Printable View
You’re kinda missing the point....
You can look at any measure of US foreign aid as a bribe because we (whichever party is in the Executive branch) will give it and expect a return on the gift. The problem with the Biden situation is the personal gain to Biden’s son for his actions...no different than Clinton’s peddling of Uranium for personal gain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
Any chance we can move some of these posts to their own thread on the Impeachment and just leave the ones about the OP?
Don't get me wrong, the impeachment leaves much to be talked about but its a bit off topic and leads straight down a rabbit hole.
The mind of some is every bit as eager to pardon any and all behavior by the President as his enemies are to bring him down. But that’s what happens when you put all your Republican marbles in one mans bag.
He is secure no matter what he does with his base. They cannot go against him at this point. And never would no matter where he leads while president
Who does he beat?Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Who does he beat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
I would describe the allegation to be more about blackmail over a bribe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
The President ordered military aid that had been appropriate by Congress to an ally be held up with the clear intent to have that foreign power investigate a US citizen that was and still is perceived to be the President's chief rival for re-election.
The intent to hold up the military aid package for the Ukraine to better defend itself against Russian aggression was not in the interests of the nation or for some grander ideal about thwarting corruption.
It was clearly a self-serving threat to gain a tangible benefit to his own re-election efforts by dragging Biden through the mud.
The allegation, which the transcript supports, is a statement of abuse of power and abdication of the duties of the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
I think it will eventually be Elizabeth Warren after a brutal primary run on the Democratic side.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
Depends on if you mean the primaries or the general. In the primaries, Biden will carry that vote. So me predicting her to win really comes down to when Bernie exits the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
My best guess and prediction is that Warren wins Iowa and New Hampshire. And then Biden wins South Carolina. If Bernie drops out at that point (and he should)...I think most of his voters go to her and she wins the nomination.
In the general, absolutely minorities will come out for her.
2016 was a perfect storm for Trump. He was masterful at getting the base riled up with his red meat talk (Wall, Guns, etc). AND...no one gets the Republican base fired up like a Clinton. So even if the base didn't like Trump...they hated Hillary enough to come out and vote. Clinton received almost the identical votes Obama did. But Trump (and Hillary) had the base fired up and they came out and voted.
I think the same happens in 2020. The Rep base will mirror 2016. But the Dem base will come out like never before. And it won't matter who the nominee is. It will as much be an Anti-Trump vote as a Pro-Biden/Warren/etc vote.
Trump and Clinton were (according to 538) the least popular nominees in Presidential History. Trump actually received a smaller share of the National vote than Romney did. Its just that Clinton was decidedly less of a share than Obama. Those voters went 3rd party in 2016.
I really don't believe they will in 2020 for numerous reasons.
As is often the case...this will come down to independents in a few key states. There may not be a Dem candidate those independents like a lot (although polls show Biden is that one). But polls show they can't stand Trump.
So it will come down to whether he can change that. And whether a Dem candidate can secure their vote as opposed to them going 3rd party again.
To me, he paints her as the leftist as she has portrayed herself to be in the primary. Secondly, he paints her as a member of the current “do nothing” Congress that has resisted nearly everything he has done as President. Despite being resisted, the economy is still ticking along. To me Trump has the benefit of a lot of things that Obama set in place, and he has removed some of the restrictions that Obama placed in law allowing more growth than what was anticipated. It’s “the economy, stupid” that Bill Clinton coined in the 90s and Trump will benefit from that.
The same beat of accusation that has followed Trump for nearly 3 years will be her drumbeat.....and IMO the public is tiring of that. That’s why I see it as democratic stupidity because they have little more to run on than that. Had a legislative agenda been occurring in this Congress, there would be way more for them to run on IMO.
I must have missed the link where Trump's son has been flying around Air Force One collecting Board Directorships and investment funds with foreign powers the last 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
No there's no investigation of him. he's a Democrat, and the mass media will sweep that under the rug. For the same reason key Democrats who are accused of wearing blackface or of beating a woman don't get the same treatment as some general person or a conservative.
Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a person who probably does in fact need investigation. Yes it's a political rival. OK, key Democratic Senators asked Ukraine to investigate people that would possibly come back on Trump, and in fact did tie that to possible funding decisions. They sure didn't ask for investigation of people in their political tent. Aren't they in trouble too?
Just end the double standards. Judge Trump the same way the Clintons and Bidens are judged (in which case he's squeaky clean) or give them the same years long prostate exam and see what happens.
Equality before the law is the cornerstone of our nation, and any nation ruled by laws and not men.
Let's investigate the democrats who spoke to the Ukranians. I am good with that. I they used their power, then they should be at least censured.
Senators don't outrank a president who did in fact hold up badly needed military aid.
With regards to Biden's son, the Ukranians had said nothing was up. But all right if the Ukranians determine there is a reason for them to investigate Biden's son then fine.
In this case Trump's request to Zelensky provides him election support from a foreign nation. He got help from the Russians, openly and publicly asked for their help, and let Zelensky know that financial assistance which had been held up before the call would get support from Trump.
That is an issue. Trump abuses his position. The DOJ says a sitting president can not be indicted for a crime and he is pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior as President.
There is a level of corruption and bad behavior in all people. Democrats are not saints. But Trump is worse than all of them.
He has no shame and no love for this country--only his own self interests.
Nancy Pelosi is not my ideal candidate to carry the flag for truth, justice and the American way. But with republicans capitulating to an autocrat, I will take my allies to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic where I can get them.
You base that conclusion on what? Trump requested the Ukraine look into potential illegal acts by the former Vice President. This is something that the President has the right and obligation to do. There is an assumption that money would be withheld if they did but there is no evidence of such, and there is the assumption that his motive was "dirt on Biden" when if what Biden is accused of doing, is a crime. The President is the head of the executive branch, and the executive branch is responsible for enforcing laws. It says so in the Constitution. If Joe Biden broke the law, as clearly he suggested he did when he ran his trap, then it is 100% appropriate for the executive branch, ie the President, to follow and investigate. Adam Schiff et al have drawn the conclusion, and the media has forwarded the theory as FACT that Trumps motive was "to influence the upcoming election" because they take anything and everything Trump does and pervert it into the most nefarious act that it can be. Simply put, Joe Biden broke the law, and the Executive Branch has both the right and the responsibility to investigate that PERIOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
The Legislative branch (Congress) WRITES the laws
Judicial (SCOTUS) INTERPRETS the laws
Executive (President) ENFORCES the laws.
it is civics 101.
I will say when the allegation initially came out, I was concerned. After reading the transcripts and listening to the farse hearings run by Schiff, I have come to be so not concerned because it is clearly yet another hack job. My opinion but as I stated, initially I was concerned but this pesky thing called evidence (not assumptions, innuendo, spin) fails to support it. There is ZERO evidence that Trump threatened to withhold any funding, and there is zero evidence he was doing this for his benefit. Assumptions are not evidence. The uttering ramblings of a partisan hack like Schiff are not evidence, nor are his hairbrained conclusions. Likewise the opinions of media blowhards is not evidence.
But now you're getting into whether the ends justify the means and an our system can't work like that, at least not for very long. The Biden case can be adjudicated on it's own merits; the fact remains that the president solicited favors, and not just any favors but things explicitly forbidden in exchange for releasing the aid. Call it bribery, extortion, whatever, but it's implicitly listed in Article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. So unless we're willing to rip that up he has to be impeached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
Just like people will vote for Biden or whoever no matter how much proof of corruption comes out of this mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
But on this board you'll actually find few such people on the Right.
I don't actually care to defend Trump, but I do have real issues with hypocrisy, and no one in my lifetime has brought out more of it than Trump. The obsession with him to the point of being convinced he's a threat to the entire future of the nation has brought out more contortion and double standards and logical fallacies than I've ever seen in national politics, and that's saying a lot b/c both parties basically operate on a complete double standard as a matter of basic rhetoric.
Just judge Trump by the same yardstick held up for Obama or Clinton or Bush or whoever. That's all I ask.
The problem is when you do you see he has done nothing that is so far out of the norm that it warrants this kind of visceral hatred and fear. Sure he has his excesses, but so did every other President. And I assure you they had many more we never knew about. The CIA isn't exactly operating within the rules.
Not nearly so cut and dried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
1) He didn't "solicit favors". He asked about investigating someone he thought needed to be investigated, and as the chief law enforcement officer he did so.
The Obama administration investigated Trump and his people, and did so through foreign channels. Is that all illegal too simply b/c he was a political opponent?
2) There is absolutely no proof of any quid pro quo. Is it implied? Just about as implied as the quid pro quo that had hundreds of millions in foreign money flowing to the Clinton Foundation.
That would fall under Article II, Section 4 as well then right?
Under your interpretation, then applied fairly to all other past parties, Trump would be in jail next to the Clintons, the Bidens, Obama, probably both Bushs, etc.
So maybe it's not true that every sitting PResident and several candidates in the last 30 years need to be impeached and/or imprisoned. Maybe it's just your interpretation that is not in sync with how modern politics works.
And fwiw I'd be happy if we were that strict, but clearly we aren't.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
400 million dollars in military aid being held up is pretty solid motivation to not only investigate but perhaps manufacture evidence against the Bidens.
Also to Hell with the Clintons. If Hillary won, I'd be railing against the foundation. She didn't and we got something even worse. The foundation was a sham and one of the things that made her unfit for office.
But the bar is so low based on his unfitness, there won't be another election if he wins. When he asks his supporters to chant 8 more years and how great China and Russia are for having presidents for life, liberty is at stake.
Good article on excuses
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...t-arent-great/
Where is there any PROOF that any money was held up? Where is the PROOF that there was a threat to hold any money up? PLEASE show me exactly where the was done. Do so and I am on your side. But Adam Schiff saying it isn't proof. This is the guy who went to Russia to get naked pictures of Trump. His ethics are as lacking as his ability to speak the truth and foresee the future. Likewise MSNBC or CNN saying it is not proof. We have the transcript (or at least the official report, and it is a FULL report. Just because democrats claim it is doctored does not make it so) and NOWHERE in there does it mention foreign aid, withholding foreign aid, or the threat of withholding it. Trump said "Do me a favor". I use that phrase often, and its not to coerce or intimidate any action. It is a request to do something, usually WITHOUT any reward attached. In this case it was to look into the possible illegal activities of Biden, something he (Trump) is empowered to do and is obligated to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
I’m curious about that as well. I’m also curious why either of the posters raising hell over this issue didn’t comment on the post from 2016 when Obama shipped $400 Million in cash to Iran on pallets.....in cash you know...to avoid the electronic trail of notice....Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Addressed in a White House press briefing on January 19th, 2016.
One can argue that it was tied to the hostage release matter. But the secrecy thing and who's money it was not so much
Q Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Josh. On Sunday, we learned that the United States made a payment to the government of Iran of $1.7 billion. Was this tied to the deal that led to the freedom of the Americans that were being held in Iran?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, this is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn’t return Iran’s money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think — essentially in an escrow account. And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million.
This resolution that we agreed to was to return the $400 million and also to pay about $1 billion in interest. Now, the reason that this ends up being a very good deal for taxpayers is that our exposure, when it came to paying interest, could have been much higher. The Iranians were actually seeking $7 billion to $8 billion in interest payments. And I think that’s an indication of how the interests of taxpayers were very well served by reaching this settlement.
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You’re really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities —
Q So it was — because Paul Ryan has suggested this was a ransom payment. You saw his statement.
MR. EARNEST: He’s wrong about that.
-----------------------------------------------
Addressed in a White House press briefing on January 19th, 2016.
One can argue that it was tied to the hostage release matter. But the secrecy thing and who's money it was not so much
Q Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Josh. On Sunday, we learned that the United States made a payment to the government of Iran of $1.7 billion. Was this tied to the deal that led to the freedom of the Americans that were being held in Iran?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, this is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn’t return Iran’s money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think — essentially in an escrow account. And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million.
This resolution that we agreed to was to return the $400 million and also to pay about $1 billion in interest. Now, the reason that this ends up being a very good deal for taxpayers is that our exposure, when it came to paying interest, could have been much higher. The Iranians were actually seeking $7 billion to $8 billion in interest payments. And I think that’s an indication of how the interests of taxpayers were very well served by reaching this settlement.
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You’re really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities —
Q So it was — because Paul Ryan has suggested this was a ransom payment. You saw his statement.
MR. EARNEST: He’s wrong about that.
-----------------------------------------------
But none of that stuff is relevant to this discussion.
If you followed the story, it’s not a secret it was their money. Doing in the dark was a completely different issue however.
As for the type of payment..
The fact that the money was physically sent to Iran in various currencies rather than simply transferred by wire was done in order to avoid the existing Treasury Department sanctions that banned the use of American currency in transactions with Iran, and international sanctions which at that time kept Iran from accessing the global financial markets and which were lifted in January 2016.
Plus,not so dark other than it was actually dark in Iran. Yet, it was literally daylight here in the States where the order came from, and as it occurred in January, 2016, it was also publicly addressed in January 2016 several different times including the White house briefing above. And was also part of a long ongoing transaction discussion which was not secretive. I agree it was likely entangled with the hostage release, but the rest of it is political spin.
But still if I were to concede to make a point, it in no way absolves the current president from any potential wrongdoing.
It serves only as a diversion and or deflection. Yet, understandably so.
I dont really understand the point and anger towards posters here. Must those who disagree with the forum regulars continually be chastised and made to feel unwelcome?
Who is raising hell?
Let’s see In 2014 My family was going through hell and I was hanging on by a thread with only UK basketball to keep me going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
I love people who make those **** ass “where
Were you...” bullshit comments. As is my patriotism is questioned because I have not opined on every issue.
Obama was a weak president. A Carolina fan and an inexperienced guy who made one good speech. In fact had Jerri Ryan of Star Trek been open to having sex with her husband in public, ole Barry is in Chicago.
Trump is another level of bad news. Obama questioned the wisdom American hegemony and trumps view would end NATO and promote a destabilized world where we would stand alone.
A short sighted ignorant autocrat who wipes his orange ass with the Constitution.
I will work hard on my own time to end his presidency by all legal means. So help me God
And a billion dollars being held up is a lot of motive to NOT investigate the Bidens too. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
I know you believe Trump is such a huge threat, and I'm sorry b/c it must be hard to sleep at night. I'm being sincere, I know it has to be upsetting, but rest assured Trump is no threat to America or liberty or democracy.
Liberty is at stake but it never was with Trump. Trump isn't the one proposing limits on free speech. He's not the one controlling the social media networks that are the modern version of freedom of assembly and expression.
As for "got something even worse", what has he done that's worse than taking hundreds of millions in foreign money to expand your own power? What has he done in 3 years that is worse than the rampant graft of the Clintons?
You're worried (and convinced) Trump is a Putin agent b/c of things like him trying to develop real estate there prior to even running for President. But Biden's son taking millions from the Chinese and Russian backed Ukranians with no qualifications other than being Biden's son isn't a threat?
As Administrations go it appears this one is FAR less influenced by the corruption of foreign powers than the Obama administration. Biden's son was raking in huge sums, and so were other Biden associates, and the Clintons were raking in even more vast sums, all of it b/c of their influence in the government.
So our level of foreign influence has DECLINED under Trump and yet he's the one you think is selling us out?
The point is to illustrate the double standard, not question your patriotism. I am proud that I criticized the obstructionists in the GOP and birthers for thier acts and behavior during Obamas years. Fight for your beliefs, not just to obstruct. Fortunately the current group of democrats make that pig head behavior look mild so I thank them.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
IMO Trump should look into that shipment but if he did the appearance would be terrible...and he would likely be accused of some crap that would warrant impeachment. Personally I oppose the investigation of previous admins. Said that when Obam wanted to go after waterboarders, but Bidens acts are clear letter law and doing exactly what the left is trying to impeach Trump.for allegedly doing, as is the midnight deposit
Many on the right believe Obama was going to turn 'Merica into a communist nation. Many believed him to be the devil incarnate. Many openly feared he would declare marshal law and ix the elections, and declare himself king/autocrat/ supreme ruler. But it did not happen. It is why we have elections every 4 years. Its also why coups are not common in the USA. Yet the left is attempting that same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I don't know. I may try. I get your thread was hijacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
OK...
Trump vs Warren. Trump wins as the nation comes full grasp that she is a socialist, and basically the antithesis of what this nation is found on.
That part I don't care about. I've done enough hijacking before ha. Just wanted it to be easier to come back and look at the predictions later.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
The impeachment discussion is more important. I get it. And its pressing. Just thought the prediction thing would be fun.