they now appear to enjoying swimming in shit with him.
Jay, you are the epitome of what is wrong with society today. Ask a logical question and you respond with this bull shit.
Thanks, Ron.
I am glad to be the epitome of something. I’ll try to maintain that elevated status.
But I did ironically answer your question, suggesting it’s far more cost effective to bring the majority of troops out of So. Korea than to have SK only partially subsidize those substantial military costs.
And I said I was in favor of the Saudi’s paying the tab for the current infusion of US military there, but doubted that quid pro quo would materialize. What’s bull shit in that?
By the way, do you find the way the GOP disrespected Lt. Col. Vindman at the Impeachment Hearing bull-shitty?
And did you hear what the GOP witness said about Biden? Is that apt to get you to vote for Biden if he’s nominated?
Republicans asked Vindman about that he was the focus of several leak investigations.
Vindman catagorically denied leaking EVER. But he admits to having shared information with others inside the intelligence community on HIS OWN authority – claiming they had the appropriate clearances and a need to know. Every witness has been questioned by Republicans to identify everyone they have shared information with.
That is how you identify leaks. It is also how you corroborate stories.
All other witnesses have provided the names of everyone they shared info with.
Vindman refuses to identify a few people he shared information with.
Without identifying them it is impossible to tell if they had both the clearance and the need to know to be provided with the information Vindman shared.
Schiff has thwarted Republicans efforts to get Vindman to identify the unknown people that he shared information with claiming this was a republican effort to out the whistleblower.
This is nonsense – everyone who does not live under a rock knows who the whistle blower is.
But Vindman claims not to know who the Whistle Blower is.
And Schiff claims to not know who the whistleblower is.
So how is it that they know that the unnamed person that Vindman shared information with is the whistleblower ?
If we assume that the WB is the person who has been identified in the press,
And we assume that is the person Vindman shared information with then Vindman has lied under oath.
Eric Caramiallo probably does have the required security clearances,
But he does NOT have the requisite “”need to know”
Vindman does not have the authority to determine that on his own.
There is actually a well documented formal process for inter agency sharing of classified information. You do not just call someone up, decide on your own what they are allowed to know.
While working for a defence contractor I had a Top Secret Clearance requiring an FBI background check.
That did not give me access to classified information.
To access classified information at my place of work, I had to make an appointment with the FSO and go to the SCIF to review the information. I could not take notes. And I could not talk to anyone who I did not clear with the FSO first.
When I went to other government installations – like the pentagon, the trip was scheduled ahead of time. My FSO made a request to the FSO at the location I was going to.
The FSO’s exchanged information regarding my clearance and the projects I was working on and my “need to know” When I arrived at the Pentagon, I would then either give or recieve classified briefings – confined to the material that was arranged by the FSO’s.
The only person in the US govenrment who can unilaterally decide that someone else has a need to know, is the president, in all other instances the clearance and need to know of a person being briefed is NOT decided by the briefer, but by the briefers FSO.
Put simply unless the person Vindman is not identifying is NOT the WB, Then Vindman is lying under oath. Even then he is probably lying.
Vindman’s supperiors have very good reason to beleive that Vindman:
goes outside the chain of command – he has been cited for that twice.
Reveals classified information to people who either do not have a clearance or do not have a need to know.
I have no problems with Criticising Vindman.
I have lots of problems with Calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Agent.
“ Republicans asked Vindman about that he was the focus of several leak investigations.”
Several leak investigations?
Bullshit. There ya go spreading false rumors.
You and Jim Jorden, two McCarthyite trolls reincarnated.
Jorden’s allegation and your mindless repeating of it only based on Jorden’s assertion that some unidentified “colleagues felt there were times” he leaked information. Jorden needs to release the names of those “colleagues.’ They’re not protected under the Whistleblower act.
And as to the bullshit GOP complaints over the whistleblower’s identity, who gives a shit at this point. Even if Joe Biden is the whistleblower, what difference would it make to the assertions made, as almost all of it has now been verified by MULTIPLE sources, including President Gangster himself.
“Several leak investigations?
Bullshit. There ya go spreading false rumors.
You and Jim Jorden, two McCarthyite trolls reincarnated.”
As has been true from the start – you confuse evidence with questions and emotion.
Several WITNESSES Testified that Vindman was a focus of leak investigations – as was Eric Caramiello.
