Hard to say, but it kinda puts Biden recollection at odds with what is in the notes from the prosecutor’s resignation letter. What I find laughable about all of this is Trump is being assailed for calling it to light.
We live in strange times....
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
Biden is a liar, or at least a massive stretcher of the truth. Anybody believe his "Corn Pop" story? 1962 and a name like Corn Pop? Come on. As believable as Kamela Harris listening to Tupac
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Not trying to move the posts, just when you said "guilty" I'm not sure what they are guilty of specifically. Guilty of being politicians who use the means of government for their own benefit? Sure, absolutely.Now who's moving the goalpost?
Its a valid question.
I can tell you that the Fox News Legal Analyst said it was illegal. So that is something.
But, to be quite honest..."illegal" isn't the right term at all. The simple fact before congress is "is it impeachable"? And it doesn't need to be illegal to be impeachable.
But EVERY politician is guilty of that, so it's a meaningless guilt.
Guilty as in guilty of a crime? I doubt it in either case.
if "not illegal" is good enough for impeachment, this country will be utterly gridlocked. Think of all the scandals like Teapot Dome that never got impeached.
The ONLY reason we're going through this is b/c people wanted to impeach Trump and remove him from office before he even took the oath.
that's it. People are out of their minds in fear and hate of him. I get hating him on a personal level, but the only reason for this running scandal full court press is b/c they hate he's President.
It's to overturn the election for which they hate the outcome. That's it. Any other president this might be a scandal, but even with Iran/Contra we never heard "impeach" from anyone serious in Washington.
This sets an awful precedent. It will only get worse, and both parties are to blame. the GOP for impeaching Clinton when it didn't rise to it, and the Dems now returning the favor.
And the gap opens.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Agree 100%. Kasich was my pick in 2016.
Sorry for my part in hijacking.
No worries. Sometimes threads turn into what they need to be.
I posted this thread right in the middle (well beginning) of impeachment breaking news. Not a surprise it would turn into this at all. And it’s a great discussion.
I agree with that as well. And it always gets worse, not better.
Garland happened (and of course other things before him) and then Kavanaugh.
Clinton and then Trump.
Obama’s Exec orders and then Trumps.
On and on it goes.
Wow, you must believe Republicans are not very bright. So YOU would be okay with 3 liberal Democrats that wear Republican masks (known as RINOs) being President.
Therefore, I would OKAY with Nunes, Jim Jordan or a Reagan clone being the Democratic President.
Darryl
Wait, what???
Ben Sasse has a 99% rating from the American Conservative Union. That is the highest in all of the United States Senate. Calling him a "liberal Democrat" is like me calling Bernie Sanders a Right Wing Nut.
Lindsey Graham has a 81% rating just as a comparison.
Just because someone doesn't drink the Trump Koolaid doesn't make them a "liberal Democrat". Or just because someone is reasonable and works well with others.
I'm not a big fan of a lot of Sasse's policy positions. But he is a first class dude and without a doubt a conservative.
Obviously, Kasich and Romney are less conservative on some social issues but they are still very much Republicans and fiscal conservatives.
Btw, none of that was even my point. Of course "I" would choose more moderate Republicans. Duh. My point was that I would give up the next 4 years and Republicans could choose someone else as President as long as Trump didn't run again.
Trump is FAR less conservative than Ben Sasse. And its not even close. But Ben Sasse would bring a little dignity back to the office (which is the reason I was kidding about the offer).
~Puma~
The downhill slide on SCOTUS began with Judge Bork. We can thank Ted Kennedy for most of that shift in approach, and it's only gotten worse and worse.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
One huge reason this kinda of stuff coming up in this thread, is the SCOTUS vacancy(s) that will occur in the next 4 years.
And it's a huge reason liberals cant' get over the 2016 election. One appointments was riding on it, they thought election was in the bag against this blowhard Trump, and now he's actually had two picks.
They're terrified he wins reelection and replaces RBG and maybe even one more, as well as continuing to fill the judiciary appointments elsewhere.
Honestly I get why people dont' like Trump, even hate him on a personal level, but the hysteria surrounding him being some kind of deep threat to the whole future of the nation is just propaganda infused hysteria. We've had far bigger threats to the nation than Trump and we survived those, and this too shall pass.
Likewise, just like last time, I'm willing to hold my nose b/c I want a judiciary that actually believes in following the law and not making it up as they go along. When you read RBG's and Sotomayer's comments on how the Constitution is outdated in some areas it's absolutely terrifying, at least to me.
I want 9 people on that bench that revere the document and the brilliance of our Founders as much as I do. 9 people who know they couldn't hope to be as wise and insightful as the brilliant men who crafted that document and launched the Great Experiment. The notion that any of us today can stand in their shadow is dangerous and absurd.
Their job is to preserve the intent of that document. I think Trump will continue to do a good job in that area and nominate people who feel that way, so I'll live with the asinine tweeting.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
At this point of our political landscape, the Senate matters a lot more than the Presidency frankly as far as SCOTUS is concerned.
