Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Cow Poke]

But speaking of the nutcasy things the conservative voices beloved leader does:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/polit...ter/index.html

Source: above

Vox's Aaron Rupar, who closely tracks the President's public comments, wrote on Twitter Friday night, "The President of the United States has, today alone, retweeted 2 QAnon fan accounts, a Pizzagate account, an account that compared his following to a cult, and an account that described Obama as 'Satan's Muslim Scum.' And this insanity isn't even a blip on the news radar."

© Copyright Original Source

As I have often said, somebody should hijack his Tweeter account. It'd probably be the only time that a hijacker's tweeting would be better than the hijacked tweeting.

[Sam]

Relevant questions from this new NYT piece outlining that Trump ordered a hold on Ukrainian aid in late June, rather than immediately after the July 25 call with Zelensky (with the caveat that he apparently reiterated that hold immediately after the call):

Pro-impeachment folk:

• [*=1]Does this allow room for the belated WH argument that the aid was not held up for any coercive purpose but because Trump genuinely believes Ukraine to be corrupt beyond what's tolerable in other countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia)?

Anti-impeachment folk:

• [*=1]Why did the WH first claim that OMB was withholding aid as part of a routine review, unrelated to Trump?
  [*=1]Why did Trump, who was even before June pursuing a pressure campaign against the former Ukrainian president with Giuliani, rebuff his own unified national security team to withhold aid? Does Trump's purported concern about Ukraine's corruption originate from a national security or diplomatic concern or because he believes Russian-originated propaganda that the Ukrainian government was out to get him?
  [*=1]Why was aid so consistently refused by Trump and only released when the whistleblower complaint about his demands to investigate Biden and Burisma came to light? How can his purported concern about general corruption be squared with the reporting and testimony that Trump's interest in "corruption" was limited to these particular investigations?

[Mountain Man]

Relevant questions from this new NYT piece outlining that Trump ordered a hold on Ukrainian aid in late June, rather than immediately after the July 25 call with Zelensky (with the caveat that he apparently reiterated that hold immediately after the call):

Pro-impeachment folk:

• [*=1]Does this allow room for the belated WH argument that the aid was not held up for any coercive purpose but because Trump genuinely believes Ukraine to be corrupt beyond what's tolerable in other countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia)?

Anti-impeachment folk:

• [*=1]Why did the WH first claim that OMB was withholding aid as part of a routine review, unrelated to Trump?
  [*=1]Why did Trump, who was even before June pursuing a pressure campaign against the former Ukrainian president with Giuliani, rebuff his own unified national security team to withhold aid? Does Trump's purported concern about Ukraine's corruption originate from a national security or diplomatic concern or because he believes Russian-originated propaganda that the Ukrainian government was out to get him?
  [*=1]Why was aid so consistently refused by Trump and only released when the whistleblower complaint about his demands to investigate Biden and Burisma came to light? How can his purported concern about general corruption be squared with the reporting and testimony that Trump's interest in "corruption" was limited to these particular investigations?

Fortunately for defendants everywhere, the standard of jurisprudence is not "Can you answer a list of loaded questions to my satisfaction?" but "Is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a crime?"

Despite the sensational and alarmist language used throughout the New York Times editorial, what it ultimately comes down to is nothing more than a disagreement (some might call it a "pissing match") over Trump's approach to foreign policy, and so what? It is the President's prerogative to set foreign policy, and tough beans to anybody who doesn't like it. The President calls the shots, not the diplomats.

So...

[Sam]

Fortunately for defendants everywhere, the standard of jurisprudence is not "Can you answer a list of loaded questions to my satisfaction?" but "Is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a crime?"

Despite the sensational and alarmist language used throughout the New York Times editorial, what it ultimately comes down to is nothing more than a disagreement (some might call it a "pissing match") over Trump's approach to foreign policy, and so what? It is the President's prerogative to set foreign policy, and tough beans to anybody who doesn't like it. The President calls the shots, not the diplomats.

So...

Best case scenario, ignoring a good deal of evidence and testimony that this article alludes to, the President actively rejects the recommendations of his entire national security team, spanning multiple agencies, because he has chosen to believe and propagate Putin-generated conspiracy theories about him and his rivals that his own intelligence agencies have warned are both false and Russian propaganda.

For those of us not prone to cultish behavior, "so what" does not match up with the moment.

And that's the best case scenario.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Best case scenario, ignoring a good deal of evidence and testimony that this article alludes to, the President actively rejects the recommendations of his entire national security team, spanning multiple agencies, because he has chosen to believe and propagate Putin-generated conspiracy theories about him and his rivals that his own intelligence agencies have warned are both false and Russian propaganda.

For those of us not prone to cultish behavior, "so what" does not match up with the moment.

And that's the best case scenario.

--Sam

Right, that's the "best case scenario" when viewed through the darkened lens of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

On the contrary, the best case scenario is that President Trump actually knows what he's doing, and he's bringing a much-needed fresh approach to international diplomacy, treating it like a business transaction rather than a strictly political one, which, of course, will conflict with the sensibilities of career politicians, and so what? It's not their call to make.

[Sam]

Right, that's the "best case scenario" when viewed through the darkened lens of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

On the contrary, the best case scenario is that President Trump actually knows what he's doing, and he's bringing a much-needed fresh approach to international diplomacy, treating it like a business transaction rather than a strictly political one, which, of course, will conflict with the sensibilities of career politicians, and so what? It's not their call to make.

So I understand:

The President purportedly is more knowledgeable about foreign policy than his entire hand-picked senior diplomatic and national security staff, withholding government resources over their objections while demanding investigations into his political opponents.

Then, continuing to hold back those resources over his concerns about corruption, the President brilliantly decided to release the aid only days after he told his personally-appointed ambassador that the Ukrainian president had to "get in front of the cameras" and announce those investigations ... but not because that "corruption" was publicly addressed but because Congress announced investigations into his brilliant statecraft that was totally above board.


Seems like a bright guy. Much wisdom in that strategy.


--Sam

[Mountain Man]

So I understand:

The President purportedly is more knowledgeable about foreign policy than his entire hand-picked senior diplomatic and national security staff, withholding government resources over their objections while demanding investigations into his political opponents.

Then, continuing to hold back those resources over his concerns about corruption, the President brilliantly decided to release the aid only days after he told his personally-appointed ambassador that the Ukrainian president had to "get in front of the cameras" and announce those investigations ... but not because that "corruption" was publicly addressed but because Congress announced investigations into his brilliant statecraft that was totally above board.


Seems like a bright guy. Much wisdom in that strategy.


--Sam

Whatever you say, Mr. Best Case Scenario.

[rogue06]

So I understand:

The President purportedly is more knowledgeable about foreign policy than his entire hand-picked senior diplomatic and national security staff, withholding government resources over their objections while demanding investigations into his political opponents.

You may not like it but the president is in charge of dictating foreign policy and he can ignore the "experts" or fire the whole lot of them and replace them with folks who agree with him (kinda like what Obama did).

[Charles]

As I have often said, somebody should hijack his Tweeter account. It'd probably be the only time that a hijacker's tweeting would be better than the hijacked tweeting.

I am afraid that what is happening on Trump's twitter account is not only telling us about Trump's lack of communication skills. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that it also gives us insight to his line of "reasoning".

Hijacking his twitter account would only solve one of the (at least) two problems.

[Charles]

You may not like it but the president is in charge of dictating foreign policy and he can ignore the "experts" or fire the whole lot of them and replace them with folks who agree with him (kinda like what Obama did).

You may not like it but Sam was questioning the wisdom of it so your response is not adressing his point.

[lilpixieofterror]

You may not like it but Sam was questioning the wisdom of it so your response is not adressing his point.

[Charles]

So, once again, he hand picked the wrong guys.

[lilpixieofterror]

So, once again, he hand picked the wrong guys.

[Cow Poke]

You may not like it but Sam was questioning the wisdom of it so your response is not adressing his point.

Sam is so very blessed to have you as his advocate, Charles.

[Sam]

You may not like it but the president is in charge of dictating foreign policy and he can ignore the "experts" or fire the whole lot of them and replace them with folks who agree with him (kinda like what Obama did).

So, once again, the best case scenario here is that the President is so addled or otherwise mentally compromised that he believes Putin's conspiracy theories instead of the people he chose to run his diplomatic and national security agencies and he's running foreign policy strategies in pursuit of these conspiracy theories against the national security interests of the nation.

And all y'all can come up with is "Well, he's the president and we don't very much care what he does or why".

Best case scenario, ignoring a boatload of evidence that leads to a more incriminating conclusion.

--Sam