You know there have been myriads of national security leaks during the Trump administration. All of which have been spun to damage Trump, all of which MUST have orriginated with people with access to Trump communications with foreign leaders.
Vindman is CLEARLY one of a handful of people who COULD have been the source for some of these leaks.
What is emerging – the Whistleblower complaint actually lays it out, is that a small number of people with legitimate access to Trump’s communications with foreign leaders have been sharing that information with people what have security clearances buy NOT a “need to know”, often those people have been sharing that with people without either a security clearance or a need to know and those people have been sharing a whispher down the lane version of Trump exchanges with foreign leaders with the press.
There has been much investigation of all of this, lots of transfers, but very few arrests or prosecutions.
“ Several WITNESSES Testified that Vindman was a focus of leak investigations”
Prove that.
I dare you.
You’re perpetuating a false claim.
If not, produce the evidence
(no, Hannity or Carlson claiming they heard it unacceptable)
Read the transcripts.
“ It is clear by his own testimony that Vindman breached security protocols.”
Horseshit.
He testified that he shared classified information with more than 5 people.
That 2 or 3 of those were outside the whitehouse.
that HE decided that each of these had sufficient clearance, and that HE decided that each of these had a need to know.
One of these people he refuses to identify – so for all we know it was Putin.
Regardless, if you have a security clearance YOU do not get to decide whether others have a clearance. YOU do not get to decide if they have a need to know.
It is probable that for the people he was directly working with inside the whitehouse that the need to know, and the clearance level were established by an FSO on a broader level.
Though Vindman might not have observed that.
But the moment he left the small circle he worked directly with who would have been prevetted by his FSO, He could not share classified information without going through an FSO.
I was never given a TS/SCI key card or badge when I got a clearance.
I never had any means of proving I was cleared or that I had a need to know, and I never had any means of knowing that someone else did.
The exchange of classified information is ALWAYS overseen by an independent layer.
FSO’s are not producers and consumers of classified information.
They are the people who verify that the exchanges of classified information only occur as allowed.
The only person in the entire US government who is presumed cleared for everything AND can share with anyone unrestricted is the president.
Everyone else must have their clearances and need to know validated by a THIRD PARTY.
That is how security works.
It is cumbersome BY DESIGN.
Jay, whether you like it or not – of the 3 witnesses who heard the phone call, and the two witnesses who supervised those people, someone has LIED UNDER OATH,
If you actually read the testimony, they contradict each other on a could of points.
If is not possible for ALL of Schiff’s witnesses to be telling the truth.
We can guess who is lying – and my bet is Vindman based on demeanor.
But that is just a guess.
Regardless, atleast one of the 5 witnesses is lying.
Further – whether you like it or not we KNOW that there have been MANY leaks of presidential conversations with foreign leaders.
This is a CRIME. It was a crime under Obama (it was rare, but it was investigated and prosecuted). It remains a crime under Trump.
I do not know the exact workings of the white house – though we are learning alot from this inquiry. But I do know with classified information that people do not just meet each other for drinks to share classified information. The handling of classified information inside govenrment is tightly controlled. Especially top secret and code word information. People do not just leave classified memo’s on their desks. As we learned from the Clinton Email mess there is an entire floor of the State department that is a SCIF. Sec. State and their staff have offices and desks and computers etc. there. But they can not take communications devices to that floor and they can not take anything from that floor.
My point is that for any given classified leak it is nearly always possible to narrow the source of the leak down to a small number of people. Sometimes only one.
With respect to leaks of Trump exchanges there are probably less than 100 people who had direct access to ANY of the information that was leaked – and a much much smaller number who had direct access to multiple bits that were leaked.
One of the things that leakers seem to have learned from the Obama administration is do not leak directly to the press. That is just too easy to trace.
If you are one of a small number of people with legitimate access to classified information, that information is leaked and the FBI finds a call to the reporter who ran the story in your phone records – you are going to jail.
But if you leak that information to someone with a clearance, but not a need to know, and they leak it to someone without a clearance, and they leak it to the press, it will be nearly impossible to trace and nearly impossible to prosecute.
Despite the fact that it is a crime to provide classified information to someone without a need to know, You are not going to get a conviction if they have a TS/SCI.
It is NOT Jordan’s allegation, it is the testimony of two of Vindman’s superiors.
The sources of the allegations are NOT secret. Vindman even responded to the allegations by providing his fitness reports signed by the people who made the allegations.