And control of the Senate is going to be a war and unbelievably close. Every election is the "most important of our lifetime". Well, no matter which side of the aisle you are on...this one actually will be.
~Puma~
That's just mostly media frenzy imo. I think he's an awful example but yes, like you, I believe this shall all pass. We will survive. And frankly, I am around liberals every single day of my life and I don't know many at all who feel that way. My conversations with people are far less full of hysteria and far more full of eye rolling.
More than anything, I just think people are as motivated as they have ever been to vote and get out the vote. We will without a doubt see record numbers of voters in 2020.
~Puma~
Changing my vote again lol since Mark Zuckerberg has ramped up his feud with Elizabeth Warren by exempting “political figures” from facebook’s truth in advertising rules. Make it O’Rourke over Sasse.
BTW, Trump certainly didn’t seem to help himself any today by asking China to investigate Biden. Is he that stubborn or is the hubris that powerful?
Both.
~Puma~
I go by what he says. Due process doesn’t mean much to him based on what he says.
Accepting help from foreign governments. Supporting the Russians. Loving autocrats. Joking about staying in power beyond two terms. Jerry Falwell jr publicly saying trump deserves 2 more years due to Mueller.
Attacking the press. Hell he doesn’t even know Jerry Tipton. I fear hm and what he represents.
I do think a lot of liberals and many politicians are so used to the bull, they don’t understand orangello is serious.
lol.
Asking China to investigate Biden is the smartest thing he's done all week. Brilliant.
Yeah, can't have a President accepting help from foreign governments. You know, like the Obama Administration using a British spy to help investigate the Trump Administration based on the word of a foreign diplomat and paid Russian statements, or Democratic Senators asking the UKraine to help with the Mueller investigation. That would be serious. If you're Trump only of course.
When Obama investigates Trump, enlisting Russians, Ukranians, a British Prof and a foreign Ambassador, with no actual evidence whatsoever, it's all for the good of national security b/c Trump could be tied to foreign powers. When Trump wants to work wiht a foreign allied nation to investigate Biden, prior to him even announcing he's a candidate, and when he has clear ties to foreign powers with potentially millions of actual dollars changing hands, that's a violation of some as yet unspecified law and a threat to national security.
And here I was under the impression from my reading of the Constitution that the POTUS was the chief law enforcement officer of the land and was actually charged with investigating people who are possibly corrupt. Apparently when you're Obama that's what you're doing, but when it's Trump it's interfering with an election.
Oh yeah. Makes perfect sense.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
And yes, of course it would help Trump politically, and sure he's going to investigate opponents before allies.
When the Democratic House knew about Fast And Furious and the White House turned over no documents, I dont recall much of an attack on AG HOlder, who said publicly he was the "President's wingman". Thousands of guns went to the cartels under the ATF's nose and with their blessing, and no oversight role was performed. None.
It's all politics, so let's all grow up here. If this was all a Dem PResident the Dems would be defending him/her as not breaking any law and doing his job and the GOP would be raising hell.
It's called politics, and Trump is playing it but not any more viciously or illegally than it's been played by anyone else. It's not pretty or even right, but it's not out of the norm.
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 10-03-2019 at 11:33 PM.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
It blows me away that not everyone is calling for his resignation after the China remark and is a sad commentary on where our nation is when partisanship takes precedence over the Constitution.
changing my signature to change our luck.
It's OK. It blows me away that anyone thinks that kind of remark is somehow a problem or criminal in some way.
It really blows me away how people exist with such chasm-spanning levels of double standards, giving those they agree with politically a pass and wanting those they disagree with hauled off in irons.
The move is politically brilliant b/c the more he does it the more it becomes normalized. Agree with it or not its smart politics on his part. The Clintons were experts at embracing their embarrassments with the attitude that it's all perfectly acceptable behavior and doubling down on it. Same thing here.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
It will never be normalized though. They don’t even need the whistleblower anymore to impeach; he stood on the White House lawn and asked China to investigate a political rival and therefore interfere in our elections to his personal gain. No longer can it be argued that his Ukraine dealings were some sort of normal quid pro quo.
changing my signature to change our luck.
Except there's nothing impeachable about calling to investigate someone. Esp. someone who actually has some the appearance of possible impropriety.
Do you really think we don't work cooperatively to investigate people across national lines all the time? Are Biden and his son above the law b/c he is running for office? If he was just a leader figure but not a candidate would it be OK?
When Obama decided to investigate Trump was that impeachable? They used foreign assets and statements from foreign actors to justify it, was that impeachable?
You act as if there's some clear cut law here, or even some prior norm of behavior, that Trump has violated so clearly it's a done discussion. None of that is really the case.
