Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The obvious has been officially confirmed ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mountain Man
    replied
    And now for your daily dose of irony...

    The House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into whether President Donald Trump attempted to influence the looming 2020 elections may interfere with the outcome of the presidential race in an ironic twist.

    In other words, the Democrats are doing what they accuse Trump of trying to do: interfering in the ongoing presidential race. House Democrats launched the impeachment inquiry on September 24, months before the American public goes to the polls to elect the next president in November 2020.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...idential-race/

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    This is why I cautioned you about crossing the line from fact to fiction. You state a fact -- Trump wants Joe Biden's sketchy business in Ukraine investigated -- and then start speculating -- he's only doing it to hurt Joe Biden's election chances. However, there are a number of legitimate reasons for Trump to do what he did, but you immediately assume the worse and then mistake your assumptions for facts.
    No MM. There is no legitimate reason for POTUS to hold up security funds for Ukraine allocated by Congress over not investigating Joe Biden's son. There are plenty of (illegal) reasons for Donald Trump to hold up security funds for the Ukraine over not investigating Joe Biden's son.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    On what planet? The attempts to force an investigation into BURISMA are related to the current 2020 election and Biden, 2016 is just related to general hurting democratic chances. And all of it was under threat of the loss of the security funds.

    Jim
    This is why I cautioned you about crossing the line from fact to fiction. You state a fact -- Trump wants Joe Biden's sketchy business in Ukraine investigated -- and then start speculating -- he's only doing it to hurt Joe Biden's election chances. However, there are a number of legitimate reasons for Trump to do what he did, but you immediately assume the worse and then mistake your assumptions for facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    This is right in line with what I posted earlier (with a key point highlighted):
    So I guess the "new normal" is that we're supposed to let previous administrations get away with their crimes.
    On what planet? The attempts to force an investigation into BURISMA are related to the current 2020 election and Biden, 2016 is just related to general hurting democratic chances. And all of it was under threat of the loss of the security funds.



    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Like I said. The obvious has been confirmed. From today's testimony by Bill Taylor:

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/polit...ges/index.html

    Source: CNN

    "During that phone call, Ambassador 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 US election," according to the testimony.
    Sondland told Taylor he'd also made a mistake earlier by telling the Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting with Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations," Taylor said.
    "In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, 'everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance," Taylor testified.
    He testified that Trump wanted Zelensky "in a public box" by making a public statement about ordering the investigations.

    "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," Taylor testified, adding that Volker had used the same phrase.
    "I argued to both that the explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not 'owe' President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was 'crazy,' as I had said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9," Sondland[Taylor? SIC] added.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Jim
    This is right in line with what I posted earlier (with a key point highlighted):
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And then there's this:

    Nancy Pelosi released a “fact sheet” outlining her justification for the impeachment process. Within the justification Speaker Pelosi/Lawfare intentionally conflates investigating past political corruption/interference (2016) with the current 2020 election.

    Speaker Pelosi’s self-serving position boils down to: any effort by the executive branch to investigate prior political corruption is grounds for presidential impeachment.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...r-impeachment/

    Sketchy sketchy sketchy!
    So I guess the "new normal" is that we're supposed to let previous administrations get away with their crimes.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Headline on CNN:

    Mulvaney brashly admits quid pro quo over Ukraine aid as key details emerge

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/polit...aid/index.html

    Source: cnn


    White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats.

    Mulvaney insisted that he only knew of a US request to investigate the handling of a Democratic National Committee server hacked in the 2016 election, but text messages between US diplomats show efforts to get Ukraine to commit to an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board former Vice President Joe Biden's son sat. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.
    "That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said after listing the 2016-related investigation and Trump's broader concerns about corruption in Ukraine.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So - to be clear - what he is admitting as far as a politically motivated quid-pro-quo is that the money was held pending a commitment to investigate into the servers and the 2016 election as it related to the Democrats.

    Other texts show that this also included investigations into Burisma.

    Bottom line: there is now a direct tie to Trump holding the money as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate issues related to his campaign. It was not merely 'corruption in the Ukraine'.




    Jim
    Like I said. The obvious has been confirmed. From today's testimony by Bill Taylor:

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/polit...ges/index.html

    Source: CNN

    "During that phone call, Ambassador 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 US election," according to the testimony.
    Sondland told Taylor he'd also made a mistake earlier by telling the Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting with Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations," Taylor said.
    "In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, 'everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance," Taylor testified.
    He testified that Trump wanted Zelensky "in a public box" by making a public statement about ordering the investigations.

    "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," Taylor testified, adding that Volker had used the same phrase.
    "I argued to both that the explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not 'owe' President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was 'crazy,' as I had said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9," Sondland[Taylor? SIC] added.

    © Copyright Original Source







    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-22-2019, 04:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Now we have Democrats up in arms because Trump compared the impeachment nonsense going on in the House to a "lynching". Liberals, of course, are absurdly decrying this as racist.

    But in 1998, that's exactly how Democrat Jerry Nadler described the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-bill-clinton/

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I seriously doubt there is much on that site that I would consider 'required reading'.
    Of course. Who needs facts when you have the truth?

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And then there's this:

    Nancy Pelosi released a “fact sheet” outlining her justification for the impeachment process. Within the justification Speaker Pelosi/Lawfare intentionally conflates investigating past political corruption/interference (2016) with the current 2020 election.

    Speaker Pelosi’s self-serving position boils down to: any effort by the executive branch to investigate prior political corruption is grounds for presidential impeachment.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...r-impeachment/

    Sketchy sketchy sketchy!

    And if you want to know what has the Democrats so spooked, this is required reading:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...a-cover-story/
    I seriously doubt there is much on that site that I would consider 'required reading'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    And then there's this:

    Nancy Pelosi released a “fact sheet” outlining her justification for the impeachment process. Within the justification Speaker Pelosi/Lawfare intentionally conflates investigating past political corruption/interference (2016) with the current 2020 election.

    Speaker Pelosi’s self-serving position boils down to: any effort by the executive branch to investigate prior political corruption is grounds for presidential impeachment.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...r-impeachment/

    Sketchy sketchy sketchy!

    And if you want to know what has the Democrats so spooked, this is required reading:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...a-cover-story/

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I don't think it quite means what you are saying MM. The lack of confidence is due more to the fact the republicans have relinquished nearly all moral responsibility as it relates to their role in the separations of powers WRT this president. Which means the house must have a case that is more than merely technically correct. It must be sufficiently strong that a significant number of republicans in the senate will have no choice but to recognize it's legitimacy. And in this day with Trump at the helm and the republicans mostly just his minions, that is a tall order.

    Jim
    What does it matter what the Republicans do? The Democrats have the advantage of numbers in the House and could vote to make the inquiry official today if they wanted, and then the Trump administration would be compelled to respond to all subpoenas. But then you guys insist that the evidence against Trump is already significant and damning, so why even bother with that? Just release the evidence in full, vote to impeach, and then sit back and watch Senate Republicans squirm knowing that Pelosi and her gang just backed them into a corner.

    But that's not happening, and it will never happen. Do you know why? It's very simple: they don't have a case against the President. That's why they're operating behind closed doors and depending on carefully constructed "leaks" to their media allies to sell their false narrative. It's the Russian Collusion Delusion all over again, where the ironclad evidence is always just around the corner but never actually delivered.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The fact that the Democrats won't even hold a vote to make their impeachment inquiry official (which they must do if they want their demand letters to carry any legal weight) suggests that even they aren't confident in their case against the President.
    I don't think it quite means what you are saying MM. The lack of confidence is due more to the fact the republicans have relinquished nearly all moral responsibility as it relates to their role in the separations of powers WRT this president. Which means the house must have a case that is more than merely technically correct. It must be sufficiently strong that a significant number of republicans in the senate will have no choice but to recognize it's legitimacy. And in this day with Trump at the helm and the republicans mostly just his minions, that is a tall order.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    That won't get him impeached, and most of the time the accusations are related to some criminal or apparently criminal action on his part.
    Yeah, I was accused of "abuse of power" when I was a police officer, and this was way before bodycams. That would be an accusation related to "some criminal or apparently criminal action" on my part.

    Fortunately, the judge had a hard time believing the testimony of the 265 pound bad guy who attacked me with a cue stick was credible, in that I "threw him over the hood of my police car" just because I didn't like him.

    (It was kinda funny - I weight about 148 lbs back then, and this was a BIG guy who had come running full force at me to beat me with the cue stick from the bar) The judge kept looking at the guy, then at me, sizing us both up, then asking the complainant...."so, what you're telling me is that Officer Cow Poke beat you up?" The guy couldn't even look at the judge, who then uttered the words "case dismissed".

    That may well be true (though I'm not sure I agree with the specific adjectives you are using to describe their negative reaction to Trump).

    Jim
    And I don't agree with some of the specific adjectives frequently used here (not necessarily by you) to describe Trump with his negative reaction to the spiteful and hate-filled Democrats trying everything but the kitchen sink to invalidate his presidency even before he was sworn in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    The fact that the Democrats won't even hold a vote to make their impeachment inquiry official (which they must do if they want their demand letters to carry any legal weight) suggests that even they aren't confident in their case against the President.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Ummmm..... he is routinely called a criminal and worse on this very site.
    That won't get him impeached, and most of the time the accusations are related to some criminal or apparently criminal action on his part.


    Absolutely.



    And, again, if the Democrat leadership hadn't been so spiteful and hate-filled since BEFORE Trump was even POTUS, it would be easier to see this as an "objective" prosecution.
    That may well be true (though I'm not sure I agree with the specific adjectives you are using to describe their negative reaction to Trump).

    Jim

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:16 AM
7 responses
38 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 05:12 AM
35 responses
125 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 07:39 PM
16 responses
93 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by Cow Poke, 01-17-2022, 10:22 PM
40 responses
247 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Gondwanaland, 01-17-2022, 09:48 PM
14 responses
95 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X