I would further note that though we do not know WHO is leaking (probably more than one person)
We have absolutely zero doubt that classified leaks are occuring with great frequency, and that is a crime – and there are not thousands of potential suspects, there are probably less than 100 people who could have been the source or ANY of the leaks and probably no one who could have been the source for all of them.
Further Vindman has testified that he shared classified information with several people.
More than one of which was outside the Whitehouse,
One of which he refuses to identify.
Schiff refuses to require Vindman to name that person, in order to “protect the WB”
Except that has several serious problems:
Vindman testified that he does not know who the WB is.
Schiff has stated publicly that he does not know who the WB is.
Either they are lying (Vindman would be committing perjury) or the person Vindman refuses to name is NOT the WB, in which case Vindman refusal to answer is obstruction.
You can not have this both ways.
But it gets worse.
Vindman has testified that EVERYONE he shared information with has BOTH a need to know and sufficient security clearance.
The process does not work as Vindman described – you do not get to draw those conclusions yourself. The entire security aparatus in the US is 2nd party – verification of clearances and need to know is always done by FSO’s not those in posession of secure information.
But lets skip that for know – the WB as identified by the press does NOT have a need to know. IF Vindman shared classified information with him – then he committed a crime.
And if the unidentified person Vindman shared with is NOT the WB – we have only Vindman’s word that he has both a security clearance and a need to know.
put simply Vindman’s evasiveness with near certainty means he is hiding something relevant.
Your argument rests on the FALSE premise that who classified information is shared with is itself a legitimate secret.
The opposite is true. The entire protocol for sharing classified information is PUBLIC and two party by design. It is only the classified information itself that is secret.
Who you share it with and the process of sharing it is both public and verified by OTHERS, BY DESIGN.
Anytime I had a classified exchange, the process was controlled by my FSO and the FSO responsible for the person I was sharing with.
Each FSO verified with the other FSO that each party had the appropriate clearances AND the need to know. I was NEVER allowed to do that for myself.
And when we met to exchange classified information – it was done at a secure fascility and the identity of each party was verified by the FSO at that fascility.
You have a ludicrously stupid and casual idea of how classified information is handled.
The process is extremely cumbersome with records kept and 2nd party verification.
FSO’s control classified information – but they do not access it. They are responsible for maintaining SCIF’s for validating that the people receiving it are allowed to.
People holding clearances and in possession of classified information do not make those determinations on their own.
That is also why in many parts of the government whole floors or office areas are SCIF’s.
You are validated coming in and out, you can not take electronics in or ANYTHING out, inside there are no nonsecure connections to the computers.
But once inside the SCIF you know that everyone inside the SCIF is cleared and you can talk relatively freely.
Regardless, you can not just pick up the phone and talk to a buddy you think has a clearance and a need to know.
Classified information from the WB made it into the press.
Someone committed a crime.
Further BIAS is ALWAYS relevant with regard to testimony.
Even the IC IG noted in handling the complaint that there were significant indicia of BIAS.
One of the ways we determine whether people are lying or not is to explore their biases.
Finally, the transcript of the call is accurate. Vindman DID complain, those he complained to HAVE testified and his complaints were examined, validated and in many cases addressed before the transcript was released.
So from the perspective of Adam Schiff the WB is irrelevant.
However, the phone call DOES NOT constitute a crime.
That thoroughly undermines the WB complaint. There damn well better be a serious leak investigation resulting in prosecutions, firing’s or disciplinary measures.
Vindman has testified to sharing the phone call with people outside the white house.
Did he seek permission to do so ? No.
Did he go through an FSO and verify that those he shared with had the appropriate clearance and need to know ? NO.
We have one person he shared with we do not even know who it is .
How it is possible to check that they were cleared to recieve that information ?
How did Vindman exchange information – over the phone ? In person ? In a SCIF ?
It is clear by his own testimony that Vindman breached security protocols.
He is a Lt. Col. in the military. it is likely that the only reason he has not been fired at the moment is because it would appear to be retaliation.
Regardless his career is over.
You and Schiff and the democrats and the press keep telling me that Vindman is an honorable member of the military and that he must be beleived because of that.
Well his own testimony is that he IS NOT.
He has shared classified information without following procedures.
That MIGHT be a crime.
It is certainly a violation of military ethics
It is also a violation of the law.
And all that is from his own testimony.
Multiple sources have confirmed the TRANSCRIPT.
There are several items in the WB complaint that have proven innaccurate.
You are correct – much of what House Republicans are digging into do not matter with respect to faux impeachment.
If you have not figured it out – like Trump/Russia that has DIED.
Democrats are trying to resuscitate a corpse.
What is NOT dead is the investigation of misconduct by the “deep state”.
Vindman has testified to improperly handling classified information.
I beleive Kent, Taylor, Yavonovich have testified to US government interference in Ukraininan investigations into the Bidens, Burisma, Sorros, and Chalupa – as well as misconduct by Ukrainians in the 2016 election.
There is some conflict in the testimony as to whether Yavonovick initiated the obstruction or whether she just fascilitated it. But it is an established fact at this point that the US govenrment on multple occasions attempted to and possibly succeeded in THWARTING investigations into corruption in the Ukraine. That this occurred during the Obama administration and continued into the Trump administration.
You are claiming that Trump interfered – well lets find out EXACTLY what actually happened.
BTW asking for investigations where reasonable suspicion exists is RADICALLY less consequential than attempting to thwart and investigation.
What I think we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg.
This whole impeachment farce is NOT about impeaching Trump – though that is an important side effect, it is about thwarting the Barr/Durham investigations.
It is widely expected that Horowitz is going to be damning regarding the FISA warrants – though his investigation is relatively narrow, and he can only question witnesses currently in the government.
Regardless, Horrowitz will establish what those of us who are not blind already know,
that atleast a small cliche within DOJ/FBI abused their power, and spied on innocent americans without REASONABLE SUSPICION.
How many times do I have to POUND “Reasonable Suspicion” – that is the difference between legitimate – What Trump asked for in the Ukraine, and illegitimate – the FISA Warrant to spy on Carter Page AND anyone 2 hops away i.e. Trump and the Trump campaign.
What is increasingly evident is that substantial numbers of those in government attempted to prevent Trump from becoming president, and then when he did to interfere with that presidency.
That is effectively a COUP or atleast a partial one.
Further it is something that has NEVER happened in the US before.
The US has NEVER had a situation where the transfer of power between presidents – even presidents of opposing parties has not been cordial and cooperative.
The Bushies were famous for the extent to which that assisted Obama.
No outgoing administration has EVER begun an investigation of the incoming president before he took office.
What the “DEEP STATE” has done to Trump has never happened before.
And we need to get to the bottom of it so that it NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
Not to a republican, not to a democrat.
I do not give a crap about Schiff and Pelosi and their faux impeachment.
I think they are engaged in political suicide and the destruction of the democratic party – but that is their perogative.
I have no problem with Congress to the greatest extent allowed by the constitution attempting to thwart the president – that is how our government was deliberately constructed.
I do not give a crap about marchers with pussy hats in the streets. Again that is a legitimate means of american political opposition.
But when the state department, DOD, DOJ, CIA, seek to thwart the policies of the president, seek to investigate and embarrass the president.
THAT is a big problem. That actually is a COUP. It is one step removed from sending marines to the Whitehouse.
There are legitimate and illegitimate means to #resist.
I respect those who engage in legitimate means – whether I agree with them or not.
Though I wish they did not seek to stiffle my attempts to do the same.
But those who engage in illegitimate means are CRIMINALS, and they are a serious threat to our nation. A far greater threat than your concerns about Trump
So YES, I want to know PRECISELY what went on regarding the Ukrainians and the US – from 2016 through to the present. I want to know exactly what was going on with Burisima, and the Biden’s. I want to know what Biden knew and when he knew it. I want to know whehter the reporting by the press was accurate or not (it was not) I want to know what the DNC did, and what the state department did in event after event.
I want to know who was leaking classified information, and I want consequences.
At the very least I want ALOT of people FIRED.
“The cheeks of every American must tingle with shame,” editorialized the Chicago Times, “as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances of a man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.”
“The ceremony was rendered ludicrous by some of the sallies of that poor President”
“We pass over the silly remarks of the President, For the credit of the nation, we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall no more be repeated or thought of.”
The above are NOT reviews of some remarks by Trump.
They are reviews by prominent US newspapers of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
Jay thanks, but the way you answered the SK question looked much more anti Trump than it did a logical answer. For my thinking, Japan should be the number one power in southeast Asia and should be the first to assist in security of far east countries. We should reduce our troop strength in Japan as well as SK since any outbreak of war can be quickly addressed. We need a strong military, but not at the cost with nations we have large trade deficits.(SK $16 Billion)
Vindman. Not watching or following hearing. Once it gets to the senate for trial, I might begin following because a judge will preside over the trial and it will be more reliable than the current house proceedings.
Again, did not hear anything about Biden. If Biden agenda is middle moderate and does not go off on the regulatory path, environmental control green deal, government control of health care, paid off college loans, sanctuary country status, higher taxes and other ideas now on every democrats agenda, I could find myself voting for him. But at 79 years old at the time of the election, there is an excellent chance the 00 year curse will fall upon Biden and he won’t complete the first term , making his VP choice very important. They also would need to be a middle moderate.
I am not aware of any “republican witnesses” – Adam Schiff refused to allow republicans to call the witnesses they wanted.
Further every witness the Republicans sought to call was a “hostile witness” – someone unlikely to be friendly to Trump or Republicans but who none the less could have useful information justifying Trump’s actions.
Here is John Solomon’s column on the Impeachment thus far.
Solomon uses the under other testimony of Schiff’s witnesses against Trump to prove that all of his reporting on the Biden’s and Ukraine was accurate.
As I have noted before the entire case against Biden can be made from entirely US sources.
Absilutely the information from the Ukraine is even more damning.
But EACH of the democrats witnesses has further confirmed that reasonable suspicion exists that the Biden’s engaged in criminal conduct.
Therefore Trump’s request for investigations is justified.
In fact it is actually required by Law – Law that Schiff voted for.
The US aide to Ukraine including a provision that the president certify that Ukraine was enagaged in rooting our corruption, absent that certification Trump was by law prohibited from providing aide to Ukraine.
So once again Trump was following the law.
If you do not like it – change the law.
https://johnsolomonreports.com/impeachment-surprise-how-adam-schiff-validated-my-reporting-on-ukraine/
‘“ I am not aware of any “republican witnesses” –
That’s because you’ve become a brain addled Trumpanzee.
Get off your Trump numb ass and Google it.
I’ll get you started with this:
(WSJ): “ The two witnesses Republicans called on Tuesday offered significant criticism of the president and Mr. Giuliani. .”
And this:
(MSNBC): “Yesterday was the first day in which the House impeachment inquiry featured public testimony from witnesses requested specifically by Republican members of the panel. As NBC News reported, these witnesses “were expected to provide testimony helpful to the president…The report added, succinctly, “They did not.”
The Republican witnesses confirmed Whistleblower assertions of Trump attempting to inappropriately harm Biden as a political opponent with a foreign government. But you’re OK with that… let the rationalizations commence…
Again your credibility and that of the media is shot.
Please name the witnesses.
It is possible you are correct, but thus far the list of witnesses republicans asked for was rejected in its entirety by Schiff.
I do not care if a witness is critical of Trump or Guliani.
That is opinion, not evidence.
Thus far the actual EVIDENCE – provided by Schiff’s witnesses, is that the US state department and the embassy in Ukraine was actively thwarting reporters, and the Ukraine PG’s offices in a wide variety of investigations into illegal activities of ukrainians and americans in Ukraine.
Guliani never would have ended up in Ukraine had the State department and the US embassy not interfered.
I am not ok with any member of government using the power of government in a way that is not justified by the law and constitution.
Note that NOWHERE in that sentence is there any mention of personal or political benefit.
If the actions of anyone in government are legal and constitutional, then personal or political benefit is irrelevant.
I would further note that nowhere in that sentence is the PERSONAL activities of the same people.
Hillary Clinton quite clearly sough dirt on Trump. She did not care if it was true or not.
She did EXACTLY what Schiff said in his faux version of Trump’s phone call to Zelensky.
Hillary Clinton’s efforts to get Dirt on Trump were all perfectly legal.
The Steele Dossier nonsense did not become illegal until those in government got involved.
Even that would not have been a problem except that they NEVER bothered to vet the claims. Allegations in and of themselves are NOT reasonable suspicion.
There is not Reasonable suspicion to investigate Biden because Trump or Guiliani says so.
Reasonable suspicion exists because of EVIDENCE,. In the case of Biden – his own remarks are sufficient to reach “reasonable suspicion”, but further evidence just from the US reaches beyond probable cause.
Regardless Reasonable suspicion exists regarding the Biden’s conduct in Ukraine.
Therefore, Trump, Sunderland, Taylor, Barr or anyone else in government can ask the ukrainians AS THE REPRESENTATIVE of the US GOVERNMENT to investigate.
In fact by treaty the Ukriainians are required to do so, and by the same law that authorized the funds for Ukraine Trump is REQUIRED to demand that Ukraine investigate corruption and certify that they are doing so. And Trump is actually required by the same law that gives aid to the Ukraine to withold that aide if they can not demonstrate steps to aleviate corruption. Further even without that law, the norms of foreign policy AND the constitution,
all the president to withold aide for pretty much any reason.
All this was know before this mess started, all this should have been known by the WB, all this has been covered repeatedly in testimony elicited from Schiff’s witnesses.
There is a distinction between Donald Trump as president and Donald Trump as political candidate. The former can NOT use the power of the US government to investigate a political oponent without reasonable suspicion – and the evidence provided by Schiff’s witnesses is that he did not. Universally witnesses have not merely indicated that Biden’s actions were dubious, but they have confirmed newspaper reports AND confirmed that Biden was AWARE of his son’s conduct, AND aware he was being investigated. And that Biden was prohibited by conflict of interest laws from the actions that he took.
If Trump had actually told Zelensky:
“No Aide to Ukraine until you open an investigation into the misconduct of Biden/Burisma.”
It there was a clear QPQ, that would be perfectly legal and constitutional conduct.
Conversely Biden’s
“Fire the prosecutor who is investigating my son”
Is unethical and possibly criminal.
The assorted opinions of various witnesses of Trump and Guiliani do not matter.
Rudy Guiliani is the personal lawyer of Donald Trump.
He is not employed by the Government. He has the same relationship to Trump as Mark Elias to Hillary Clinton, or Glenn Simpson or Christopher Steele.
Rudy Guiliani can go to the ukraine. He can conduct private foreign policy – just as John Kerry has been doing.
He can litterally use the words that Adam Schff claimed Trump did perfectly legally.
He has no government authority. He can do and say things that would be abuse of power as a government employee – just as Christopher Steel could or Glenn Simpson could.
Steel was clearly spying on Trump – but no one has claimed that was a crime.
Because private spying is not illegal – so long as no laws are broken doing so.
But govenrment spying without probable cause is abuse of power – as I expect Horowitz will note very shortly.
Rudy Guiliani does not speak for the president, or the country.
He can say things the president or an ambassador can not say.
I am sure many in the foreign service were offended.
I do not give a shit.
Guiliani would not have been in the Ukraine had they NOT been abusing their power.
What is increasingly evident is that neither Trump nor Guiliani were actually seeking to start investigations, they were seeking to balance the fact that the ambassador and many others in foreign service were actively seeking to THWART investigations.
Attempting to harm a political opponent is NOT a crime – or Hillary would be in jail.
To be a crime the action must be a GOVERNMENT action AND the action must not be legally or constitutionally justified.
The legal and constitutional justification for an investigation is reasonable suspicion.
As that exists, the president may use the power of government to investigate where reasonable suspicion exists – even if that benefits him politically.
There is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with demanding money for providing security.
Brinks does it, hundreds of security firms do it across the US.
Mifia protection rackets are NOT simple demands of money in return for security – though the Mafia DOES provide that. They are accompanied by an implied (or overt) threat that the mafia will do bad things to you if you do not comply.
To my knowledge Neither Trump nor any other US president has threatened to invade a country if they did not pay us for security.
Brinks is perfectly free to claim that you might get robbed without there services.
They are NOT free to make sure you get robbed.
Put simply your mafia analogy does not fit.
And if you had thought about it even a little you would have understood that.
So your argument is that whatever Trump does is corrupt because well “Trump”. ?
Please cite this “slaughter”.
Turkey moved into a region of Syria that the US and EU agreed long ago – before Trump that they could occupy as a place to relocate the Syrian Refugees. The Kurds were part of that deal. Turkey does not appear to have gone beyond the agreed on area.
The Kurds continue to control much of Syria that was formerly part of ISIS.
Bush stood by while Hussein gassed possibly 70,000 Kurds in Iraq.
I have not heard of any consequential Kurdish deaths by Turkey in Syria.
This “slaughter” appears to be a myth.
I would probably remove US forces from SA. But not as a matter of principle or priority.
US forces were FIGHTING in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.
They are not fighting in SA, just as they are not fighting in Okinawa or Ramstein Germany.
I am not opposed to having US forces stationed in foreign countries close to where they might be needed.
I am opposed to US forces FIGHTING in conflicts we have no interest in.
US Forces have been stationed in SA since before Nixon I beleive.
When I was a child – 50 years ago, one of my fathers friends, was a Brigadier General stationed in SA.
US Forces are not fighting in SA nor being killed in SA.
Further US Forces in SA are confined to US compounds, Their interaction with the Saudi population is tightly controlled. They are not stationed outside a Trump Tower.
HA HA HA HA HA!
Trump’s $million dollar doner Ambassador just confirmed everything the Whistleblower reported- and more
“He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.” – Sondland.
Get it?. It was never about corruption. It was about tarring a domestic political opponent with help from a foreign government
But you Trumpsters are OK with a president using his office that way… right?
Again you continually conflate emotion, oppinion guesses as to motive and intention with evidence.
Trumps actual exchanges with Sonderland are already documented.
I do not care what Sonderland, or Taylor, or Yavonovich speculate.
I do not care what the “understand”.
I care what was said.
And frankly I do not care very much what was said, because the worst case scenario is perfectly legitimate.
But lets follow your speculation.
OBVIOUS Zelensky did not have to complete the investigations to get the money.
That could have taken years.
The purpose of requiring a public anouncement is to get a publicly commitment to do something. The expectation is that you will do what you say you will do.
That expectation is particularly true with Trump and Zelensky.
Trump has the distinction among US presidents of actually doing what he says he will.
Zelensky was elected based on the public beleif that he too would root out Corruption in the Ukraine.
If Zelensky announced investigations and did not perform them – Trump would be in a position to publicly criticise him which would undermine him with his own people.
I expect the Press, and Joe Biden to go after Trump in every way possible.
I expect them to investigate, to look for dirt,
I expected Hillary to do so with Trump – and she did not disappoint.
I did not expect her to just make shit up, but even so that is not illegal.
This only becomes illegal when Government power is used AND that use of power is not contitutional and legally justified.
You lost that argument long ago.
Conversely I expect CANDIDATE Trump to go after Biden or Warren or ….
And that is What Guiliani was doing.
I have no interest in what Guiliani might have said or what diplomats might think of what he said or did.
When you remove the spin from your descriptions and stick to facts rather than your or someone else’s quesses about motivation or intentions then no I do not have a problem.
The ONLY question is whether reasonable suspicion exists.
If it Does – which it clearly does, then the action is justified.
If it does not – as was the case with the Trump/Russia investigation, then the action is not justified and is an abuse of power.
All the speculation regarding motives and intentions is at best a justification for heightened scrutiny.
This is also true with Trump/Russia. The problem is NOT that page/strzok/comey/mccabe/…. liked Clinton more than Trump. That is merely a reason to subject their actions to greater scrutiny. It is their actions that matter. Comey failed to proceed with a criminal investigation where the facts matched the requirements of the law and fully supported prosecution, and he went forward with investigations where reasonable suspoicion did not exist and sought warrants were probable cause did not exist.
Conversely not only does reasonable suspicion exist regarding Biden – probable cause does.
Trump can therefore legitimately execise any prosecutorial authority that vests with the president.
Ron – you’re not following the hearings, so I’ll keep you in the loop for important developments:
Just now—
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House impeachment investigators Wednesday that he worked with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine at the “express direction” of President Donald Trump and pushed a “quid pro quo” with Kyiv because it was what Trump wanted.
“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” he said.
First,
Please cite Sonderland’s testimony. I am not interested in someone else’s spin.
Unless you have Sonderland testifying that Trump told him something directly – I do not care what Sonderland says.
His impressions do not matter, his guesses do not matter, What he says Guiliani told him does not matter, what he says someone else told him does not matter.
Next – though there remains no evidence of a QPQ,
As I have said from the start THAT DOES NOT MATTER.
Trump can actually withold aide to Ukraine absent assurances to the president that they are addressing corruption – that is in the law that authorizes their aide.
It is also the norm absent such law. Presidents have routinely used US favor – including aide as leverage with foreign states. It is fully within their constitutional powers.
The question is not was there a QPQ, it is SOLELY was what Trump asked for legitimate.
That rests on Reasonable suspicion.
That exists.
Your done.
Nothing else matters.
You have no crime, just a bunch of childish foreign service people upset that after they interfered in the Ukraine to benefit Biden and democrats, that Trump went arround them and had Guiliani investigate and ask for investigations.
Sonderland testified for a long time, and this snooze farce is not worth anyone’s time.
However I did listen to Sonderland being grilled by The democrats counsel and by Adam Schiff and Sonderland was absolutely adamant, Trump NEVER conditioned aide on anything.
Sonderland said that Trump made it crystal clear that he expected Zelensky to “do the right thing”, and to “keep the campaign promises he made” but when SONDERLAND questioned Trump as to whether that was a condition for ANYTHING Trump said absolutely NOT, no QPQ.
Beyond that Sonderland like pretty much everyone testified that Rudy Guiliani was wandering around derailing THEIR foreign policy.
In his opening Rep. Nunes noted that in 1794 the President sent John Jay as a private citizen to negotiate a final settlement with Great Britain.
The very first president of the united states conducted the most important diplomatic negotiation in this countries history – not through the US ambassador, but through a friend and private citizen.
As with John Jay in 1794, the advantage to doing so is that neither Jay nor Gulliani speal for the United States. They have tremendous freedom to negotiate, while at the same time giving the US and the president the ability – as Bill Clinton did with Jimmy Carters deal with North Korea, to walk away.
When John Kerry goes to Iran – he speaks for John Kerry – not the United States.
When Carter – a former president, went to north korea – he speaks for Jimmy Carter, not the United States.
This may piss off carreer diplomats, but it is constitutional, and legal, and the most important negotiation in US history, the one that resulted in Britian Recognizing the US as a nation and not as a treasonous colony, was conducted by private dipolomacy.
FIRST… CAN WE MOVE OVER TO RICKS ARTICLE “GEORGE W BUSH”??
I cant waste minutes everytime I want to post or reply to another comment?
It took 4 minutes just to get this one active. You Tube just annihilates downloading.
Now to comment on Daves post and asking question. Sondurland said in response to question if there was any QQP during his discussion. He said Trump said absolutely no QQP during the discussion.
So if this was a jury trial, any good attorney would follow with a question such as:
” Since the president was asked and answered no QQP, is it normal in diplomatic dealings for QQP to be asked or offered and if not, why was this mentioned to start with?
I suspect QQP goes on daily in politics. I would bet money.on it! Most all of them are corrupt if they have any political power at all!
Moved
Ron, I know you hate tweets, but this one should convince you Trump should be removed from office:
https://twitter.com/bryangividen/status/1197196374787448832?s=21
This one too…
Character does count – in the past 3 years Sean Hannity has proven to be more trustworthy than Chris Cuomo or Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper.
I do not like Hannity – but being able to trust someone is a major factor in character.
Trump can be trusted.
Schiff can not.
Hopefully none of the democrats can or we are in deep shit if they are elected.
I really do not want to be voting based on the hope that my candidate is lying.
That is not good character.
Good charater is NOT getting the prosecutior investigating the corruption of your son fired.
“ Trump can be trusted.”
Goodbye…
Character does count – alot.
Character is what you DO much more than what you say.
This is the criteria Jesus claims he will use to divide the good from the evil. Matthew 25:31-46
He does not ask – what were your intentions, motives or words. But what did you DO.
He does not ask what did you vote for or propose that government does.
But what did YOU do.
I will be happy to be critical of Trump’s character, I did not vote for him over that.
But every democrat currently running is either evil, naive or lying – based on what they intend to DO.
Christ did not say – when did you steal food to feed the hungry,
He asks when did YOU feed the hungry.
Trump has more so than any president possibly in US history kept his campaign promises – that is one major attribute of good character.
That is what he DID not what he said.
I know you have a problem understand things – but it is called being truthful and trustworthy – not lying.
Calling someone a liar over and over does not make them a liar.
Demanding legal precision from 140 character tweets does not make someone a liar.
Not doing what you promise – that is lying. That is bad character.
Priscilla, Jay, we have moved over to the George W Bush thread at my request. My computer was squealing like a coyote in heat on a warm spring night trying to download 1450 comments and all those You Tube videos. Come on over!
Thanks, Ron! See you there.