This is a political act, and should be decided politically. If you think what Trump has done is wrong then vote for the other candidate, if you are OK with it then vote for him. But nothing in this qualifies as impeachable.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
I actually agree with this. Except, your last sentence should be a part of the first. Impeachments, for better or worse, are now politics. They have been that way for years now. Clinton's certainly was (as you have posted).
At this point, for the purposes of removing him from office, it doesn't matter if what he did was illegal or "impeachable". It only matters what voters think. If independent and Republican voters start turning against him...so will Republican Senators...and he will be impeached. If they don't, he won't.
All of this is political maneuvering for 2020 (and I am not saying it SHOULD be..I am just saying it is). Pelosi knows that. So does Trump. The question (as I keep posting) is what do independents think? Republicans will defend him and do it even more so (which is why his fundraising is growing). And Dems will hate him even more (which is why Biden's fundraising is growing). So, neither side is going to move the other. So its all about those undecideds in the middle or more moderate voters.
So far, it seems, Democrats are slightly winning this "political game". Polls are showing the majority of Americans want him impeached. And his favorability ratings are the lowest they have been. Even Rasmussen finally is catching up to other polls and showing this. Certainly, he could move it back the other direction. And he will certainly try. I just continue to go back to what I have said all along: the guy needs to stop playing to his base if he wants to be re-elected.
He is going to be the nominee. And they are going to come out and vote for him. If I were his campaign manager I would take his phone away, I would change his twitter password, and I probably would have had him do exactly what he said with China. Of course, I would have been fired in 3 days but oh well. Ha
But from a political standpoint, the guy needs to appeal to the middle. And he is just not doing that.
~Puma~
Well technically the House impeaches, so he could very well be "impeached". He won't be convicted in the Senate however unless the entire GOP decides to shift and honestly Trump would have to go along with it for it to work, and he won't.
I don't worry about polls at this point. First I don't think they're sound any more, doing things like phone based polls in an era of phone blocking and such, as well as their projected "likely voter" approach.
second, these things move when events happen, then move again.
Honestly I don't see how he has any numbers at all given the most vicious and biased media onslaught in modern history. I'm not sure Nixon was even more villified by the press, and certainly other than Watergate I can't think of the media being this over the top since maybe the 19th century or early 20th. It's absolutely insane the slant being played yet he still manages to keep some numbers.
But the biggest reason I dont' worry about them is it's way too far from election day and no opponent has been beat up yet. That makes a lot of difference b/c these things aren't ever "I love this guy", it's "I hate this guy less than that other guy (or girl)".
When it's Trump's warts against someone else's warts (likely Warren) people answer different.
Seriously, in a vacuum Trump is never President. I wouldn't support him, but when it was between his ass-hat behavior or Hillary's corruption and liberalism it was a much different decision to make.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
He committed a felony on live tv! Come on lol.
changing my signature to change our luck.
OK. Please cite the statute for me.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
changing my signature to change our luck.
See, that's the problem. You see that as a cut and dried application, and it's not. I don't even have time to list all the ways in which this has nothing to do with foreign contributions.
It's OK, it won't be possible for you to see it any other way, I get that. Trump just seems to have that effect on people. It's like an odd superpower.
Of course when the Obama administration does those things it's OK. Somehow none of those laws apply, but with Trump it's cut and dried.
So it goes.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
What I find funny in this thread is the left is crucifying Trump, the right absolutely sees it as turn about as fair play and the libertarians are having to play referee between the two.
I liken being a Libertarian to sitting way up high over the field. Helps make it clearer IMO b/c you see more forest, see the patterns.
I don't care about Trump, or the GOP, or the Democrats. I care about staying on the path of the Great Experiment.
Trump helps get us closer to it in some ways (judicial appointments) and farther from it in others (spending like a nut). But it's the only choice on the table that isn't just flat in the other complete direction.
As far as this goes, it's easy to see the sides of the road from this distance. Nothing Trump has done is any more out of bounds than anything any other President has done.
Bush II (and Bush I) were accused of starting entire wars for political purpose. Am I to believe that Kennedy and LBJ and Nixon didn't do anything in the course of their decisions about wars that wasn't influenced by winning elections?
OK, so let's talk about actual acts against an opponent. How about Obama's IRS trying to limit conservative spending by denying tax status? that got dropped like a hot potato in the media, that should have send people into orbit. It was direct interference in the election by using the power of government, got no traction at all.
Obama was investigating Trump apparently based on nothing. Hundreds of supposedly secret communications were "outed" by various officials, FISA warrants issued on the basis of non-existent evidence and absolute lies (like the media story they cited).
That's all direct interference with an election by a sitting President and his administration. It involved foreign sources and foreign agents.
In the end this isn't legal, it's political. Trump has been completely up front about what he did, and it's his right to investigate people, just like it was Obama's. Whether either of these two investigations were done for the public good or for political gains is in the end up to the voters to decide.
And fwiw the answer to both is "both". Neither is about to investigate allies, and both are more than happy to investigate enemies that show enough blood in the water to justify it and give them cover.
Welcome to big boy politics.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks